Prediction and Measurement of Direct-Normal Solar Irradiance A Closure Experiment

量测提升卡尔曼滤波胡振涛;胡玉梅;刘先省【摘要】Filter design is the signification foundation for system identification and state estimation.Based on the real-ization constructionof state prediction and measurement update,Kalman filter can obtain the optimal estimation of state esti-mated under the linear minimum variance criterion,but the filtering precision is vulnerable to the random characteristics in single sensor condition.A novel realization structure of Kalman filter based on measurement lifting strategy is proposed in the paper.At first,virtual measurement is constructed on the basis of latest measurement and the prior statistical information of measurement noise modeling.Then,virtual measurements are reasonably sampled and fusionto modify the measurement reliability,and the estimation precision is improved.In addition,aiming to the algorithm requirements including real-time, precise and robustness in engineering application,the distributed weight fusion structure and the centralized consistency fu-sion are designed respectively.Finally,the theoretical analysis and experimental results show the feasibility and efficiency of algorithm proposed.%滤波器设计是系统辨识和状态估计的重要基础。

NHTSA’S NCAP ROLLOVER RESISTANCE RATING SYSTEMPatrick L. BoydNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration United StatesPaper Number 05-0450ABSTRACTStarting in the 2004 model year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) improved the rollover resistance ratings in its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) consumer information by adding a dynamic maneuver test. NHTSA had provided rollover resistance ratings in the 2001 – 2003 model years based solely on the Static Stability Factor (SSF) measurement of vehicles. The ratings express the risk of a vehicle rolling over in the event of a single vehicle crash, the type of crash in which most rollovers occur. The SSF, which is determined by a vehicle’s center of gravity height and track width, had proved to be a powerful predictor of rollover risk based on a linear regression study of rollover rates of 100 vehicle models in 224,000 single vehicle crashes (R2 = 0.88). The TREAD Act required NHTSA to change its rollover resistance ratings to use a dynamic maneuver test, and the 2004 and later NCAP rollover resistance ratings use both SSF and a dynamic maneuver. This paper describes the development of the risk prediction model used for present rating system. Twenty-five vehicles were tested using two highly objective automated steering maneuvers (J-turn and Fishhook) at two levels of passenger loading. A logistic regression risk model was developed based on the rollover outcomes of 86,000 single-vehicle crashes involving the make/models that were tested. The vehicles were characterized by their SSF measurements and binary variables indicating whether or not they had tipped up during the maneuver tests. It was found that the Fishhook test in the heavy (5 passenger equivalent) load was the most useful maneuver test for predicting rollover risk. The relative predictive powers of the SSF measurement and the Fishhook test were established by a logistic regression model operating on the rollover outcomes of real-world crash data. This model was used to predict the rollover rates of vehicles in the 2004 and 2005 NCAP program based on their SSF measurements and Fishhook maneuver test performance. The information in this paper first appeared in NHTSA’s Federal Register notice [1] that established the NCAP rollover resistance rating system for model year 2004. INTRODUCTIONPrior NCAP Program and the TREAD ActNHTSA’s NCAP program has been publishing comparative consumer information on frontal crashworthiness of new vehicles since 1979, on side crashworthiness since 1997, and on rollover resistance since January 2001.The 2001-2003 NCAP rollover resistance ratings were based on the Static Stability Factor (SSF) of a vehicle, which is the ratio of one half its track width to its center of gravity (C.G.) height. After an evaluation of some driving maneuver tests in 1997 and 1998, NHTSA chose to use SSF instead of any driving maneuvers to characterize rollover resistance. NHTSA chose SSF as the basis of NCAP ratings because it represents the first order factors that determine vehicle rollover resistance in the vast majority of rollovers which are tripped by impacts with curbs, soft soil, pot holes, guard rails, etc. or by wheel rims digging into the pavement. In contrast, untripped rollovers are those in which tire/road interface friction is the only external force acting on a vehicle that rolls over. Driving maneuver tests directly represent on-road untripped rollover crashes, but such crashes represent less than five percent of rollover crashes [2].At the time, NHTSA believed it was necessary to choose between SSF and driving maneuver tests as the basis for rollover resistance ratings. SSF was chosen because it had a number of advantages: