4.1 The thick-wall ring lined drive sampler has been used for over 50 years in the arid southwest regions of the U.S. where unsaturated soils are too difficult to sample using the thin-walled tube (Practice D1587). Variations of the sampler include names such as “Dames and Moore, California, Modified California barrels” with outside barrel diameters ranging from 2.5 to 3.5 in. [60-90 mm].4 In addition to the blow count, these drive samplers have the added benefit of having a ring lined specimens that can be evaluated in the laboratory. Versions of the original Dames and Moore type sampler shown in Fig. 1 are still used, but many now use the Diamond Drill Core Manufacturers Association (DCDMA)5 specification split barrel drive samplers Fig. 2. The ring lined samplers normally have provisions for a 6-in. [150 mm] waste barrel with or without rings in the top section of the barrel. Drilling in the unsaturated soils is performed almost exclusively with hollow-stem augers (Practice D6151) because it is a dry drilling method. The test can be performed in fluid rotary or other drill holes but use of fluid rotary methods are not recommended in unsaturated soils as the drill fluid may alter the sample properties. Most operators use a 140 lb [75 kg] hammer mass but other hammer masses may be used.Practice D3740 was developed for agencies engaged in the laboratory testing and/or inspection of soil and rock. As such, it is not totally applicable to agencies performing this practice. However, user 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 This practice covers procedure for thick wall, split barrel drive sampling of soil to obtain representative samples of soil for classification and laboratory testing. The sampler is considered to be a thick wall sampler with sharpened cutting shoe and ball check vent. The middle barrel section is split barrel design containing ring liners. The sampler is often driven, but can also be pushed in softer deposits. Penetration resistance data may be recorded. This standard uses procedures similar to Test Method D1586 on Penetration Resistance and Split Barrel Sampling of Soils. However, in this practice, differing hammer weights, drop heights, and different size samplers are used, so the data must not be reported as conforming to Test Method D1586 and cannot be used to determine Normalized penetration resistance data for sands in accordance with Practice D6066.1.2 This practice involves use of rotary drilling equipment (Guide D5783, Practice D6151). Other drilling and sampling procedures (Guide D6286, Guide D6169) are available and may be more appropriate. Considerations for hand driving or shallow sampling without boreholes are not addressed. Subsurface explorations should be recorded in accordance with Guide D5434. Soil samples should be classified in accordance with Practice D2488.1.3 The soil samples from this test will have some degree of disturbance because the sampler is a driven thick walled sample tube. Table 2 of Guide D6169 on Soil and Rock Sampling provides guidance for selection of soil samplers for samples that may require intact samples defined by Terminology D653 for laboratory testing. The degree of disturbance must be evaluated by the user (engineer) to determine the suitability of the sample for use in laboratory tests. If samples are not suitable for laboratory testing, other soil samplers should be used (see 4.4.1).1.4 The values stated in either inch-pound units or SI 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 standard1.5 All observed and calculated values shall conform to the guidelines for significant digits and rounding established in Practice D6026, unless superseded by this standard.1.6 This practice offers an organized collection of information or a series of options and does not recommend a specific course of action. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgement. 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 of this document means only that the document has been approved through the ASTM consensus process.1.6.1 This practice does not purport to comprehensively address all of the methods and the issues associated with soil sampling. Users should seek qualified professionals for the decisions as to the proper equipment and methods that would be most successful for their site exploration. Other methods may be available for monitoring soil sampling and qualified professionals should have flexibility to exercise judgement as to possible alternatives not covered in this practice.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. The user must comply with prevalent regulatory codes, such as OSHA (Occupational Health and Safety Administration) guidelines while using this practice. For good safety practice, consult applicable OSHA regulations and other safety guides on drilling.21.8 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

