iTeh StandardsiTeh Standards
EURUSD
Your shopping cart is empty.
ASTM

ASTM E869-93(2006)

(Test Method)

Standard Test Method for Performance Evaluation of Fuel Ethanol Manufacturing Facilities (Withdrawn 2009)

Standard Test Method for Performance Evaluation of Fuel Ethanol Manufacturing Facilities (Withdrawn 2009)

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
This test method shall yield data that will form a “performance profile” for a fuel ethanol manufacturing facility. The significance of this profile is that it can be compared directly to another facility’performance profile and yield a relative measurement and shall provide a measure of expected facility performance under field conditions. Based on the four main parameters highlighted above, facilities of significantly different designs can be compared relatively.
The single black box technique applied to performance evaluation examines only the overall input/output relationship. This implies that the operation of the facility during the tests shall be conducted to achieve design conditions in accordance with established procedures.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of performance characteristics of fuel ethanol manufacturing facilities.
1.2 This test method is applicable for all starch, sugar, and combination starch/sugar based fermentable feedstocks.
1.3 This test method is applicable to both batch and continuous fuel ethanol manufacturing processes.
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.
WITHDRAWN RATIONALE
This test method covers the determination of performance characteristics of fuel ethanol manufacturing facilities.
Formerly under the jurisdiction of Committee E48 on Biotechnology, this test method was withdrawn in September 2009. During the working group discussions, there was no interest identified in updating this test method

General Information

Status
Withdrawn
Publication Date
31-Oct-2006
Withdrawal Date
31-Aug-2009
ICS
71.100.20 - Gases for industrial application
Technical Committee
E48 - Bioenergy and Industrial Chemicals from Biomass
Drafting Committee
E48.05 - Biomass Conversion
Current Stage
Ref Project

Relations

Replaces
ASTM E869-93(1998) - Standard Test Method for Performance Evaluation of Fuel Ethanol Manufacturing Facilities
Effective Date
01-Nov-2006
Referred By
ASTM E2363-23 - Standard Terminology Relating to Manufacturing of Pharmaceutical and Biopharmaceutical Products in the Pharmaceutical and Biopharmaceutical Industry
Effective Date
01-Nov-2006

Buy Standard

ASTM E869-93(2006) - Standard Test Method for Performance Evaluation of Fuel Ethanol Manufacturing Facilities (Withdrawn 2009)ASTM E869-93(2006) - Standard Test Method for Performance Evaluation of Fuel Ethanol Manufacturing Facilities (Withdrawn 2009)
PreviousNext
Standard
ASTM E869-93(2006) - Standard Test Method for Performance Evaluation of Fuel Ethanol Manufacturing Facilities (Withdrawn 2009)
English language
7 pages
sale 15% off
Preview
sale 15% off
Preview

Standards Content (Sample)


NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation: E 869 – 93 (Reapproved 2006)
Standard Test Method for
Performance Evaluation of Fuel Ethanol Manufacturing
Facilities
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E869; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision.Anumber in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval.A
superscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope 10.231 Test for Moisture in Brewers Grains
14.062 Test for Moisture in Wheat, Rye, Oats, Corn, Buck-
1.1 This test method covers the determination of perfor-
wheat, Rice, Barley, and Soybeans and their Products
mance characteristics of fuel ethanol manufacturing facilities.
Except Cereal Adjuncts
1.2 This test method is applicable for all starch, sugar, and
14.073–14.074 Test for Starch in Cereals
combination starch/sugar based fermentable feedstocks.
31.005–31.008 Test for Moisture in Sugars
1.3 This test method is applicable to both batch and con-
31.051 Test for Glucose in Sugars and Syrups
tinuous fuel ethanol manufacturing processes.
31.056 Test for Fructose in Sugars and Syrups
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the
31.060 Test for Maltose in Sugars and Syrups
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
31.062 Test for Lactose in Sugars and Syrups
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
2.3 Standard Methods (SM) for Analysis of Water and
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
Wastewater:
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
206 B Test for Fats, Oils, and Grease
2. Referenced Documents 209 C Test for Total Suspended Solids
507 Test for Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Five Day
2.1 ASTM Standards:
(BOD )
D1826 Test Method for Calorific (Heating) Value of Gases
in Natural Gas Range by Continuous Recording Calorim-
3. Terminology
eter
3.1 Definitions:
D2382 Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Hydrocar-
3.1.1 cycle time—the time required by an alcohol plant to
bonFuelsbyBombCalorimeter(High-PrecisionMethod)
complete one cycle. The determination of the cycle time for a
D2458 Method for Flow Measurement of Industrial Water
3 batch process is illustrated in Fig. 1 and for a continuous
and Industrial Waste Water by the Venturi Meter Tube
process in Fig. 2.
D3286 Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of
3 3.1.2 normal operating conditions—the usual range of
Coal and Coke by the Isoperibol Bomb Calorimeter
physical conditions for which a facility was designed to
D3590 Test Methods for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen in Water
operate.
E100 Specification for ASTM Hydrometers
3.1.3 production cycle—the series of operations required to
E711 Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of Refuse-
processthroughthefacilityaquantityoffeedstockmixedwith
Derived Fuel by the Bomb Calorimeter
water having a volume equal to the typical volume of the
E870 Test Methods for Analysis of Wood Fuels
fermentationsystemandreturnthefacilitytotheconfiguration
2.2 Association of Offıcial Analytical Chemists (AOAC)
at the start of the cycle. The quantity of water mixed with the
Standards:
feedstock shall be as per specification for normal operation.
This volume is equal to the sum of the working volumes of all
This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E48 on
fermenters in a batch fermentation process. This volume is
Biotechnology and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E48.05 on Biomass
equal to the sum of the working volumes of each stage of
Conversion.
fermentation in a continuous fermentation process. The deter-
Current edition approved Nov. 1, 2006. Published December 2006. Originally
approved in 1982. Last previous edition approved in 1998 as E869–93(1998).
mination of the production cycle for a batch process is
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
illustrated in Fig. 1 and for a continuous cycle in Fig. 2. Any
contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
the ASTM website.
Withdrawn.
4 5
Available from Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1111 N. 19th St., Available from American Public Health Association, 800 I Street, NW
Arlington, VA 22209. Washington, DC 20001.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
E 869 – 93 (2006)
FIG. 1 Production Cycle and Cycle Time for Batch Process 6 Day
FIG. 2 Production Cycle and Cycle Time for Continuous Process
Production Cycle
90 h Production Cycle
differencesintheconfigurationbetweenthestartandendofthe
facility. These shall be expressed as a ratio of the electrical,
test shall be noted in Table 1.
thermal, and total energy required for production of a given
4. Summary of Test Method
volume of fuel ethanol to the volume of fuel ethanol produced
(in moisture-free fuel ethanol).
4.1 A fuel ethanol manufacturing facility’s performance
4.4 Production Rate—This parameter of performance ex-
shall be characterized by four main parameters. These are (1)
pressed the facility’s ability to convert a feedstock to fuel
conversionefficiency,(2)energyforconversion,(3)production
ethanol during a specified unit of time. Since this test method
rate, and (4) mass balance.This test method shall establish the
shall apply to a large variety of facility sizes and configura-
proceduresrequiredtomeasure,interpret,andassignvaluesfor
these parameters. This test method shall consider each facility tions, this parameter can be expressed as the total volume of
fuelethanolproduced(onamoisture-freebasis)dividedbythe
as a single “black box” and, for the purpose of these proce-
cycle time as defined in 3.1.1.
dures, a description of the black box shall be established and
4.5 Mass Balance—This performance parameter measures
recorded prior to testing. This black box may include systems
the facility’s production of fuel ethanol and other co-products.
for feedstock preparation, conversion of carbohydrates to
This shall be represented as a mass ratio of these products to
alcohol, and separation of alcohol and co-products.
the feedstock all on a moisture-free basis.
4.2 Conversion Effıciency—This parameter represents the
facility’s capability to convert a feedstock into fuel ethanol.
5. Significance and Use
This shall be expressed as the ratio of the actual fuel ethanol
yield per unit mass of dry feedstock to theoretical fuel ethanol 5.1 This test method shall yield data that will form a
yield per unit mass of dry feedstock. “performanceprofile”forafuelethanolmanufacturingfacility.
4.3 Energy for Conversion—These parameters (electrical, The significance of this profile is that it can be compared
thermal,andtotalenergy)reflecttheenergyrequiredtorunthe directly to another facility’s performance profile and yield a
E 869 – 93 (2006)
TABLE 1 Data Collection Form for Fuel Ethanol Plant Performance Evaluation
(1) Plant cycle date and time
(Record for each cookbatch)
Start: ______________________________________________________________________________
Finish: ______________________________________________________________________________
(2) Plant conditions at test start
Cooker:
Volume ______________________________________________________________________________
Temperature ______________________________________________________________________________
Alcohol proof of contents ______________________________________________________________________________
Fermenters (repeat for each unit):
Volume ______________________________________________________________________________
Temperature ______________________________________________________________________________
Alcohol proof of contents ______________________________________________________________________________
Distillation:
Volume ______________________________________________________________________________
Temperature ______________________________________________________________________________
Alcohol proof of contents ______________________________________________________________________________
Co-product recovery:
Volume ______________________________________________________________________________
Temperature ______________________________________________________________________________
Alcohol proof of contents ______________________________________________________________________________
(3) Feed stock
Type:
Analysis:
Moisture, wt % ______________________________________________________________________________
Starch, wt % ______________________________________________________________________________
Glucose, wt% ______________________________________________________________________________
Fructose, wt % ______________________________________________________________________________
Maltose, wt % ______________________________________________________________________________
Lactose, wt% ______________________________________________________________________________
Density, lb/unit volume ______________________________________________________________________________
Quantity used during cycle, units ______________________________________________________________________________
(4) Water added to process
Fresh water, gal/°F ______________________________________________________________________________
Setback (recycle) water, gal/°F ______________________________________________________________________________
Alcohol content, proof ______________________________________________________________________________
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), mg/L ______________________________________________________________________________
Total suspended solids (TSS), mg/L ______________________________________________________________________________
Fats, oils, and grease (FOG), mg/L ______________________________________________________________________________
Alcohol proof
(5) Enzymes yeast, process chemicals used—list separately
Type, quantity ______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
(6) Alcohol produced
Product recovered, gal ______________________________________________________________________________
Proof (adjusted to 60°F) ______________________________________________________________________________
Temperature, °F ______________________________________________________________________________
Losses: ______________________________________________________________________________
Thin stillage, flow/proof ______________________________________________________________________________
Spent solids, flow ______________________________________________________________________________
Wt % alcohol ______________________________________________________________________________
(7) Distillers grains recovered
Quantity, lb ______________________________________________________________________________
Analysis: ______________________________________________________________________________
Moisture, wt % ______________________________________________________________________________
Protein, wt% ______________________________________________________________________________
Starch test, Positive/Negative ______________________________________________________________________________
(8) Energy consumed
Electrical meter reading (kWh) ______________________________________________________________________________
Start ______________________________________________________________________________
Stop ______________________________________________________________________________
Fuel (Type: ) Units ______________________________________________________________________________
Start ______________________________________________________________________________
Stop ______________________________________________________________________________
(9) Process wastewater
Discharge temperature, °F ______________________________________________________________________________
Quantity, gal ______________________________________________________________________________
BOD, mg/L ______________________________________________________________________________
TSS, mg/L ______________________________________________________________________________
FOG, mg/L ______________________________________________________________________________
(10) Plant conditions at test finish
Cooker:
Volume ______________________________________________________________________________
E 869 – 93 (2006)
TABLE 1 Continued
Temperature ______________________________________________________________________________
Alcohol proof of contents ______________________________________________________________________________
Fermenters (repeat for each unit):
Volume ______________________________________________________________________________
Temperature ______________________________________________________________________________
Alcohol proof of contents ______________________________________________________________________________
Distillation:
Volume ______________________________________________________________________________
Temperature ______________________________________________________________________________
Alcohol proof of contents ______________________________________________________________________________
Co-product recovery:
Volume ______________________________________________________________________________
Temperature ______________________________________________________________________________
Alcohol proof of contents ______________________________________________________________________________
Brief description of facilities included in test program
Data recorded by: ___________________________
relative measurement and shall provide a measure of expected bination starch/sugar based feedstocks is specified in Table 3.
facility performance under field conditions. Based on the four Table 4 details the method for calculation of the theoretical
main parameters highlighted above, facilities of significantly alcohol yield for each feedstock classification. The conversion
different designs can be compared relatively. factors are the stoichiometric molecular weight equivalents for
5.2 The single black box technique applied to performance conversionofastarch/sugarintoethylalcohol.Theactualyield
evaluation examines o
...

