iTeh StandardsiTeh Standards
EURUSD
Your shopping cart is empty.
ASTM

ASTM E2639-12(2018)

(Test Method)

Standard Test Method for Blast Resistance of Trash Receptacles

Standard Test Method for Blast Resistance of Trash Receptacles

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test procedure is used to measure two of the main effects of an explosive detonated in a trash receptacle as related to the type and amount of explosive charge and the location where the charge is placed in the trash receptacle. The two effects are:  
5.1.1 Release of primary and secondary fragments, and  
5.1.2 Physical damage to the trash receptacle.  
5.2 This test procedure is applicable to all trash receptacles, including lidded or non-lidded as supplied by the manufacturer.  
5.3 This test procedure is used to generate data for use in developing performance specifications for trash receptacles.  
5.4 For users having interest in determining overpressures created by the detonation, Appendix X1 provides guidance for making such determinations.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method provides a procedure for characterizing the performance of a trash receptacle when an explosive is detonated within the receptacle.  
1.1.1 The procedure determines the extent and location of fragments produced during the explosion, and whether breaches are created in the exterior surfaces of the trash receptacle.  
1.1.2 Appendix X1 provides guidance for determining the magnitude of blast waves (that is, external overpressures) developed.  
1.1.3 Effects due to a fireball resulting from the detonation of an explosive within a trash receptacle are beyond the scope of the test method.  
1.2 This test method is intended to be performed in open-air test arenas.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values stated 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.

General Information

Status
Published
Publication Date
31-Dec-2017
ICS
13.230 - Explosion protection
Technical Committee
E54 - Homeland Security Applications
Drafting Committee
E54.01 - CBRNE Detection and CBRN Protection
Current Stage
Ref Project

Relations

Refers
ASTM D790-15 - Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials
Effective Date
01-Dec-2015
Refers
ASTM D790-15e1 - Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials
Effective Date
01-Dec-2015
Refers
ASTM D883-17 - Standard Terminology Relating to Plastics
Effective Date
15-Aug-2017
Refers
ASTM D883-18 - Standard Terminology Relating to Plastics
Effective Date
01-Nov-2018
Refers
ASTM D883-18a - Standard Terminology Relating to Plastics
Effective Date
01-Dec-2018
Refers
ASTM D883-19 - Standard Terminology Relating to Plastics
Effective Date
01-Feb-2019
Refers
ASTM D883-19a - Standard Terminology Relating to Plastics
Effective Date
15-Apr-2019
Refers
ASTM D883-19c - Standard Terminology Relating to Plastics
Effective Date
01-Aug-2019
Refers
ASTM D883-20 - Standard Terminology Relating to Plastics
Effective Date
01-Jan-2020
Refers
ASTM D790-17 - Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials
Effective Date
01-Jul-2017

Buy Standard

ASTM E2639-12(2018) - Standard Test Method for Blast Resistance of Trash ReceptaclesASTM E2639-12(2018) - Standard Test Method for Blast Resistance of Trash Receptacles
PreviousNext
Standard
ASTM E2639-12(2018) - Standard Test Method for Blast Resistance of Trash Receptacles
English language
11 pages
sale 15% off
Preview
sale 15% off
Preview

Standards Content (Sample)