it is highly correlated with actual crash statistics; it can be measured accurately and inexpensively and explained to consumers; and changes in vehicle design to improve SSF are unlikely to degrade other safety attributes. NHTSA also considered the fact that an improvement in SSF represents an increase in rollover resistance in both tripped and untripped circumstances while maneuver test performance can be improved by reduced tire traction and certain implementations of electronic stability control that it believes are much less likely than SSF improvements to increase resistance to tripped rollovers.Congress directed the agency to enhance the NCAP rollover resistance rating program. Section 12 of the “Transportation Recall, Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act of November 2000" directs the Secretary to “develop a dynamic test on rollovers by motor vehicles for a consumer information program; and carry out a program conducting such tests. As the Secretary develops a [rollover] test, the Secretary shall conduct a rulemaking to determine how best to disseminate test results to the public.” The rulemaking was to be carried out by November 1, 2002.Research and Public Comment on Dynamic Rollover TestsOn July 3, 2001, NHTSA published a Request for Comments notice (66 FR 35179) regarding its research plans to assess a number of possible dynamic rollover tests. The notice discussed the possible advantages and disadvantages of various approaches that had been suggested by manufacturers, consumer groups, and NHTSA’s prior research. The driving maneuver tests to be evaluated fit into two broad categories: closed-loop maneuvers in which all test vehicles attempt to follow the same path, and open-loop maneuvers in which all test vehicles are given equivalent steering inputs. The principal theme of the comments was a sharp division of opinion about whether the dynamic rollover test should be a closed loop maneuver test like the ISO 3888 double lane change that emphasizes the handling properties of vehicles or whether it should be an open loop maneuver like a J-Turn or Fishhook that are limit maneuvers in which vulnerable vehicles would actually tip up. Ford recommended a different type of closed loop lane change maneuver in which a path-following robot or a mathematical correction method would be used to evaluate all vehicles on the same set of paths at the same lateral acceleration. It used a measurement of partial wheel unloading without tip-up at 0.7g lateral acceleration as a performance criterion in contrast to the other closed loop maneuver tests that used maximum speed through the maneuver as the performance criterion. Another unique comment was a recommendation from Suzuki to use a sled test developed by Exponent Inc. to simulate tripped rollovers.The subsequent test program [3] (using four SUVs in various load conditions and with and without electronic stability control enabled on two of the SUVs) showed that open-loop maneuver tests using an automated steering controller could be performed with better repeatability of results than the other maneuver tests. The J-Turn maneuver and the Fishhook maneuver (with steering reversal at maximum vehicle roll angle) were found to be the most objective tests of the susceptibility of vehicles to maneuver-induced on-road rollover. Except for the Ford test, the closed loop tests were found not to measure rollover resistance. Instead, the evaluation criterion of maximum maneuver entrance speed measured just prior to entering a double lane change assessed vehicle agility. None of the test vehicles tipped up during runs in which they maintained the prescribed path even when loaded with roof ballast to experimentally reduce their rollover resistance. The speed scores of the test vehicles in the closed loop maneuvers were found to be unrelated to their resistance to tip-up in the open-loop maneuvers that actually caused tip-up. The test vehicle that was clearly the poorest performer in the maneuvers that caused tip-ups achieved the best score (highest speed) in the ISO 3888 and CU short course double lane change, and one vehicle improved its score in the ISO 3888 test when roof ballast was added to reduce its rollover resistance.Due to the non-limit test conditions and the averaging necessary for stable wheel force measurements, the wheel unloading measured in the Ford test appeared to be more quasi-static (as in driving in a circle at a steady speed or placing the vehicle on a centrifuge) than dynamic. Sled tests were not evaluated because NHTSA believed that SSF already provided a good indicator of resistance to tripped rollover. National Academy of Sciences StudyDuring the time NHTSA was evaluating dynamic maneuver tests in response the TREAD Act, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was conducting a study of the SSF-based rollover resistance ratings and was directed to make recommendations regarding driving maneuver tests. NHTSA expected the NAS recommendations to