This practice is used for general soil investigations where samples are required for identification and testing. Disturbed samples can be classified in accordance with Practice D2487 and can be tested for moisture content, particle size, and Atterberg limits. The sampler can be equipped with stacked ring liners, which can be used directly for other laboratory tests. The sampler can be driven with a hammer and the penetration resistance can be recorded. Numerous combinations of hammer size and drop height have been used in practice. Hammer size and drop height should be reported. Users of this practice have derived local correlations of penetration resistance and engineering properties based on local conditions and a particular hammer system and sampler, however, the penetration resistance may differ from Test Method D1586. The user should evaluate sample quality. The process of driving the sample may disturb the soil and change the engineering properties. In soft soils, use of the thin wall tube sampler (Practice D1587) will likely result in less disturbance. In harder soils, soil coring techniques may result in less disturbance; see Practice D6151, Guide D6169. This standard addresses sampling in drill holes with drilling equipment. The sampler can be hand driven or driven in test pits without drilling equipment. If these special driving methods are used the sampling process should be reported.1.1 This practice covers procedure for thick wall, split barrel drive sampling of soil to obtain representative samples of soil for classification and laboratory testing. The sampler is considered to be a thick wall sampler with sharpened cutting shoe and ball check vent. The middle barrel section is often of split barrel design, but a solid barrel can be used and both may contain ring liners. The sampler is often driven, but can also be pushed in softer deposits. Penetration resistance data may be recorded. This standard uses procedures similar to Test Method D1586 on Penetration Resistance and Split Barrel Sampling of Soils. However, in this practice, differing hammer weights, drop heights, and different size samplers are used, so the data must not be reported as conforming to Test Method D1586 and cannot be used to determine Normalized penetration resistance data for sands in accordance with Practice D6066. 1.2 This practice involves use of rotary drilling equipment (Guide D5783, Practice D6151). Other drilling and sampling procedures (Guide D6286, Guide D6169) are available and may be more appropriate. Considerations for hand driving or shallow sampling without boreholes are not addressed. Subsurface investigations should be recorded in accordance with practice Guide D5434. Soil samples should be classified in accordance with Practice D2488. 1.3 This practice may or may not provide a sample suitable for advanced laboratory tests such as shear or consolidation testing. It is up to the user to determine if the sample quality is suitable for advanced laboratory testing for engineering properties. Driven samples can be more easily disturbed than pushed samples such as the thin wall tube in accordance with Practice D1587. However, thin wall tubes cannot be used in harder soils. In cases where it has been established that the quality of the thick wall driven sample is adequate, this practice may provide shear and consolidation specimens that can be used directly in the test apparatus without prior trimming. Some types of soils may gain or lose significant shear strength or compressibility, or both, as a result of sampling. In cases like these, suitable comparison tests should be made to evaluate the effect of sample disturbance on shear strength and compressibility. 1.4 This guide does not purport to comprehensively address all of the methods and the issues associated with soil sampling. Users should seek qualified professionals for the decisions as to the proper equipment and methods that would be most successful for their site investigation. Other methods may be available for monitoring soil sampling and qualified professionals should have flexibility to exercise judgement as to possible alternatives not covered in this guide. The practice is current at the time of issue, but new alternative and innovative methods may become available prior to revisions, therefore, users should consult with manufacturers or producers prior to specifying program requirements. 1.5 This practice offers an organized collection of information or a series of options and does not recommend a specific course of action. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgement. 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 of this document means only that the document has been approved through the ASTM consensus process. 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. The user must comply with prevalent regulatory codes, such as OSHA (Occupational Health and Safety Administration) guidelines while using this practice. For good safety practice, consult applicable OSHA regulations and other safety guides on drilling.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

Preface This is the second edition of CSA C656, Performance standard for split-system and single-package central air conditioners and heat pumps. It supersedes the previous edition, published in 1992 under the title Performance Standard for Single P

定价： 683元 / 折扣价： 581 元