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.
Designation: E2639 − 12 (Reapproved 2018)
Standard Test Method for
1
Blast Resistance of Trash Receptacles
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2639; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope D747 Test Method for Apparent Bending Modulus of Plas-
3
tics by Means of a Cantilever Beam (Withdrawn 2019)
1.1 Thistestmethodprovidesaprocedureforcharacterizing
D790 Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced
the performance of a trash receptacle when an explosive is
and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materi-
detonated within the receptacle.
als
1.1.1 The procedure determines the extent and location of
D882 Test Method for Tensile Properties of Thin Plastic
fragments produced during the explosion, and whether
Sheeting
breaches are created in the exterior surfaces of the trash
D883 Terminology Relating to Plastics
receptacle.
E2740 Specification for Trash Receptacles Subjected to
1.1.2 Appendix X1 provides guidance for determining the
Blast Resistance Testing
magnitude of blast waves (that is, external overpressures)
2.2 Government Standards:
developed.
DOD4145.26M DepartmentofDefense:DODContractors’
1.1.3 Effects due to a fireball resulting from the detonation
4
Safety Manual for Ammunition and Explosives
of an explosive within a trash receptacle are beyond the scope
DOD 6055.9 STD Department of Defense: DOD Ammuni-
of the test method.
5
tion and Explosives Safety Standards
6
1.2 This test method is intended to be performed in open-air
Voluntary Product Standard PS 1 Structural Plywood
test arenas.
3. Terminology
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the
standard. The values stated in parentheses are for information 3.1 For terminology generally associated with explosives,
refer to the glossaries given in DOD 4145.26 M and DOD
only.
6055.9 STD.
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the
3.1.1 Some of the definitions in this standard (3.2) are either
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
adoptedasexactcopies,orareadapted,fromDOD4145.26M.
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
Where adapted, changes to the DOD definitions were made
priate safety, health, and environmental practices and deter-
only to clarify the meaning or to incorporate related terms that
mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
also are defined in this terminology section.
1.5 This international standard was developed in accor-
3.1.2 The DOD source is identified parenthetically at the
dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-
right margin following the definition.
ization established in the Decision on Principles for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recom- 3.2 Definitions:
mendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical
3.2.1 alias, n—a false low-frequency component that ap-
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee. pears when reconstructing analog data that are sampled at an
insufficient rate.
2. Referenced Documents
3.2.2 detonation, n—(1)aviolentchemicalreactionwithina
2
2.1 ASTM Standards:
chemical compound or mechanical mixture resulting in heat
D638 Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics
and pressure; (2) a reaction that proceeds through the reacted
material toward the unreacted material at a supersonic velocity.
1
This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E54 on
Homeland Security Applications and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee
3
E54.01 on CBRNE Detection and CBRN Protection. The last approved version of this historical standard is referenced on
Current edition approved Jan. 1, 2018. Published January 2018. Originally www.astm.org.
4
approved in 2009. Last previous edition approved in 2012 as E2639 – 12. DOI: Available from the Defense Technical Information Center, 8725 John J.
10.1520/E2639-12R18. Kingman Road, Suite 0944, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060 6128.
2 5
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or Available from the worldwide web at: http://www.ddesb.pentagon.mil/
contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM DoD6055.9-STD%205%20Oct%202004.pdf.
6
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on Available from the worldwide web at http://ts.nist.gov/Standards/Conformity/
the ASTM website. upload/PS%201%20final%20complete%20w%20cover.pdf.
Copyright © ASTM Internatio
...

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 E2520-21(Practice)
Standard Practice for Measuring and Scoring Performance of Trace Explosive Chemical Detectors

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This practice may be used to accomplish several ends: to establish a worldwide frame of reference for terminology, metrics, and procedures for reliably determining trace detection performance of ETDs; as a demonstration by the vendor that the equipment is operating properly to a specified performance score; for a periodic verification by the user of detector performance after purchase; and as a generally-acceptable template adaptable by international agencies to specify performance requirements, analytes and dosing levels, background challenges, and operations.  
5.2 It is expected that current ETD systems will exhibit wide ranges of performance across the diverse explosive types and compounds considered. As in previous versions, this practice establishes the minimum performance that is required for a detector to be considered effective in the detection of trace explosives. An explosives detector is considered to have “minimum acceptable performance” when it has attained a test score of at least 80.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice may be used for measuring, scoring, and improving the overall performance of detectors that alarm on traces of explosives on swabs. These explosive trace detectors (ETDs) may be based on, but are not limited to, chemical detection technologies such as ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) and mass spectrometry (MS).  
1.2 This practice considers instrumental (post-sampling) trace detection performance, involving specific chemical analytes across eight types of explosive formulations in the presence of a standard background challenge material. This practice adapts Test Method E2677 for the evaluation of limit of detection, a combined metric of measurement sensitivity and repeatability, which requires ETDs to have numerical responses.  
1.3 This practice considers the effective detection throughput of an ETD by factoring in the sampling rate, interrogated swab area, and estimated maintenance requirements during a typical eight hour shift.  
1.4 This practice does not require, but places extra value on, the specific identification of targeted compounds and explosive formulations.  
1.5 The functionality of multi-mode instruments (those that may be switched between detection of trace explosives, drugs of interest, chemical warfare agents, and other target compounds) may also be tested. A multi-mode instrument under test shall be set to the mode that optimizes operational conditions for the detection of trace explosives. This practice requires the use of a single set of ETD operational settings for calculating a system test score based on the factors described in 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. A minimum acceptable score is derived from criteria established in Practice E2520 – 07, and an example of such a test is presented in Appendix X1 (Example 2).  
1.6 Intended Users—ETD developers and manufacturers, testing laboratories, and international agencies responsible for enabling effective deterrents to terrorism.  
1.7 Actual explosives as test samples would be preferable, but standard explosive formulations are not widely available, nor are methods for depositing these quantitatively and realistically on swabs. This practice considers sixteen compounds that are available from commercial suppliers. This does not imply that only these sixteen are important to trace detection. Most ETDs are able to detect many other compounds, but these are either chemically similar (hence redundant) to the ones considered, or are unavailable from commercial suppliers for reasons of stability and safety. Under typical laboratory practices, the sixteen compounds considered are safe to handle in the quantities used.  
1.8 This practice is not intended to replace any current standard procedure employed by agencies to test performance of ETDs for specific applications. Those procedures may be more rigorous, use different compounds or actual explosive formulations, employ different or more realistic background...