have a strong influence on TREAD-mandated changes to NCAP rollover resistance ratings.When NHTSA proposed the prior (SSF only) rollover resistance ratings in June 2000, vehicle manufacturers generally opposed it because they believed that SSF as a measure of rollover resistance is too simple since it does not include the effects of suspension deflections, tire traction and electronic stability control (ESC). In addition, the vehicle manufacturers argued that the influence of vehicle factors on rollover risk is too slight to warrant consumer information ratings for rollover resistance. In the conference report of the FY2001 DOT Appropriations Act, Congress permitted NHTSA tomove forward with its rollover rating program, but directed the agency to fund a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study on vehicle rollover ratings. The study topics were “whether the static stability factor is a scientifically valid measurement that presents practical, useful information to the public including a comparison of the static stability factor test versus a test with rollover metrics based on dynamic driving conditions that may induce rollover events.” The National Academy’s report was completed and made available at the end of February 2002 [4].The NAS study found that SSF is a scientifically valid measure of rollover resistance for which the underlying physics and real-world crash data are consistent with the conclusion that an increase in SSF reduces the likelihood of rollover. It also found that dynamic tests should complement static measures, such as SSF, rather than replace them in consumer information on rollover resistance. The dynamic tests the NAS recommended would be driving maneuvers used to assess “transient vehicle behavior leading to rollover.”The NAS study also made recommendations concerning the statistical analysis of rollover risk and the representation of ratings. It recommended that NHTSA use logistic regression rather than linear regression for analysis of the relationship between rollover risk and SSF, and it recommended that NHTSA consider a higher-resolution representation of the relationship between rollover risk and SSF than is provided by a five-star rating system. NHTSA published a Federal Register notice on October 7, 2002 (67 FR 62528) that proposed to modify the NCAP rollover resistance ratings to satisfy the requirements of the TREAD Act and to align it with the recommendation of the NAS report. NHTSA chose the J-Turn and Fishhook maneuver (with roll rate feedback) as the dynamic maneuver tests because they were the type of limit maneuver tests that could directly lead to rollover as recommended by the NAS. NHTSA also proposed to use a logistic regression analysis to determine the relationship between vehicle properties and rollover risk, as recommended by the NAS.DYNAMIC MANEUVER TESTS OF 25 VEHICLESThe original NCAP rollover resistance ratings predicted the rate of rollovers per single vehicle crash based on the SSF of vehicles. Stars were used to express rollover risk in rate increments of 10% (i.e., 2 stars for a predicted rollover rate between 30 and 40%, 3 stars for a predicted rollover rate between 20 and 30%, etc.). The relationship between rollover rate and SSF was determined using a linear regression between the logarithm of SSF and the actual rollover rates of 100 vehicle make/models [5]. The rollover rates were determined from 224,000 state crash reports and were corrected for differences between vehicles in demographic and road condition variables reported by the states.The idea for improving the prediction of rollover rate (the risk model) using dynamic maneuver tests was to describe the vehicle by its SSF plus a number of variables resulting from the vehicle’s behavior in the dynamic maneuvers. In that way, the risk model would consider more than just the geometric properties of the vehicle. Four binary variables were anticipated. They would describe whether the vehicle tipped up or did not in the J-turn and in the Fishhook maneuver, each performed with the vehicle in two passenger load configurations. The risk model for predicting rollover rate on the basis of SSF plus dynamic test results would be determined using logistic regression between the rollover outcomes of state crash reports of single vehicle crashes of a number of vehicles and the new set of vehicle attributes (SSF plus dynamic test variables). The expression of rollover risk by stars would continue with the same relationship between the number of stars and the predicted rollover rate.The linear regression, SSF only, risk model used crash data on 100 vehicles, but it was impractical to perform maneuver tests on that many vehicles to develop the present risk model. This section presents an overview of the test maneuvers and the results for the subset of 25 vehicles selected for developing the logistic regression risk model. A more extensive account of the test program is contained in the Phase VI and VII rollover research