Questions, Comments and Discussion

Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.

This May Also Interest You

ASTM
ASTM D8446-22(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Water Vapor Content in Compressed Air Using Electronic Moisture Analyzers

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Water vapor is ubiquitous and a basic contaminant in compressed air. It cannot be eliminated but shall be controlled. Knowledge of the vapor content of compressed air is important for industrial processes to ensure that compressors that generate compressed air are functioning properly and equipment and systems that use the compressed air will function properly and maintain high reliability. This test method describes the measurement of water vapor using direct readout electronic instrumentation. Measurements are provided as dew point/frost point and calculations of related unitless quantities (ppm) are provided. Sampling techniques and warnings are provided to reduce false readings caused by contamination from the sampling method. Dry compressed air typically has a frost point between –80 °C and –40 °C (0.5 PPMV to 127 PPMV) at atmospheric pressure.  
5.2 Measurement of moisture in compressed air can be done after regulating the pressure down to ATM or measured at elevated pressure up to the full system pressure. When measurements are made of the actual dew point (for example, condensation) or the related property of vapor pressure, the value of the dew point (and vapor pressure) is directly affected by the sample pressure since the vapor pressure is a component of the total pressure. The relationship between vapor pressure and moisture content (and dew point) is well defined below 5 MPa, but at greater pressures, additional study needs to be done to define this relationship.  
5.3 Electronic moisture analyzers are also used for measuring moisture levels in other gases, including gaseous fuels. See Test Method D5454. In addition, tunable diode laser spectroscopy (TDLAS) is another technology that may be applicable to detecting moisture in compressed air. This technology is already being used in gases. See Test Method D7904.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the water vapor content in compressed air using portable or in-situ electronic moisture analyzers. Such analyzers commonly use sensing cells based on phosphorus pentoxide, P2O5, aluminum oxide, Al2O3, or silicon piezoelectric-type cells or laser-based technologies.  
1.2 This test method is applicable for the range of condensation temperatures from –80 °C to 60 °C.  
1.3 Testing is often performed at reduced pressure from the full pressure of the system or source of compressed air depending on the capability of the specific analyzer. Testing above 2000 kPa may introduce additional uncertainty because of changes in the relationship between water vapor pressure and actual moisture content at elevated pressures.  
1.4 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. No other units of measurement are included in this 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.

  • Standard
    7 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM G114-21(Practice)
Standard Practices for Evaluating the Age Resistance of Polymeric Materials Used in Oxygen Service