  • Standard
    14 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    14 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2677-20(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Estimating Limits of Detection in Trace Detectors for Explosives and Drugs of Interest

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Commercial trace detectors are used by first responders, security screeners, the military, and law enforcement to detect and identify explosive threats and drugs of interest quickly. These trace detectors typically operate by detecting chemical agents in residues and particles sampled from surfaces and can have detection limits for some compounds extending below 1 ng. A trace detector is set to alarm when its response to any target analyte exceeds a programmed threshold level for that analyte. Factory settings of such levels typically balance sensitivity and selectivity assuming standard operating and deployment conditions.  
5.2 The LOD for a substance is commonly accepted as the smallest amount of that substance that can be reliably detected in a given type of medium by a specific measurement process (2). The analytical signal from this amount shall be high enough above ambient background variation to give statistical confidence that the signal is real. Methods for determining nominal LOD values are well known but pitfalls exist in specific applications. Vendors of trace detectors often report detection limits for only a single compound without defining the meaning of terms or reference to the method of determination.
Note 2: There are several different “detection limits” that can be determined for analytical procedures. These include the minimum detectable value, the instrument detection limit, the method detection limit, the limit of recognition, the limit of quantitation, and the minimum consistently detectable amount. Even when the same terminology is used, there can be differences in the LOD according to nuances in the definition used, the assumed response model, and the type of noise contributing to the measurement.  
5.3 When deployed, the individual performance of a trace detector (for example, realistic LODs) is influenced by: (1) manufacturing differences, history, and maintenance; (2) operating configurations (for example, thermal desorption tem...
SCOPE
1.1 In harmony with the Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM) and detection concepts of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) (1, 2)2, this test method uses a series of replicated measurements of an analyte at dosage levels giving instrumental responses that bracket the critical value, a truncated normal distribution model, and confidence bounds to establish a standard for estimating practical and statistically robust limits of detection.
Note 1: Other standards are available that evaluate the general performance of detection technologies for various analytes in complex matrices (for example, Practice E2520).  
1.2 Here, the limit of detection (LOD90) for a compound is defined to be the lowest mass of that compound deposited on a sampling swab for which there is 90 % confidence that a single measurement in a particular trace detector will have a true detection probability of at least 90 % and a true nondetection probability of at least 90 % when measuring a process blank sample.  
1.3 This particular test method was chosen on the basis of reliability, practicability, and comprehensiveness across tested trace detectors, analytes, and deployment conditions. The calculations involved in this test method are published elsewhere (3), and are performed through an interactive web-based calculator available on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) site: https://www-s.nist.gov/loda.  
1.4 Intended Users—Trace detector developers and manufacturers, vendors, testing laboratories, and agencies responsible for public safety and enabling effective deterrents to terrorism.  
1.5 While this test method may be applied to any detection technology that produces numerical output, the method is especially applicable to measurement systems influenced by heterogeneous error sources that lead to non-linear and heteroskedastic dose/response relationships and truncated or censored respons...