report [6]. The NHTSA J-Turn and Fishhook (with roll rate feedback) maneuver tests were performed for 25 vehicles representing four vehicle types including passenger cars, vans, pickup trucks and SUVs. NHTSA chose mainly high production vehicles that spanned a wide range of SSF values, using vehicles NHTSA already owned where possible. Except for four 2001 model year vehicles NHTSA purchased new, the vehicle suspensions were rebuilt with new springs and shock absorbers, and other parts as required for all the other vehicles included in the test program.J-Turn ManeuverThe NHTSA J-Turn maneuver represents anavoidance maneuver in which a vehicle is steered away from an obstacle using a single input. The maneuver is similar to the J-Turn used during NHTSA’s 1997-98 rollover research program and is a common maneuver in test programs conducted by vehicle manufacturers and others. Often the J-Turn is conducted with a fixed steering input (handwheel angle) for all test vehicles. In its 1997-98 testing, NHTSA used a fixed handwheel angle of 330 degrees. During the development of the present tests, NHTSA developed an objective method of specifying equivalent handwheel angles for J-Turn tests of various vehicles, taking into account their differences in steering ratio, wheelbase and linear range understeer properties [3]. Under this method, one first measures the handwheel angle that would produce a steady-state lateral acceleration of 0.3 g at 50 mph on a level paved surface for a particular vehicle. In brief, the 0.3 g value was chosen because the steering angle variability associated with this lateral acceleration is quite low and there is no possibility that stability control intervention could confound the test results. Since the magnitude of the handwheel position at 0.3 g is small, it must be multiplied by a scalar to have a high maneuver severity. In the case of the J-Turn, the handwheel angle at 0.3 g was multiplied by eight. When this scalar is multiplied by handwheel angles commonly observed at 0.3 g, the result is approximately 330 degrees. Figure 1 illustrates the J-Turn maneuver in terms of the automated steering inputs commanded by the programmable steering machine. The rate of the handwheel turning is 1000 degrees per second. To begin the maneuver, the vehicle was driven in astraight line at a speed slightly greater than the desired entrance speed. The driver released the throttle, coasted to the target speed, and then triggered the commanded handwheel input. The nominal maneuver entrance speeds used in the J-Turn maneuver ranged from 35 to 60 mph, increased in 5 mph increments until a termination condition was achieved. Termination conditions were simultaneous two inch or greater lift of a vehicle’s inside tires (two-wheel lift) or completion of a test performed at the maximum maneuver entrance speed without two-wheel lift. If two-wheel lift was observed, a downward iteration of vehicle speed was used in 1 mph increments until such lift was no longer detected. Once the lowest speed for which two-wheel lift could be detected was isolated, two additional tests were performed at that speed to monitor two-wheel lift repeatability.Fishhook ManeuverThe Fishhook maneuver uses steering inputs that approximate the steering a driver acting in panic might use in an effort to regain lane position after dropping two wheels off the roadway onto the shoulder. NHTSA has often described it as a road edge recovery maneuver. As pointed out by some commenters, it is performed on a smooth pavement rather than at a road edge drop-off, but its rapid steering input followed by an over-correction is representative of a general loss of control situation. The original version of this test was developed by Toyota, and variations of it were suggested by Nissan and Honda. NHTSA has experimented with several versions since 1997, and the present test includes roll rate feedback in order to time the counter-steer to coincide with the maximum roll angle of each vehicle in response to the first steer.Figure 2 describes the Fishhook maneuver in terms of the automated steering inputs commanded by the programmable steering machine and illustrates the roll rate feedback. The initial steering magnitude and countersteer magnitudes are symmetric, and are calculated by multiplying the handwheel angle that would produce a steady state lateral acceleration of 0.3 g at 50 mph on level pavement by 6.5. When this scalar is multiplied by handwheel angles commonly observed at 0.3 g, the result is approximately 270 degrees. This is equivalent to the 270 degree handwheel angle used in earlier forms of the maneuver but, as in the case of the J-Turn, the procedure above is an objective way of compensating for differences in steering gear ratio, wheelbase and understeer properties between vehicles. The fishhook maneuver dwell times (the time between completion of the initial steering ramp and the initiation of the countersteer) are defined by the roll motion of the vehicle being