5.1 Internal stress in applied coatings exhibits potential to cause a breakdown of resistance to corrosion and erosion as a result of the formation of fractures from micro-cracking and macro-cracking within the applied coating. This phenomenon can also cause blistering, peeling, reduction of fatigue strength, and loss. The resulting stress can be tensile in nature, causing the deposit to contract, or compressive in nature, causing the deposit to expand.5.2 To maintain quality assurance by the bent strip method, it is necessary to monitor production processes for acceptable levels of internal deposit stress in applied coatings. Most low values are false. Initial values tend to be lower than the actual value because of the effect of stock material edge burrs and the resistance of the stock material to bending. Excessive deposit thickness causes lower-than-true value since the coating overpowers and changes the initial modulus of elasticity of the test piece, which becomes more difficult to bend as the coating continues to build upon it. This phenomenon can be corrected considerably by use of a formula that compensates for modulus of elasticity differences between the deposit and the substrate materials, but it does remain a factor. See Eq 3.NOTE 1: The highest value of the internal deposit stress as obtained on a stress-versus-plating-thickness curve is usually the truest value of the internal deposit stress.1.1 This test method for determining the internal tensile or compressive stress in applied coatings is quantitative. It is applicable to metallic layers that are applied by the processes of electroplating or chemical deposition that exhibit internal tensile or compressive stress values from 200 psi to 145 000 psi (1.38 MPa  to 1000 MPa).1.2 Units—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. Conversion between unit systems may result in errors that can cause confusion and should be avoided.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

定价： 78元 / 折扣价： 67 元 加购物车

The test method is useful for the following:Classification of Powders—The cohesion and angle of internal friction are flowability indicators of powders and can be used to classify the powders.Quality Control—For a number of industrial applications flowability factors are used to compare the material flowability at different times during production. The material produced has to be held within given limits for each application and each powder so as to ensure trouble-free operation.Material Engineering—Powder properties are influenced by particle size, particle size distribution, fat content, humidity and other parameters. By selecting the correct parameters and the correct mixtures of powders, the required mechanical properties of the product are achieved.Design of Handling Equipment—For certain storage and conveyor equipment mathematical models exist which require the mechanical properties of powders.Note 2—The quality of the result produced by this standard is dependent on the competence of personnel performing it, and the suitability of the equipment and facilities used. Agencies that meet the criteria of Practice D 3740 are generally considered capable of competent and objective testing/sampling/inspection/etc. Users of this standard are cautioned that compliance with Practice D 3740 does not in itself assure reliable results. Reliable results depend on many factors; Practice D 3740 provides a means of evaluating some of those factors. Practice D 3740 was developed for agencies engaged in the testing or inspection (or both) of soil and rock. As such it is not totally applicable to agencies performing this standard. However, users of this standard should recognize that the framework of Practice D 3740 is appropriate for evaluating the quality of an agency performing this standard. Currently there is no known qualifying national authority that inspects agencies that perform this standard.1.1 This test method is applied to the measurement of the mechanical properties of powders as a function of normal stress.1.2 This apparatus is suitable measuring the properties of powders and other bulk solids, up to a particle size of 5000 micron.1.3 This method comprises four different test procedures for the determination of powder mechanical properties:1.3.1 Test A—Measurement of INTERNAL FRICTION as a function of normal stress.1.3.2 Test B—Measurement of WALL FRICTION as a function of normal stress.1.3.3 Test C—Measurement of BULK DENSITY as a function of normal stress and time.1.3.4 Test D—Measurement of DEGRADATION as a function of normal stress.1.4 All observed and calculated values shall conform to the guidelines for significant digits and rounding established in Practice D 6026.1.4.1 The procedures used to specify how data are collected/recorded or calculated in this standard are regarded as the industry standard. In addition, they are representative of the significant digits that generally should be retained. The procedures used do not consider material variation, purpose for obtaining the data, special purpose studies, or any considerations for the user’s objectives, and it is common practice to increase or reduce significant digits of reported data to be commensurate with these considerations. It is beyond the scope of this standard to consider significant digits used in analysis methods for engineering design.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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

定价： 156元 / 折扣价： 133 元 加购物车