  • Standard
    8 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    8 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2831/E2831M-11(2018)(Guide)
Standard Guide for Deployment of Blast Resistant Trash Receptacles in Crowded Places

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This standard is intended to provide guidance on the deployment of blast resistant trash receptacles that focuses on the mitigation of human injury. It is not in general intended to provide guidance on the protection of structures in the vicinity of where the blast resistant trash receptacles are deployed.  
5.2 The importance of a strategy and procedures for the deployment of blast resistant trash receptacles in crowded places cannot be overly emphasized. Trash receptacles in crowded places have been, and continue to be, an attractive repository for explosives. The selection of deployment locations impacts both the mitigation of the effects of an explosion occurring within one as well as the convenience of using the receptacles.  
5.3 Two major effects resulting from an explosion in a trash receptacle are the production of primary and secondary fragments as well as overpressure from the detonation. The recommendations in this guide are intended to mitigate the damaging effects of fragmentation and overpressure in crowded places.  
5.4 Another effect resulting from an explosion in a trash receptacle is the fireball. This effect may cause burns to people caught within or near to the fireball. Also, it is possible that the heat output from an explosion may cause nearby combustible material to ignite. It is important, therefore, that blast resistant trash receptacles are not placed near combustible materials.  
5.5 The deployment of blast resistant trash receptacles provides a means for decreasing injury and lethality during an explosive event no matter their location when compared to the protection afforded by ordinary trash receptacles or clear plastic bags. Fragments resulting from explosions create the greatest danger to people as fragments may travel several hundred meters and still have velocities that could be lethal or injurious. Blast resistant trash receptacles that meet the requirements of Specification E2740 when subjected to internal explosions equ...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide identifies the key factors that should be considered prior to the deployment of blast resistant trash receptacles (BRTRs) in crowded places.  
1.1.1 Guidance is included for their deployment at interior and exterior locations associated with the crowded places.  
1.2 Facilities and venues where blast resistant trash receptacles may be deployed include, but are not limited to:  
1.2.1 Airports,  
1.2.2 Banks and other financial institutions,  
1.2.3 Bars and nightclubs,  
1.2.4 Convention centers,  
1.2.5 Entertainment and event centers,  
1.2.6 Hotels,  
1.2.7 Health care locations,  
1.2.8 Museums,  
1.2.9 Places of worship,  
1.2.10 Public government locations including fire and police stations,  
1.2.11 Railway stations, bus stations, and related transit areas,  
1.2.12 Restaurants,  
1.2.13 Retail centers and malls,  
1.2.14 Schools, universities, and related areas used for education,  
1.2.15 Stadiums and arenas, and  
1.2.16 Theaters.  
1.3 Guidance on conducting a threat assessment or vulnerability analysis, and on responding to incidents associated with the deployment of blast resistant trash receptacles is beyond the scope of this document.  
1.4 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 may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.5 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 standardiz...

  • Guide
    5 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM G126-16(2023)(Terminology)
Standard Terminology Relating to the Compatibility and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen Enriched Atmospheres

SCOPE
1.1 This terminology defines terms related to the compatibility and sensitivity of materials in oxygen enriched atmospheres. It includes those standards under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee G04.  
1.2 The terminology concentrates on terms commonly encountered in and specific to practices and methods used to evaluate the compatibility and sensitivity of materials in oxygen. This evaluation is usually performed in a laboratory environment, and this terminology does not attempt to include laboratory terms.  
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
    5 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2021-15(2023)(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Hot-Surface Ignition Temperature of Dust Layers