evaluated, and can vary on a test-to-test basis. This is made possible by having the steeringFigure 1. NHTSA J-turn maneuver description.machine monitor roll rate (roll velocity). If an initial steer is to the left, the steering reversal following completion of the first handwheel ramp occurs when the roll rate of the vehicle first equals or goes below 1.5 degrees per second. If an initial steer is to the right, the steering reversal following completion of the first handwheel ramp occurs when the roll rate of the vehicle first equals or exceeds -1.5 degrees per second. The handwheel rates of the initial steer and countersteer ramps are 720 degrees per second.To begin the maneuver, the vehicle was driven in astraight line at a speed slightly greater than the desired entrance speed. The driver released the throttle, coasted to the target speed, and then triggered the commanded handwheel input described in Figure 2. The nominal maneuver entrance speeds used in the fishhook maneuver ranged from 35 to 50 mph, increased in 5 mph increments until a termination condition was achieved. Termination conditions included simultaneous two inch or greater lift of a vehicle’s inside tires (two-wheel lift) or completion of a test performed at the maximum maneuver entrance speed without two-wheel lift. If two-wheel lift was observed, a downward iteration of vehicle speed was used in 1 mph increments until such lift was no longer detected. Once the lowest speed for which two-wheel lift could be detected was isolated, two additional tests were performed at that speed to check two-wheel lift repeatability.NHTSA observed that during the Fishhook tests, excessive steering caused some vehicles to reach their maximum roll angle response to the initial steering input before it had been fully completed (this is essentially equivalent to a “negative” T1 in Figure 2). Since dwell time duration can have a significant effect on how the Fishhook maneuver’s ability to produce two-wheel lift, excessive steering may stifle the most severe timing of the counter steer for some vehicles. In an attempt to better insure high maneuver severity, a number of vehicles that did not produce two-wheel lift with steering inputs calculated with the 6.5 multiplier were also tested with lesser steering angles by reducing the multiplier to 5.5. This change increased the dwell times observed during the respective maneuvers. Some vehicles tipped up in Fishhook maneuvers conducted at the lower steering angle (5.5 multiplier) but not at the higher steering angle (6.5 multiplier). NHTSA adopted the practice of performing Fishhook maneuvers at both steering angles for NCAP. Loading ConditionsThe vehicles were tested in each maneuver in two load conditions in order to create four levels of stringency in the suite of maneuver tests. The light load was the test driver plus instrumentation in the front passenger seat, which represented two occupants. A heavier load was used to create a higher level of stringency for each test. In our NPRM, NHTSA announced that the heavy load would include 175 lb anthropomorphic forms (water dummies) in all rear seat positions. During the test of the 25 vehicles, it became obvious that heavy load tests were being run at very unequal load conditions especially between vans and other vehicles (two water dummies in some vehicles but six water dummies in others). While very heavy passenger loads can certainly reduce rollover resistance and potentially cause special problems, crashes at those loads are too few to greatly influence the overall rollover rate of vehicles. Over 94% of van rollovers in our 293,000 crash database occurred with five or fewer occupants, and over 99% of rollovers of other vehicles occurred with five or fewer occupants. The average passenger load of vehicles in our crash database was less than two: 1.81 for vans; 1.54 for SUVs; 1.48 for cars; and 1.35 for pickup trucks. In order to use the maneuver tests to predict real-world rollover rates, it seemed inappropriate to test theFigure 2. NHTSA Fishhook maneuver description.vehicles under widely differing loads that did not correspond to the real-world crash statistics. Therefore, the tests used to develop a statistical model of rollover risk were changed to a uniform heavy load condition of three water dummies (representing a 5-occupant loading) for all vehicles capable of carrying at least five occupants. Some vehicles were loaded with only two water dummies because they were designed for four occupants. For pickup trucks, water dummies were loaded in the bed at approximately the same height as a passenger in the front seat.Test ResultsThe test results in Table 1 (presented on the next page) reflect the performance as described for a heavy load condition representing five occupants except for the Ford Explorer 2DR, the Chevrolet Tracker and Metro that were designed for only four occupants, and the Honda CRV, Honda Civic and Chevrolet Cavalier that could not be loaded to the 5-occupant level without