5.1 In selecting a material for human contact in medical applications, it is important to ensure that the material will not stimulate the immune system to produce an allergic reaction under relevant exposure conditions. Extractable chemicals produced by skin contact or during physiological exposures may cause allergic reactions. Therefore, this practice provides for evaluations of solid or semisolid dosage forms using material extracts or direct evaluation of the test article. The rationale for this animal model is based on the fact that the guinea pig has been shown to be an appropriate animal model for predicting human contact dermatitis. Its tractable nature, its availability from reputable suppliers, the historical database of information already acquired using this species, and the correlation of such results to data on known human allergens, all contribute to its widespread use for allergenicity studies (1-5).45.2 The need for sensitization procedures other than the maximization test (Practice F720) is based on: (1) the need for a route of exposure more similar to use conditions; (2) concern over the use of adjuvant because of its recruitment of cell types to the test site which are not typically involved in immunologic reactions, and because of the discomfort this causes in the animals; (3) absence of a proper FCA-irritant control group in the traditional maximization design; and (4) the frequency of false positives often encountered with the GPMT. Both of these tests are internationally accepted (1).AbstractThis practice is intended to determine the potential for a substance, or material extract, to elicit contact dermal allergenicity. It is intended as an alternative to the Guinea Pig Maximization Test (GPMT), given the limitations on dosage form and tendency for false positives associated with the latter test. The split adjuvant method is used when topical application is considered relevant, and the dosage form is a solid, liquid, extract, paste, or gel. The method includes four induction doses applied over a period of time to the same shaved or depilated site on guinea pigs, followed by occlusive patching. Freund's Complete Adjuvant (FCA) is injected near the dose site on a specific time, (second induction dose). Following a rest period, animals are challenged at a previously unexposed site, and the reaction evaluated at regular intervals. The closed patch method is used when topical application is relevant, but the preferred dosage form does not permit injection under the skin or intradermally, and the discomfort involved with extended occlusive patching and adjuvant use is to be avoided. It involves repeated induction doses over a period of time at the same shaved/depilated site, followed each time by occlusive wrapping. After a rest period, animals are challenged at previously untreated sites, and their reactions evaluated after a period of time.1.1 This practice is intended to determine the potential for a substance, or material extract, to elicit contact dermal allergenicity.1.2 This practice is intended as an alternative to the Guinea Pig Maximization Test (GPMT), given the limitations on dosage form and tendency for false positives associated with the latter test. See Rationale and References.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 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

The formability of materials is affected by springback, the difference between the final shape of a part and the shape of the die that formed it. Materials having a large amount of springback create difficulties for the die designer and make die rework much more likely and complicated. This can add months and great costs to the achievement of successful dies. While dealing with springback in traditional metals is largely overcome by experience, new metals often have so much springback that they can only be used after much trial and error. The quantification and prediction of the tendency of metals to springback is addressed by this test method.The magnitude of the springback is a convolution of the elastic modulus, the flow stress of the metal of interest, the sheet metal thickness and the amount and type of cold work introduced by the forming process. Since the cup forming process contains features of many forming operations, the amount of springback measured by the Demeri split ring test is indicative of the behavior of the metal in many stamping operations.The amount of springback that occurs in this test is very large compared to other approaches. This improves measurement accuracy and reduces experimental error in all types of formable metals.This test does not require measurement fixtures or any sophisticated profiling equipment for accurate measurement of springback. Conventional length measuring instruments are all that is needed to perform the required measurements.This test can be used to rank materials according to their tendency to springback after a forming operation (see Refs 1-3). Since springback depends on the sheet thickness, metals should be compared at the same thickness. Experience has shown that the test can also be used in conjunction with an appropriate analysis to predict quantitatively the amount of springback occurring after a forming operation (see Refs 2-9).This test provides a method to compare springback predictions by various numerical simulation codes. Test results can be used to calibrate computer simulation codes by selecting proper control parameters and appropriate material models to achieve satisfactory correlation between simulation and test results. Test data can be used to evaluate and improve current forming and simulation capabilities.The experimental setup and test procedure are simple, and test results are highly repeatable.1.1 This test method provides a means of evaluating the springback behavior of metals in a test that simulates a stretch-draw forming process. The test method can also be used to calibrate computer simulation codes by selecting appropriate control parameters to achieve satisfactory correlation between simulation and test results.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.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