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is applicable to dusts and powders, and provides a procedure for performing laboratory tests to evaluate hot-surface ignition temperatures of dust layers.  
5.2 The test data can be of value in determining safe operating conditions in industrial plants, mines, manufacturing processes, and locations of material usage and storage.  
5.3 Due to variation of ignition temperature with layer thickness, the test data at one thickness may not be applicable to all industrial situations (see Appendix X1). Tests at various layer thicknesses may provide a means for extrapolation to thicker layers, as listed in the following for pulverized Pittsburgh bituminous coal dust (2). Mathematical modeling of layer ignition at various layer thicknesses is described in Ref. (3).
Layer Thickness, mm  
Hot-Surface Ignition Temperature, °C  
6.4  
300  
9.4  
260  
12.7  
240  
25.4  
210  
5.4 This hot plate test method allows for loss of heat from the top surface of the dust layer, and therefore generally gives a higher ignition temperature for a material than Test Method E771, which is a more adiabatic system.  
5.5 This test method for dust layers generally will give a lower ignition temperature than Test Method E1491, which is for dust clouds. The layer ignition temperature is determined while monitoring for periods of minutes to hours, while the dust cloud is only exposed to the furnace for a period of seconds.
Note 1: Much of the literature data for layer ignition is actually from a basket in a heated furnace (4), known as the modified Godbert-Greenwald furnace test. Other data are from nonstandardized hot plates (5-9).  
5.6 Additional information on the significance and use of this test method may be found in Ref. (10).
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a laboratory procedure to determine the hot-surface ignition temperature of dust layers, that is, measuring the minimum temperature at which a dust layer will self-heat. The test consists of a dust layer heated on a hot plate.2,3  
1.2 Data obtained from this test method provide a relative measure of the hot-surface ignition temperature of a dust layer.  
1.3 This test method should be used to measure and describe the properties of materials in response to heat and flame under controlled laboratory conditions and should not be used to describe or appraise the fire hazard or fire hazard risk of materials, products, or assemblies under actual fire conditions. However, results of this test method may be used as elements of a fire risk assessment that takes into account all of the factors that are pertinent to an assessment of the fire hazard risk of a particular end use product.  
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 regulatory limitations prior to use. Specific precautionary statements are given in Section 8.  
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
    10 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E1515-14(2022)(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method provides a procedure for performing laboratory tests to evaluate relative deflagration parameters of dusts.  
5.2 The MEC as measured by this test method provides a relative measure of the concentration of a dust cloud necessary for an explosion.  
5.3 Since the MEC as measured by this test method may vary with the uniformity of the dust dispersion, energy of the ignitor, and propagation criteria, the MEC should be considered a relative rather than absolute measurement.  
5.4 If too weak an ignition source is used, the measured MEC would be higher than the “true” value. This is an ignitability limit rather than a flammability limit, and the test could be described as “underdriven.” Ideally, the ignition energy is increased until the measured MEC is independent of ignition energy. However, at some point the ignition energy may become too strong for the size of the test chamber, and the system becomes “overdriven.” When the ignitor flame becomes too large relative to the chamber volume, a test could appear to result in an explosion, while it is actually just dust burning in the ignitor flame with no real propagation beyond the ignitor.  
5.5 The recommended ignition source for measuring the MEC of dusts in 20-L chambers is a 2500 or 5000 J pyrotechnic ignitor.4 Measuring the MEC at both ignition energies will provide information on the possible overdriving of the system.5 To evaluate the effect of possible overdriving in a 20-L chamber, comparison tests may also be made in a larger chamber, such as a 1 m3-chamber.  
5.6 If a dust ignites with a 5000 J ignitor but not with a 2500 J ignitor in a 20-L chamber, this may be an overdriven system.5 In this case, it is recommended that the dust be tested with a 10 000 J ignitor in a larger chamber, such as a 1 m3-chamber, to determine if it is actually explosible.  
5.7 The values obtained by this test method are specific to the sample tested (particularly the particle size distribution) and the met...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the minimum concentration of a dust-air mixture that will propagate a deflagration in a near-spherical closed vessel of 20 L or greater volume.
Note 1: The minimum explosible concentration (MEC) is also referred to as the lower explosibility limit (LEL) or lean flammability limit (LFL).  
1.2 Data obtained from this test method provide a relative measure of the deflagration characteristics of dust clouds.  
1.3 This test method should be used to measure and describe the properties of materials 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 that takes into account all of the factors that are pertinent to an assessment of the fire hazard of a particular end use.  
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 regulatory limitations prior to use.  Specific precautionary statements are given in Section 8.  
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
    9 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM G74-13(2021)(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Ignition Sensitivity of Nonmetallic Materials and Components by Gaseous Fluid Impact