exceeding a gross axle weight rating because of the additional weight of the outriggers.Each test vehicle in Table 1 represented a generation of vehicles whose model year range is given. Twenty-four of the vehicles were taken from 100 vehicle groups whose 1994-98 crash statistics in six states were the basis of the present SSF based rollover resistance ratings. The nominal SSFs used to describe the vehicle groups in the prior statistical studies are given. While there were some variations between the SSFs of the individual test vehicles and the nominal vehicle group SSF values, the nominal SSFs were retained for the present statistical analyses because they represent vehicles produced over a wide range of years in many cases and provide a simple comparison between the risk model presented in this notice and that discussed in the previous notices. The X’s under the various test maneuver names indicate which vehicles tipped up during the tests. Eleven of the twenty-five vehicles tipped up in the Fishhook maneuver conducted in the heavy condition. The heavy condition represented a five-occupant load for all vehicles except the six mentioned above that were limited to a four-occupant load by the vehicle seating positions and GVWR. All eleven were among the sixteen test vehicles with SSFs less than 1.20. None of the vehicles with higher SSFs tipped up in any test maneuver. The Fishhook test under the heavy load clearly had the greatest potential to cause tip-up. The groups of vehicles that tipped up in other tests were subsets of the larger group of eleven that tipped up in the Fishhook Heavy test. There were seven vehicles in the group that tipped up in the J-Turn Heavy test, six of which also tipped up in the Fishhook Light test. The J-Turn Light test had the least potential to tip up vehicles. Only three vehicles tipped up, all of which had tipped up in every other test.ROLLOVER RISK MODELIn its study of NHTSA’s rating system for rollover resistance [4], the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended that NHTSA use logistic regression rather than linear regression for analysis of the relationship between rollover risk and SSF. Logistic regression has the advantage that it operates on every crash data point directly rather than requiring that the crash data be aggregated by vehicle and state into a smaller number of data points. For example, NHTSA now has state data reports of about 293,000 single-vehicle crashes of the hundred vehicle make/models (together with their corporate cousins) whose single-vehicle crashes NHTSA have been tracking in six states. The logistic regression analysis of this data would have a sample size of 293,000, producing a narrow confidence interval on the repeatability of the relationship between SSF and rollover rate. In contrast, the linear regression analysis operates on the rollover rate of the hundred vehicle make/models in each of the six states. It produces a maximum sample size of only 600 (100 vehicles times six states) minus the number of samples for which fewer than 25 crashes were available for determining the rollover rate (a data quality control practice). Confidence limits computed for a data sample size of 600 will be much greater than those based on a sample size of 293,000. On average, each sample in the linear regression analysis was computed from over 400 crash report samples. However, ordinary techniques to compute the confidence intervals of linear regression results do not take into account the actual sample size represented by aggregated data. The statistical model created to combine SSF and dynamic test information in the prediction of rollover risk was computed by means of logistic regression as recommended by the NAS. Logistic regression is well suited to the correlation with crash data of vehicle properties that include both continuous variables like SSF and binary variables like tip-up or no tip-up in maneuver tests.NHTSA had previously considered logistic regression during the development of the SSF based rating system [4], but found that it consistently under-predicted the actual rollover rate at the low end of the。

OMCL Network of the Council of Europe QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTPA/PH/OMCL (06) 86 DEFQUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENTANNEX 2: QUALIFICATION OF GC EQUIPMENTFull document title and reference Qualification of EquipmentAnnex 2: Qualification of GC Equipment PA/PH/OMCL (06) 86 DEFDocument type GuidelineLegislative basis The present document was also accepted by EA asrecommendation document to be used in the context of QualityManagement System audits of OMCLsDate of first adoption May 2006Date of original entryinto forceJune 2006Date of entry into forceof revised documentOctober 2006Previous titles/other references This document replaces part of document PA/PH/OMCL (06) 46 DEFCustodian Organisation The present document was elaborated by the OMCL Network/EDQM of the Council of EuropeConcerned Network