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This practice allows the user to evaluate the effect of service or accelerating aging on the oxygen resistance of polymeric materials used in oxygen service.  
5.2 The use of this practice presupposes that the properties used to evaluate the effect of aging can be shown to relate to the intended use of the material, and are also sensitive to the effect of aging.  
5.3 Polymeric materials will, in general, be more susceptible than metals to aging effects as evidenced by irreversible property loss. Such property loss may lead to catastrophic component failure, including a secondary fire, before primary ignition or combustion of the polymeric material occurs.  
5.4 Polymers aged in the presence of oxygen-containing media may undergo many types of reversible and irreversible physical and chemical property change. The severity of the aging conditions determines the extent and type of changes that take place. Polymers are not necessarily degraded by aging, but may be unchanged or improved. For example, aging may drive off volatile materials, thus raising the ignition temperature without compromising mechanical properties. However, aging under prolonged or severe conditions (for example, elevated oxygen concentration) will usually cause a decrease in mechanical performance, while improving resistance to ignition and combustion.  
5.5 Aging may result in reversible mass increase (physisorption), irreversible mass increase (chemisorption), plasticization, discoloration, loss of volatiles, embrittlement, softening due to sorption of volatiles, cracking, relief of molding stresses, increased crystallinity, dimensional change, advance of cure in thermosets and elastomers, chain scissioning, and crosslinking.  
5.6 After a period of service, a material’s properties may be significantly different from those when new. All materials rated for oxygen service should remain resistant to ignition and combustion (primary fire risk). Furthermore, all materials rated for oxygen s...
SCOPE
1.1 These practices describe procedures that are used to determine the age resistance of plastic, thermosetting, elastomeric, and polymer matrix composite materials exposed to oxygen-containing media.  
1.2 While these practices focus on evaluating the age resistance of polymeric materials in oxygen-containing media prior to ignition and combustion testing, they also have relevance for evaluating the age resistance of metals, and nonmetallic oils and greases.  
1.3 These practices address both established procedures that have a foundation of experience and new procedures that have yet to be validated. The latter are included to promote research and later elaboration in this practice as methods of the former type.  
1.4 The results of these practices may not give exact correlation with service performance since service conditions vary widely and may involve multiple factors such as those listed in 5.8.  
1.5 Three procedures are described for evaluating the age resistance of polymeric materials depending on application and information sought.  
1.5.1 Procedure A: Natural Aging—This procedure is used to simulate the effect(s) of one or more service stressors on a material’s oxygen resistance, and is suitable for evaluating materials that experience continuous or intermittent exposure to elevated temperature during service.  
1.5.2 Procedure B: Accelerated Aging Comparative Oxygen Resistance—This procedure is suitable for evaluating materials that are used in ambient temperature service, or at a temperature that is otherwise lower than the aging temperature, and is useful for developing oxygen compatibility rankings on a laboratory comparison basis.  
1.5.3 Procedure C: Accelerated Aging Lifetime Prediction—This procedure is used to determine the relationship between aging temperature and a fixed level of property change, thereby allowing predictions to be made about the effect of prolonged service on oxidative degra...

  • Standard
    12 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    12 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E582-21(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy and Quenching Distance in Gaseous Mixtures

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
3.1 The minimum energies provide a basis for comparing the ease of ignition of gases. The flatplate ignition quenching distances provide an important verification of existing minimum ignition energy data and give approximate values of the propagation quenching distances of the various mixtures. It is emphasized that maximum safe experimental gaps, as from “flame-proof” or “explosion-proof” studies, are less than the flat-plate ignition quenching distances.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of minimum energy for ignition (initiation of deflagration) and associated flat-plate ignition quenching distances.2 The complete description is specific to alkane or alkene fuels admixed with air at normal ambient temperature and pressure. This method is applicable to mixtures of the specified fuels with air, varying from the most easily ignitable mixture to mixtures near to, in theory, the limit-of-flammability compositions.
Note 1: The test apparatus described in Section 4 is not suitable for near limit mixtures. Near limit mixtures require a much larger test volume (that is, reaction vessel), and the capability for producing much larger spark energies.  
1.2 Extensions to other fuel-oxidizer combinations, and to other temperatures and pressures can be accomplished with all the accuracy inherent in this method if certain additional conditions are met: (a) mixture stability and compatibility with bomb, seal, and other materials is established through time tests described in Section 9; (b) the expected peak pressure from the test is within the pressure rating of the bomb (established as required by the particular research laboratory); (c) spark breakdown within the bomb is consistent with Paschen’s law for the distance being tested; (d) the temperature, including that of the discharge electrodes, is uniform; and (e) if the temperature is other than ambient, the energy storage capacitance required is less than about 9 pF.  
1.3 This method is one of several being developed by Committee E27 for determining the hazards of chemicals, including their vapors in air or other oxidant atmospheres. The measurements are useful in assessing fuel ignitability hazards due to static or other electrical sparks. However, the quenching distance data must be used with great prudence since they are primarily applicable to the ignition stage and therefore, represent values for initial pressure and not the smaller values existing at higher pressures.  
1.4 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.  
1.5 This standard should be used to measure and describe the properties of materials, products, or assemblies in response to heat and flame under controlled laboratory conditions and should not be used to describe or appraise the fire hazard or fire risk of materials, products, or assemblies under actual fire conditions. However, results of this test may be used as elements of a fire risk assessment which takes into account all of the factors which are pertinent to an assessment of the fire hazard of a particular end use.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Specific safety precautions are listed in Section 5.  
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.