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This test standard describes how to evaluate the relative sensitivity of materials and components to dynamic pressure impacts by various gaseous fluid media (can include gas mixtures).  
4.2 Changes or variations in test specimen configurations, thickness, preparation, and cleanliness can cause a significant change in their impact ignition sensitivity/reaction. For material tests, the test specimen configuration shall be specified on the test report.  
4.3 Changes or variation in the test system configuration from that specified herein may cause a significant change in the severity produced by a dynamic pressure surge of the gaseous media.  
4.4 A reaction is indicated by an abrupt increase in test specimen temperature, by obvious changes in odor, color, or material appearance, or a combination thereof, as observed during post-test examinations. Odor alone is not considered positive evidence that a reaction has occurred. When an increase in test specimen temperature is observed, a test specimen reaction must be confirmed by visual inspection. To aid with visual inspection, magnification less than 10× can be used.  
4.5 When testing components, the test article must be disassembled and the nonmetallic materials examined for evidence of ignition after completion of the specified pressure surge cycles.  
4.6 Ignition or precursors to ignition for any test sample shall be considered a failure and are indicated by burning, material loss, scorching, or melting of a test material detected through direct visual means. Ignition is often indicated by consumption of the non-metallic material under test, whether as an individual material or within a component. Partial ignition can also occur, as shown in Fig. 3a, b, and c, and shall also be considered an ignition (failure) for the purpose of this test standard.
FIG. 3 a Untested PCTFE (10X Magnification) (Polychlorotrifluoroethylene) Sample.  
FIG. 3 b Untested Nylon (PA, polyamide) Valve Seat (10X magnification) (c...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method describes a method to determine the relative sensitivity of nonmetallic materials (including plastics, elastomers, coatings, etc.) and components (including valves, regulators flexible hoses, etc.) to dynamic pressure impacts by gases such as oxygen, air, or blends of gases containing oxygen.  
1.2 This test method describes the test apparatus and test procedures employed in the evaluation of materials and components for use in gases under dynamic pressure operating conditions up to gauge pressures of 69 MPa and at elevated temperatures.  
1.3 This test method is primarily a test method for ranking of materials and qualifying components for use in gaseous oxygen. The material test method is not necessarily valid for determination of the sensitivity of the materials in an “as-used” configuration since the material sensitivity can be altered because of changes in material configuration, usage, and service conditions/interactions. However, the component testing method outlined herein can be valid for determination of the sensitivity of components under service conditions. The current provisions of this method were based on the testing of components having an inlet diameter (ID bore) less than or equal to 14 mm (see Note 1).  
1.4 A 5 mm Gaseous Fluid Impact Sensitivity (GFIS) test system and a 14 mm GFIS test system are described in this standard. The 5 mm GFIS system is utilized for materials and components that are directly attached to a high-pressure source and have minimal volume between the material/component and the pressure source. The 14 mm GFIS system is utilized for materials and components that are attached to a high pressure source through a manifold or other higher volume or larger sized connection. Other sizes than these may be utilized but no attempt has been made to characterize the thermal profiles of other volumes and geometries (see Note 1).
Note 1: The energy delivered by this t...

  • Standard
    40 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2520-21(Practice)
Standard Practice for Measuring and Scoring Performance of Trace Explosive Chemical Detectors