GEONANNEX 2 OF THE OMCL NETWORK GUIDELINE“QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT”QUALIFICATION OF GC EQUIPMENTIntroductionThe present document is the second Annex of the core document “Qualification of Equipment”, and it should be used in combination with it when planning, performing and documenting the GC equipment qualification process.The core document contains the general introduction and the Level I and II of qualification, common to all type of instruments, and the present annex contains GC instrument-related recommendations on parameters to be checked and the corresponding typical acceptance limits, as well as practical examples on the methodology that can be used to carry out these checks.The tests proposed in the Level III and IV of qualification are based on an overall approach, in which several parameters are checked at the same time in a combined test procedure, to obtain information on the overall system performance (e.g. peak area precision, retention time precision, temperature programme reproducibility, etc).Nevertheless, it should be noted that it is also acceptable to check these parameters individually by using other well-defined procedures.TABLE IIILevel III. Periodic and motivated instrument checksExamples of requirements for GC instruments with FIDInstrument moduleParameter to be checkedTypical tolerance limits 1.1 Injector leak testPressure drop ≤ 15 kPa within 5 minutes 1.2. Pressure/flow accuracy and stabilityCovered by overall test 1 1.3. Repeatability of injection (overall test 1) - In split mode- In split less modeRSD ≤ 3.0% RSD ≤ 3.0%1.4. Injector temperature accuracy and stability Covered by overall test 2 1. Inlet system1.5. Carry-over (overall test 3) ≤ 0.2%2. Oven2.1. Repeatability of oven temperaturecharacteristicsCovered by overall test 23.1. Linearity (overall test 3) r 2 ≥ 0.9993.2. Constant detector response Covered by overall test 1 or 2 3.3. Noise See Annex I 3. FID detector3.3. DriftSee Annex ITABLE IV Level IV. In-use instrument checksExamples of requirements for GC instruments with FIDParameter to be checked Typical tolerance limits1. System suitability check for the method According to Ph. Eur. or MAH dossier or validated in-house method2. Peak area precision RSD ≤3.0% unless otherwise prescribed*3. Retention time repeatability RSD ≤ 2.0%4. Sensitivity (where relevant, e.g. for related substances tests) According to Ph. Eur. or MAH dossier or validated in-house methodAll parameters given here should be checked when performing analyses under the working conditions for the actual sample determinations. Normally, the test and reference solutions to be prepared for this purpose are given as a part of the method.ANNEX ILevel III. Periodic and motivated instrument checksPractical examples of tests and their associated tolerance limits for several parameters related to the performance of the different modules of a GC are presented below.These examples can be considered by the OMCLs as possible approaches to perform the Level III of the equipment qualification process: “Periodic and motivated instrument checks”.Several tests are proposed to check various parameters at the same time (overall tests). In order to run the tests in a more economical way, other suitable solutions can be used, as for example, the “Grob Test” mixture, available from different suppliers (e.g. Alltech, Sigma, Thames Restek). This commercial solution should be appropriate to the column material used.It is recommended to run the overall tests by using always the same test column, exclusively dedicated to qualification purposes, to guarantee reproducible conditions.1. INLET SYSTEMThe following tests are proposed for the periodic and motivated check of the GC Inlet System.1.1. INJECTOR LEAK TESTMethod:If not otherwise specified by the instrument manufacturer, the leak test is carried out according to the procedure laid down in the instrument manual or by the built in automatic leak check procedure of the instrument.Otherwise use the test described below:Disconnect the column from the injector and close the injector outlet with a sealed cap. Close the septum purge and the bypass.Adjust the flow and pressure controller to the maximal possible value of the pressure gauge. Adjust the flow controller to zero.Read the pressure after 1 minute and record the value.Record the pressure after 5 minutes.Limits:Pressure drop ≤ 15 kPa within 5 minutes.1.2. INLET PRESSURE/FLOW ACCURACY AND STABILITYA direct measurement of these parameters was not deemed practical or necessary, but the optimal conditions of flow/pressure can be verified by the overall test 1.Limits: refer to overall test 1.1.3. REPEATABILITY OF INJECTIONThe verification of this parameter is covered by the overall test 1.This test is to be performed in both split and split less mode.Limits: refer to overall test 1.1.4. INJECTOR TEMPERATURE ACCURACY AND STABILITYDue to the fact that the temperature cannot be reliably measured without opening and modifying the