  • Standard
    6 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    6 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM D4051-10(2021)(Practice)
Standard Practice for Preparation of Low-Pressure Gas Blends

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
3.1 The laboratory preparation of gas blends of known composition is required to provide primary standards for the calibration of chromatographic and other types of analytical instrumentation.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers a laboratory procedure for the preparation of low-pressure multicomponent gas blends. The technique is applicable to the blending of components at percent levels and can be extended to lower concentrations by performing dilutions of a previously prepared base blend. The maximum blend pressure obtainable is dependent upon the range of the manometer used, but ordinarily is about 101 kPa (760 mm Hg). Components must not be condensable at the maximum blend pressure.  
1.2 The possible presence of small leaks in the manifold blending system will preclude applicability of the method to blends containing part per million concentrations of oxygen or nitrogen.  
1.3 This practice is restricted to those compounds that do not react with each other, the manifold, or the blend cylinder.  
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.

  • Standard
    4 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM D2779-92(2020)(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Estimation of Solubility of Gases in Petroleum Liquids

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
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 out of the storage vessels and interrupt flow to the pumps.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the estimation of the equilibrium solubility of several common gases encountered in the aerospace industry in hydrocarbon liquids. These include petroleum fractions with densities in the range from 0.63 to 0.90 at 288 K (59°F). The solubilities can be estimated over the temperature range 228 K (−50°F) to 423 K (302°F).  
1.2 This test method is based on the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, Henry's law, and the perfect gas law, with empirically assigned constants for the variation with density and for each gas.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values in parentheses are for information only.  
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.

  • Standard
    4 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM F2476-20(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for the Determination of Carbon Dioxide Gas Transmission Rate (CO2TR) Through Barrier Materials Using an Infrared Detector

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Carbon dioxide gas transmission rate (CO2TR) is an important determinant of the packaging protection afforded by barrier materials. It is not, however, the sole determinant, and additional tests, based on experience, must be used to correlate packaging performance with CO2TR. It is suitable as a referee method of testing, provided that purchaser and seller have agreed on sampling procedures, standardization procedures, test conditions and acceptance criteria.
SCOPE
1.1 This method covers a procedure for determination of the steady-state rate of transmission of carbon dioxide gas through plastics in the form of film, sheeting, laminates, coextrusions, or plastic-coated papers or fabrics. It provides for the determination of (1) carbon dioxide gas transmission rate (CO2TR), (2) the permeance of the film to carbon dioxide gas (PCO2), and (3) carbon dioxide permeability coefficient (P’CO2) in the case of homogeneous materials.  
1.2 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.  
1.3 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.

  • Standard
    6 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    6 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM F1307-20(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Oxygen Transmission Rate Through Dry Packages Using a Coulometric Sensor

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Oxygen gas transmission rate is an important determinant of the protection afforded by barrier materials. It is not, however, the sole determinant, and additional tests, based on experience, must be used to correlate package performance with O2GTR. This test method is suitable as a referee method of testing, provided that the user and source have agreed on sampling procedures, standardization procedures, test conditions, and acceptance criteria.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for the determination of the steady-state rate of transmission of oxygen gas into packages. More specifically, the method is applicable to packages that in normal use will enclose a dry environment.  
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the 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.

  • Standard
    7 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    7 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM D2713-20(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Dryness of Propane (Valve Freeze Method)

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test is a functional test in which the water concentration in the product is related to product behavior characteristics in a pressure-reducing system of special design to arrive at a measure of product acceptability in common use applications. Experience has demonstrated that excessive water content (dissolved water) will cause freeze-up difficulties in pressure reducing systems.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the measurement of the dryness of propane products that do not contain antifreeze agents such as, but not limited to, commercial propane and special duty propane (see Specification D1835).  
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values in parentheses are for information only.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
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.