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This practice may be used to accomplish several ends: to establish a worldwide frame of reference for terminology, metrics, and procedures for reliably determining trace detection performance of ETDs; as a demonstration by the vendor that the equipment is operating properly to a specified performance score; for a periodic verification by the user of detector performance after purchase; and as a generally-acceptable template adaptable by international agencies to specify performance requirements, analytes and dosing levels, background challenges, and operations.  
5.2 It is expected that current ETD systems will exhibit wide ranges of performance across the diverse explosive types and compounds considered. As in previous versions, this practice establishes the minimum performance that is required for a detector to be considered effective in the detection of trace explosives. An explosives detector is considered to have “minimum acceptable performance” when it has attained a test score of at least 80.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice may be used for measuring, scoring, and improving the overall performance of detectors that alarm on traces of explosives on swabs. These explosive trace detectors (ETDs) may be based on, but are not limited to, chemical detection technologies such as ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) and mass spectrometry (MS).  
1.2 This practice considers instrumental (post-sampling) trace detection performance, involving specific chemical analytes across eight types of explosive formulations in the presence of a standard background challenge material. This practice adapts Test Method E2677 for the evaluation of limit of detection, a combined metric of measurement sensitivity and repeatability, which requires ETDs to have numerical responses.  
1.3 This practice considers the effective detection throughput of an ETD by factoring in the sampling rate, interrogated swab area, and estimated maintenance requirements during a typical eight hour shift.  
1.4 This practice does not require, but places extra value on, the specific identification of targeted compounds and explosive formulations.  
1.5 The functionality of multi-mode instruments (those that may be switched between detection of trace explosives, drugs of interest, chemical warfare agents, and other target compounds) may also be tested. A multi-mode instrument under test shall be set to the mode that optimizes operational conditions for the detection of trace explosives. This practice requires the use of a single set of ETD operational settings for calculating a system test score based on the factors described in 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. A minimum acceptable score is derived from criteria established in Practice E2520 – 07, and an example of such a test is presented in Appendix X1 (Example 2).  
1.6 Intended Users—ETD developers and manufacturers, testing laboratories, and international agencies responsible for enabling effective deterrents to terrorism.  
1.7 Actual explosives as test samples would be preferable, but standard explosive formulations are not widely available, nor are methods for depositing these quantitatively and realistically on swabs. This practice considers sixteen compounds that are available from commercial suppliers. This does not imply that only these sixteen are important to trace detection. Most ETDs are able to detect many other compounds, but these are either chemically similar (hence redundant) to the ones considered, or are unavailable from commercial suppliers for reasons of stability and safety. Under typical laboratory practices, the sixteen compounds considered are safe to handle in the quantities used.  
1.8 This practice is not intended to replace any current standard procedure employed by agencies to test performance of ETDs for specific applications. Those procedures may be more rigorous, use different compounds or actual explosive formulations, employ different or more realistic background...

  • Standard
    14 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    14 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2677-20(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Estimating Limits of Detection in Trace Detectors for Explosives and Drugs of Interest

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Commercial trace detectors are used by first responders, security screeners, the military, and law enforcement to detect and identify explosive threats and drugs of interest quickly. These trace detectors typically operate by detecting chemical agents in residues and particles sampled from surfaces and can have detection limits for some compounds extending below 1 ng. A trace detector is set to alarm when its response to any target analyte exceeds a programmed threshold level for that analyte. Factory settings of such levels typically balance sensitivity and selectivity assuming standard operating and deployment conditions.  
5.2 The LOD for a substance is commonly accepted as the smallest amount of that substance that can be reliably detected in a given type of medium by a specific measurement process (2). The analytical signal from this amount shall be high enough above ambient background variation to give statistical confidence that the signal is real. Methods for determining nominal LOD values are well known but pitfalls exist in specific applications. Vendors of trace detectors often report detection limits for only a single compound without defining the meaning of terms or reference to the method of determination.
Note 2: There are several different “detection limits” that can be determined for analytical procedures. These include the minimum detectable value, the instrument detection limit, the method detection limit, the limit of recognition, the limit of quantitation, and the minimum consistently detectable amount. Even when the same terminology is used, there can be differences in the LOD according to nuances in the definition used, the assumed response model, and the type of noise contributing to the measurement.  
5.3 When deployed, the individual performance of a trace detector (for example, realistic LODs) is influenced by: (1) manufacturing differences, history, and maintenance; (2) operating configurations (for example, thermal desorption tem...
SCOPE
1.1 In harmony with the Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM) and detection concepts of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) (1, 2)2, this test method uses a series of replicated measurements of an analyte at dosage levels giving instrumental responses that bracket the critical value, a truncated normal distribution model, and confidence bounds to establish a standard for estimating practical and statistically robust limits of detection.
Note 1: Other standards are available that evaluate the general performance of detection technologies for various analytes in complex matrices (for example, Practice E2520).  
1.2 Here, the limit of detection (LOD90) for a compound is defined to be the lowest mass of that compound deposited on a sampling swab for which there is 90 % confidence that a single measurement in a particular trace detector will have a true detection probability of at least 90 % and a true nondetection probability of at least 90 % when measuring a process blank sample.  
1.3 This particular test method was chosen on the basis of reliability, practicability, and comprehensiveness across tested trace detectors, analytes, and deployment conditions. The calculations involved in this test method are published elsewhere (3), and are performed through an interactive web-based calculator available on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) site: https://www-s.nist.gov/loda.  
1.4 Intended Users—Trace detector developers and manufacturers, vendors, testing laboratories, and agencies responsible for public safety and enabling effective deterrents to terrorism.  
1.5 While this test method may be applied to any detection technology that produces numerical output, the method is especially applicable to measurement systems influenced by heterogeneous error sources that lead to non-linear and heteroskedastic dose/response relationships and truncated or censored respons...

