Standards and Standards Organ is at Ions

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Chapter 3STANDARDS AND STANDARDSORGANISATIONS

1. STANDARDS - TEST METHODS ANDSPECIFICATIONS

It does not take much imagination to appreciate the importance ofstandards to trade and the exchange of information. Fortunately, rubbertechnologists had a strong sense of order and from the early days of theindustry have supported the development of standard test procedures and theuse of these in product specifications. The development of standards isongoing and, because of increased demand for product reliability and fearsof liability legislation, they are probably even more important today.National Governments have expressed their commitment to standards andthere has been much discussion of the role of standards in industrial strategy.Nevertheless, in the highly competitive economic conditions of recent timesstandardisation has been struggling to receive the funding and the prioritythat it really merits.Standards is a general term covering the documents published by astandards making body, such as the International Standards Organisation(ISO).The word specification is reserved for those standards which specifyminimum requirements for materials or products. Other types of standardinclude Methods of Test, Glossaries of Terms, Guides and Codes of Practice.It follows that a specification may refer to several methods of test and that acommercially written specification can refer to nationally or internationallystandardised test methods.In terms oftrade,it is ultimately specifications which are important, with

28 Physical testing of rubber

test methods acting as building blocks. For this reason, it madechronological sense for the test method standards to be developed first, andindeed this was generally the case in practice. Now that test methods arewell developed at the national and international level, it could be argued thatmost of the effort available should be put into specifications, especially inthe current economic climate where less money than before is available.However, the suggestion made in 1984' that progress of rubber testing isslow and barely in the right direction still has some truth today. Thediscussion in the previous chapter of

the

requirements for physical testing ofpolymers considered the different needs for test methods together with theparticular role of standards, and it becomes clear there has been a continuedneed for improvement in rubber test procedures. Indeed, it will be apparentthroughout this book that considerable activity in test method standardisationis still taking place. Nevertheless, there is no case for using the limitedstandards development resource on standard test methods which are ofacademic interest only and unlikely to be generally used. This does not meanthat such methods should not be developed but that not all justify thestandardisation process.As a general point, it should be noted that references to standards givenin this book were correct at the time of writing but because of the on-goingrevision process the relevant standards catalogue (web site) should beconsulted to find the latest edition.

1.1 Test Methods

In this book we are concerned with methods of test and only indirectlywith specifications. Leaving aside for the moment the various sources ofstandard test methods, one can recognise different styles or types ofpublished methods. This is not a matter of accident but rather one ofprogression; the most obvious yardstick being the number of options leftopen to the user. In the simplest case, a particular apparatus is specified, oneset of mandatory test conditions given and no choice allowed as to theparameters to be reported; this is the form in which the specification writerneeds a test method. Unfortunately for those who want a quiet life, manynational and international test methods have become rather more complex.This is partially a result of compromise but, more importantly, because themeasurements being described are not intrinsically simple and the methodwill be required for a number of different purposes and, probably, for manydifferent end products. The specification user must, therefore, select theparticular conditions which best suit his or her individual purposes. Inpractice, they frequently fail to do this either because they omitted to readthe standard carefully enough or because their understanding of it wassomewhat limited. As more advanced concepts were introduced into test

Standards and

standards organisations

29

method standards, there was an increase in the practice of includingexplanatory notes, although unfortunately these do not always achieve theirdesired aim.We can conveniently distinguish four different circumstances in which astandard method is used: (a) purely for quality control, (b) as a performancerequirement, (c) for development purposes and (d) for input to data sheetsand databases. In the first case, the prime consideration is that precisely thesame procedure is always used and also that this procedure is relativelysimple and rapid. The test conditions may be completely arbitrary but oneset of conditions and one set only is required. If the test is intended, apartfrom a quality control function, to be a measure of the performance of theproduct then test conditions will be chosen which have some relevance to theproduct end use. For development work, it is highly probable that a series ofconditions will be wanted in the hope that data of use in designing futureproducts will be realised. Unequivocal procedures are also needed for inputinto databases as the data must be comparable, and some of the difficultiesof comparing results from different sources were discussed by Salinger^.Committees preparing standard test methods are likely to have all thesepossibilities in mind and the penalty for the user of

the

standard is that he orshe must understand the subject sufficiently well to make an intelligentselection of the conditions included to suit their particular purpose. Thefollowing example may not stand up to too close an inspection but serves, Ithink, to illustrate the point. If a test for resistance to liquids is considered,one would expect a quality control procedure to involve one liquid at onetemperature for a relatively short time. The liquid might be a standard fuelsuch as liquid B of

ISO

1817 and the test involve 24h exposure with volumechange being measured. A rapid measuring method such as area change (seeChapter 16 Section 2.1) may be used to further speed up testing. If thetesting was intended to have a performance function then the liquid met inservice would be used, for example commercial petrol, and testing continuedlong enough for equilibrium absorption to be reached. Apart from volumechange, other relevant physical properties would be measured before andafter exposure. For development purposes testing would be further extendedto cover a number of fluids each tested at several temperatures. Input to adatabase can range from the single condition as used for quality control to aseries of conditions akin to development needs. An international or nationalstandard would attempt to cater for these and other possibilities and would,hence, include a choice of measuring procedure, test temperature, durationof exposure, properties to be monitored and test liquids. Preferred testparameters might be indicated for use when there were no outside factorsinfluencing the choice.This is not the place to discuss in any detail what should or should not beincluded in standard test methods or how they should be written. The qualityand the style of those in current existence varies very considerably but it is

of 00

Leave a Comment