  • Standard
    3 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    3 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM B827-05(2020)(Practice)
Standard Practice for Conducting Mixed Flowing Gas (MFG) Environmental Tests

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Mixed flowing gas (MFG) tests are used to simulate or amplify exposure to environmental conditions which electrical contacts or connectors can be expected to experience in various application environments (1, 2).4  
4.2 Test samples which have been exposed to MFG tests have ranged from bare metal surfaces, to electrical connectors, and to complete assemblies.  
4.3 The specific test conditions are usually chosen so as to simulate, in the test laboratory, the effects of certain representative field environments or environmental severity levels on standard metallic surfaces, such as copper and silver coupons or porous gold platings (1, 2).  
4.4 Because MFG tests are simulations, both the test conditions and the degradation reactions (chemical reaction rate, composition of reaction products, etc.) may not always resemble those found in the service environment of the product being tested in the MFG test. A guide to the selection of simulation conditions suitable for a variety of environments is found in Guide B845.  
4.5 The MFG exposures are generally used in conjunction with procedures which evaluate contact or connector electrical performance such as measurement of electrical contact resistance before and after MFG exposure.  
4.6 The MFG tests are useful for connector systems whose contact surfaces are plated or clad with gold or other precious metal finishes. For such surfaces, environmentally produced failures are often due to high resistance or intermittences caused by the formation of insulating contamination in the contact region. This contamination, in the form of films and hard particles, is generally the result of pore corrosion and corrosion product migration or tarnish creepage from pores in the precious metal coating and from unplated base metal boundaries, if present.  
4.7 The MFG exposures can be used to evaluate novel electrical contact metallization for susceptibility to degradation due to environmental exposure to the test corrosive gases...
SCOPE
1.1 This practice provides procedures for conducting environmental tests involving exposures to controlled quantities of corrosive gas mixtures.  
1.2 This practice provides for the required equipment and methods for gas, temperature, and humidity control which enable tests to be conducted in a reproducible manner. Reproducibility is measured through the use of control coupons whose corrosion films are evaluated by mass gain, coulometry, or by various electron and X-ray beam analysis techniques. Reproducibility can also be measured by in situ corrosion rate monitors using electrical resistance or mass/frequency change methods.  
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 become familiar with all hazards including those identified in the appropriate Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for this product/material as provided by the manufacturer, to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices, and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. See 5.1.2.4.  
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.

  • Standard
    9 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E1747-95(2019)(Guide)
Standard Guide for Purity of Carbon Dioxide Used in Supercritical Fluid Applications

ABSTRACT
This guide defines purity standards for carbon dioxide to ensure the suitability of liquefied carbon dioxide gas for use in supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) and supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC) applications. This guide defines quantitation, labeling, and statistical standards for impurities in carbon dioxide that are necessary for successful SFE or SFC laboratory work, and it suggests methods of analysis for quantifying these impurities. These contaminants are those components that either cause detector signals that interfere with those of the target analytes or physically impede the SFE or SFC experiment. Also, this guide is provided for use by specialty gas suppliers who manufacture carbon dioxide specifically for SFE or SFC applications. SFE or SFC CO2 products offered with a claim of adherence to this guide will meet certain absolute purity and contaminant detectability requirements matched to the needs of current SFE or SFC techniques.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide defines purity standards for carbon dioxide to ensure the suitability of liquefied carbon dioxide gas for use in SFE and SFC applications (see Guide E1449 for definitions of terms). This guide defines quantitation, labeling, and statistical standards for impurities in carbon dioxide that are necessary for successful SFE or SFC laboratory work, and it suggests methods of analysis for quantifying these impurities.  
1.2 This guide is provided for use by specialty gas suppliers who manufacture carbon dioxide specifically for SFE or SFC applications. SFE or SFC carbon dioxide (CO2) products offered with a claim of adherence to this guide will meet certain absolute purity and contaminant detectability requirements matched to the needs of current SFE or SFC techniques. The use of this guide allows different SFE or SFC CO2 product offerings to be compared on an equal purity basis.  
1.3 This guide considers contaminants to be those components that either cause detector signals that interfere with those of the target analytes or physically impede the SFE or SFC experiment.  
1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this 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 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.

  • Guide
    6 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off