4.1 This test is the most frequently used subsurface exploration drilling test performed worldwide. Numerous international and national standards are available for the SPT which are in general conformance with this standard.6 The test provides samples for identification purposes and provides a measure of penetration resistance which can be used for geotechnical design purposes. Many local and widely published international correlations which relate blow count, or N-value, to the engineering properties of soils are available for geotechnical engineering purposes.4.1.1 Incremental SPT sampling is not a preferred method of soil sampling for environmental or geohydrological exploration unless the SPT N-value is needed for design purposes. Continuous sampling methods such as Direct Push Soil Sampling (Guide D6282/D6282M), or continuous coring using Hollow-Stem Augers (Practice D6151/D6151M) or Sonic Drills (Practice D6914/D6914M) provide the best continuous record of lithology. Continuous sampling can be performed with SPT samplers, but it is slow compared to other methods, and N values may unreliable (see 4.6.1). Sampling for detailed lithology can be reduced by using screening tests such as geophysics and Direct Push profiling tests such as Cone Penetrometers (Test Method D5778), Dynamic Cone Penetrometer, or electrical resistivity probe.4.2 SPT N values are affected by many variables allowed in the design and execution of the test (see Appendix X1). Investigations of energy transmission in SPT testing began in the 1970’s and showed that differing drop hammer systems provide different energies to the sampler at depth. There are so many different hammer designs that it is important to obtain the energy transfer ratio (ETR) for the hammer system being used according to Test Method D4633. ETR of various hammer systems has shown to vary between 45 to 95 % of maximum Potential Energy (PE). Since the N-value is inversely proportional to the energy delivered, resulting N values from different systems are far from standard. It is now common practice to correct N values to an energy level of 60 % of total (PE), or N60 values as presented here and in Practice D6066. In this standard it is not required to report ETR or N60 but strongly advised to be noted and reported if available. If ETR of the hammer/anvil/rod system is known, the hammer PE can still vary after calibration, thus it is essential that hammer drop heights/rates be monitored to confirm consistent performance. Report any occurrence of hammer drop heights that do not meet the required value of 30 in. [750 mm] during testing. Using previous ETR data for a hammer system does not assure that it will perform the same on the current project. If onsite ETR is not obtained, be sure to check hammer drop height/rates to assure the hammer is operating the same as when previously checked.4.2.1 Other mechanical variables and drilling errors can also adversely affect the N value as discussed in X1.4. Drilling methods can have a major effect on testing (see 4.5). While the SPT hammer system is standardized knowing ETR, drilling methods are not, and a variety of drilling methods can be used.4.3 SPT is applicable to a wide range of soils. For nomenclature on soil in terms of N-value refer to Appendix X2 for consistency of clays (cohesive soils) and relative density of sands (cohesionless soils) as proposed by Terzaghi and Peck and used commonly in geotechnical practice. SPT drilling can be performed easily using a variety of drilling methods in denser soils but has some difficulty in softer and looser soils. This test method is limited to non-lithified or un-cemented soils and soils whose maximum particle size is approximately one-half of the sampler diameter or smaller. Large particles result in higher blow counts and may make the data unsuitable for empirical correlations with finer soils. For example, chamber tests on clean sands have shown coarse sands have higher blow counts than medium fine sands (see X1.6). In gravelly soils, with less than 20 % gravel, liquefaction investigations may require recording of penetration per blow in an attempt to extrapolate the results to sand blow counts (see X1.7). Soil deposits containing gravels, cobbles, or boulders typically result in penetration refusal, damage to the equipment, and unreliable N values if gravel plugs the sampler.4.3.1 Sands—SPT is widely used to determine the engineering properties of drained clean sands during penetration. Obtaining “intact” soil samples of clean sands for laboratory testing is difficult and expensive (see thin walled tube, Practice D1587/D1587M), so engineers use penetration results in sands for predicting engineering properties (Appendix X1). Appendix X2 and X1.6 provides some estimated properties of sands. There are problems with SPT in loose sands below the water table since they are unstable during drilling. Practice D6066 provides restricted drilling methods for SPT in loose sands for evaluating earthquake liquefaction potential. Practice D6066 method relies on mud rotary drilling, casing advancers, and fluid filled hollow-stem augers.4.3.2 Clays—SPT is easy to perform in clays of medium to stiff consistency and higher using a variety of drilling methods. SPT is unreliable in soft to very soft clays because the clay, yields or “fails” under the static weight of the rods alone, or weight of rods and hammer before the test is started. This problem is accentuated by the