  • Standard
    8 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    8 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E1226-19(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method provides a procedure for performing laboratory tests to evaluate deflagration parameters of dusts.  
5.2 The data developed by this test method may be used for the purpose of sizing deflagration vents in conjunction with the nomographs and equations published in NFPA 68, ISO 6184/1, or VDI 3673.  
5.3 The values obtained by this testing technique are specific to the sample tested and the method used and are not to be considered intrinsic material constants.  
5.4 For dusts with low KSt values, discrepancies have been observed between tests in 20-L and 1-m3 chambers. A strong ignitor may overdrive a 20-L chamber, as discussed in Test Method E1515 and Refs (1-4).8 Conversely, more recent testing has shown that some metal dusts can be prone to underdriving in the 20-L chamber, exhibiting significantly lower KSt values than in a 1-m3 chamber (5). Ref (6) provides supporting calculations showing that a test vessel of at least 1-m3 of volume is necessary to obtain the maximum explosibility index for a burning dust cloud having an abnormally high flame temperature. In these two overdriving and underdriving scenarios described above, it is therefore recommended to perform tests in 1-m3 or larger calibrated test vessels in order to measure dusts explosibility parameters accurately.
Note 5: Ref (2) concluded that dusts with KSt values below 45 bar m/s when measured in a 20-L chamber with a 10 000-J ignitor, may not be explosible when tested in a 1-m3 chamber with a 10 000-J ignitor. Ref (2) and unpublished testing has also shown that in some cases the KSt values measured in the 20-L chamber can be lower than those measured in the 1-m3 chamber. Refs (1) and (3) found that for some dusts, it was necessary to use lower ignition energy in the 20-L chamber in order to match MEC or MIC test data in a 1-m3 chamber. If a dust has measurable (nonzero) Pmax and KSt values with a 5000 or 10 000-J ignitor when tested in a 20-L chamber but no measurable Pmax and ...
SCOPE
1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this test method is to provide standard test methods for characterizing the “explosibility” of dust clouds in two ways, first by determining if a dust is “explosible,” meaning a cloud of dust dispersed in air is capable of propagating a deflagration, which could cause a flash fire or explosion; or, if explosible, determining the degree of “explosibility,” meaning the potential explosion hazard of a dust cloud as characterized by the dust explosibility parameters, maximum explosion pressure, Pmax; maximum rate of pressure rise, (dP/dt)max; and explosibility index, KSt.  
1.2 Limitations. Results obtained by the application of the methods of this standard pertain only to certain combustion characteristics of dispersed dust clouds. No inference should be drawn from such results relating to the combustion characteristics of dusts in other forms or conditions (for example, ignition temperature or spark ignition energy of dust clouds, ignition properties of dust layers on hot surfaces, ignition of bulk dust in heated environments, etc.)  
1.3 Use. It is intended that results obtained by application of this test be used as elements of a dust hazard analysis (DHA) that takes into account other pertinent risk factors; and in the specification of explosion prevention systems (see, for example NFPA 68, NFPA 69, and NFPA 652) when used in conjunction with approved or recognized design methods by those skilled in the art.
Note 1: Historically, the evaluation of the deflagration parameters of maximum pressure and maximum rate of pressure rise has been performed using a 1.2-L Hartmann Apparatus. Test Method E789, which describes this method, has been withdrawn. The use of data obtained from the test method in the design of explosion protection systems is not recommended.  
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....

  • Standard
    15 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    15 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off