heavier weights of automatic hammer assemblies (see X1.3.1.4) but can be alleviated with automatic hammers which are designed to float over the anvil (see 5.4.2.1). There is such a large variation in possible N values in soft clays it is well accepted that SPT is a poor predictor of the undrained shear strength of clay. It is recommended to evaluate soft clays with more appropriate methods such as CPT (Test Method D5778), vane shear (Test Method D2573/D2573M), and/or Thin-Wall Tube sampling (Practice D1587/D1587M) and laboratory testing.4.4 Hammer Drop System—SPT can be performed with a wide variety of hammer drop systems. Typical hammer systems are listed below in order of preference of use:(1) Hydraulic automatic chain cam/mechanical grip-release hammers(2) Mechanical trip donut hammers(3) Rope and cathead operated safety hammers(4) Rope and cathead operated donut hammers4.4.1 Automatic and trip hammers are preferred for consistent energy during the test. Automatic chain cam hammers are also the safest because the hammer is enclosed, and the operators can stand away from the equipment. If the rope and cathead method is used, the enclosed safety hammer is safer than donut hammer because the impact anvil is enclosed. For more information on hammer systems, consult X1.3.4.5 Drilling Methods—The predominant drilling methods used for SPT are open hole fluid rotary drilling (Guide D5783) and hollow-stem auger drilling (Practice D6151/D6151M). Limited research has been done comparing these methods and their effects on SPT N values (see X1.5.1.1).4.5.1 Research shows that open hole bentonite fluid rotary drilling is the most reliable method for most soils below the water table. Hollow-stem augers had problems with saturated loose sands since they must be kept full of fluid. The research also showed that driven casing using water as the drilling fluid, can adversely influence the SPT if the casing is driven close to the test depth interval. Use of casing combined with allowing a fluid imbalance also causes disturbances in sands below the water table. Fluid filled rotary casing advancers (Guide D6286) are included as an allowable drilling method for loose sands in Practice D6066.4.5.2 SPT is used with other drilling methods including reverse circulation, sonic drilling, and direct push methods practices. There are concerns, undocumented by research, with direct push (Guide D6282/D6282M), sonic drilling (Practice D6914/D6914M), and reverse circulation methods using heavy casing drive hammers (Guide D6286), that the extreme dynamic loading and vibrations could disturb some soils such as sands and soft clays past the seating interval. The professional responsible for the investigation should evaluate SPT under these conditions and if drilling disturbance is suspected, then N values can be checked against other drilling methods in section 4.5 or deploy the alternate drilling method through and ahead of the casings.4.5.3 SPT is also performed at shallow depths above the groundwater table using solid stem flight augers (Practice D1452/D1452M), but below the water table borings may be subject to caving sands. Solid stem borings have been drilled to depths of 100 ft or more in stable material.4.5.4 SPT is rarely performed in cable tool or air rotary drilling.4.6 Planning, Execution, and Layout—When SPT borings are used, often there are requirements for other companion borings or test holes to be located near or around the SPT boring. In general, borings should be no closer than 10 ft [3 m] at the surface for depths of up to 100 ft [30 m]. A minimum would be as close as 5 ft [2 m], but at this spacing, boreholes may meet if there is significant vertical deviation.4.6.1 Test Depth Increments—Test intervals and locations are normally stipulated by the project engineer or geologist. Typical practice is to test at 5 ft [1.5 m] intervals or less in homogeneous strata. If a different soil type in the substratum is encountered, then a test is conducted as soon as the change is noted. It is recommended to clean out the borehole a minimum cleanout interval of at least 1 ft [0.25 m] past the termination point of the previous test depth between tests to assure test isolation and to check drill hole condition for the next test. Therefore, the closest spacing for typical practice of SPT is 2.5 ft [0.75 m]. The cleanout between test intervals can be adjusted by the user depending on borehole conditions and design data needs such as hard soils or thin strata. The practice of performing continuous SPT for N-value determination is not recommended but can be done with careful cleanout before testing. The borehole must be cleaned out between tests (see 6.5). At continuous spacing, with no additional cleanout depth, N values may be adversely affected by disturbance of previous sample driving especially in softer soils but the effect his not known. Some practitioners like to overdrive the sampler an additional 0.5 ft [0.15 m] to gain additional soil sample for a total drive interval of 2.0 [ 0.6 m]. This is acceptable if the N-value remains the sum of the 0.5 to 1.0 ft [0.15 to 0.3 m] intervals of the drive interval and reasonable cleanout is performed between tests.4.7 This test method provides a Class A and B soil samples according to Practice D4220/D4220M which is suitable for soil identification and classification (Practices D2487 and D2488), water content (Test Methods D2216), and specific gravity tests (Test Methods D854). The soil can be reconstituted for some advanced laboratory tests. The small-diameter, thick wall, drive sampler will not obtain a sample suitable for advanced laboratory tests such as those used for strength or compressibility from the core. Consult Guide D6169/D6169M for samplers that provide laboratory grade intact samples.NOTE 1: The reliability of data and interpretations generated by this practice 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 generally are considered capable of competent testing. Users of this practice are cautioned that compliance with Practice D3740 does not assure reliable testing. Reliable testing depends on several factors and Practice D3740 provides a means of evaluating some of these factors.Practice D3740 was developed for agencies engaged in the testing, inspection, or both, of soils and rock. As such, it is not totally applicable to agencies performing this field test. Users of this test method should recognize that the framework of Practice D3740 is appropriate for evaluating the quality of an agency performing this test method. Currently, there is no known qualifying national authority that inspects agencies that perform this test method.1.1 This test method describes the procedure, generally known as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), for driving a split-barrel sampler with a 140 lb [63.5 kg] hammer dropped 30 in. [750 mm] to obtain a soil sample for identification purposes, and measure the resistance of the soil to penetration of the standard 2 in. [50 mm] diameter sampler. The SPT “N” value is the number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler over the depth interval of 0.5 to 1.5 ft [0.15 to 0.45 m] of a 1.5 ft [0.45 m] drive interval.1.2 Test Method D4633 is generally necessary to measure the drill rod energy of a given drop hammer system and using the measured drill rod energy, N values can be corrected to a standard energy level. Practice D6066 uses Test Methods D1586 and D4633 and has additional requirements for hammers, hammer energy, and drilling methods to determine energy corrected penetration resistance of loose sands for liquefaction evaluation.1.3 Practice D3550/D3550M is a similar procedure using a larger diameter split barrel sampler driven with a hammer system that may allow for a different hammer mass. The penetration resistance values from Practice D3550/D3550M do not comply with this standard.1.4 Test results and identification information are used in subsurface exploration for a wide range of applications such as geotechnical, geologic, geoenvironmental, or geohydrological explorations. When detailed lithology is required for geohydrological investigations, use of continuous sampling methods (D6282/D6282M, D6151/D6151M, D6914/D6914M) are recommended when the incremental SPT N value is not needed for design purposes (see 4.1.1).1.5 Penetration resistance testing is typically performed at 5 ft [1.5 m] depth intervals or when a significant change of materials is observed during drilling, unless otherwise specified.1.6 This test method is limited to use in nonlithified soils and soils whose maximum particle size is approximately less than one-half of the sampler diameter.1.7 This test method involves use of rotary drilling equipment (Guide D5783, Practice D6151/D6151M). Other drilling and sampling procedures (Guides D6286 and D6169/D6169M) are available and may be more appropriate. Considerations for hand driving or shallow sampling without boreholes are not addressed. Subsurface investigations should be recorded in accordance with Practice D5434. Samples should be preserved and transported in accordance with Practice D4220/D4220M using Group B. Soil samples should be identified by group name and symbol in accordance with Practice D2488.1.8 All observed and calculated values shall conform to the guidelines for significant digits and rounding established in Practice D6026, unless superseded by this test method.1.8.1 The procedures used to specify how data are collected/recorded and calculated in the standard are regarded as the industry standard. In addition, they are representative of the significant digits that generally should be retained. The procedures used do not consider material variation, purpose for obtaining the data, special purpose studies, or any considerations for the user’s objectives; and it is common practice to increase or reduce significant digits of reported data to be commensurate with these considerations. It is beyond the scope of these test methods to consider significant digits used in analysis methods for engineering data.1.9 Units—The values stated in either inch-pound or SI 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 inch-pound shall not be regarded as nonconformance with this practice. SI equivalent units shown herein are in general conformance with existing international standards.1.10 Penetration resistance measurements often will involve safety planning, administration, and documentation. This test method does not purport to address all aspects of exploration and site safety.1.11 Performance of the test usually involves use of a drill rig; therefore, safety requirements as outlined in applicable safety standards (for example, OSHA regulations,2 NDA Drilling Safety Guide,3 drilling safety manuals, and other applicable local agency regulations) must be observed.1.12 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.1.13 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 843元 / 折扣价： 717 元 加购物车