system and due to the difficulties of introducing a probe inside this module, the verification of this parameter is considered to be covered by the overall test 2.Limits: refer to overall test 2.1.5. INJECTOR CARRY OVERAfter having injected the solutions for the linearity test of the FID detector, in increasing order, inject the blank and measure the peaks that correspond to the major peaks (= analytes) in the linearity solutions.The verification of this parameter is covered by the overall test 3.Limits: refer to overall test 3.2. OVEN2.1. REPEATABILITY OF THE OVEN TEMPERATURE CHARACTERISTICSDue to the fact that the temperature cannot be reliably measured without opening and modifying the system conditions and that even when introducing a probe inside the oven, its location would not reflect the real temperature conditions at all points, the verification of this parameter is covered by the overall tests 2A and 2B.Limits: refer to overall test 2.3. FID DETECTORThe following tests are proposed for the periodic and motivated check of the GC FID detector.3.1. FID DETECTOR LINEARITYIncreasing amounts of analyte are injected and a linear response should be obtained.The verification of this parameter is covered by the overall test 3.Limits: refer to overall test 3.3.2. CONSTANT FID DETECTOR RESPONSEThe proper and reproducible functioning of the FID can be demonstrated by checking the peak areas obtained from a pre-defined standard solution.The verification of this parameter is covered by the overall test 1 or 2.Limits: refer to overall test 1 or 2.3.3. FID DETECTOR NOISE AND DRIFTIf the instrument has a built-in automatic system for the verification of the noise and drift, follow the manufacturer’s instructions and apply the defined acceptance criteria. Otherwise, use the test described below:Settings:Column installedSuitable flow, depending on column length/diameterNo injectionOven temperature: 40°CDetector on and heated at working temperature (270-300°C)Method:After stabilisation of the system, record the signal for 15 minutes.Noise: evaluate 10 periods of 1 minute and calculate the mean value.Drift: evaluate the slope of the baseline over the 15 minutes.Limits:The acceptance criteria for these parameters have to be chosen in accordance with the instrument vendor’s instructions and the intended use of the instrument. If no instructions are given, the user has to pre-define these acceptance criteria by taking into account the previous experience and the intended use of the instrument.No fixed values can be pre-defined in this guideline due to the high variety of integration systems used and consequently the acceptance criteria may be expressed in different units (voltage, current, arbitrary units per time).OVERALL TEST 1The overall test 1 covers the following parameters:-Pressure/flow accuracy and stability in the inlet system: Retention time repeatability -Repeatability of injection: peak area precision-In split mode-In split less modeThe test may be combined with overall test 3.Split mode:Test solution:1-octanol in n-hexane 1% (v/v).Settings:Column: SPB-1 (30m x 0.32mm ID x 0.25µm film)Carrier gas: HeVelocity: 25cm/secSplit: 1:100Injection: 1µlInjector temperature: 220°COven temperature: 100°C isothermDetector temperature: 300°CRuntime: 8 minRetention time of 1-octanol: about 5 minSplit less mode:Stock solution: 1-octanol in n-hexane 1% (v/v)Test solution: Dilute 10 ml of the stock solution with n-hexane to 100 ml (corresponds to 1µl/ml of 1-octanol in n-hexane)Settings:Column: SPB-1, 30m, 0.32mm ID, 0.25µm filmCarrier: HeVelocity: 30cm/secSplit less injection: purge valve closed during 2 minInjection: 0.2µl of the test solutionInjector Temperature: 220°COven Temperature: Initial 60°C for 4 min, 15°C/min. up to 135°C, final time 1min Detector temperature: 300°CRuntime: 9.5 minRetention time of 1-octanol: about 8 minMethod:Carry out 6 consecutive injections of the test solution and calculate the RSD of the different peak areas and retention times.Limits:Retention time repeatability: the RSD of the retention times should be ≤ 2.0%Peak area precision (split and split less mode): the RSD of the peak areas should be ≤3.0% OVERALL TEST 2The overall test 2 covers the following parameters:-Injector, oven and detector temperature accuracy and stability: retention time repeatabilityTwo alternative tests are proposed:Overall test 2ATest solution:0.035 ml 1-octanol0.035 ml 2-octanone0.035 ml 2,6-dimethylanilin0.035 ml n-tridecane0.035 ml n-tetradecane35 mg n-eicosanedissolved in 50 ml DichloromethaneSettings:Column: SPB-1 (30m x 0.32mm ID x 0.25µm film)Carrier gas: HeliumVelocity: 25 cm/sSplit: 1:100Injection volume: 1 µlInjector temperature: 220°CDetector: FIDDetector temperature: 300°CGradient programme: 60°C (4 min), 5°C/min, 270°C (3 min)Method:Inject the solution twice and calculate the relative retention times in relation to n-eicosane (RRT = 1)The following table shows the approximately expected relative retention times.Analyte 1-octanol 2-octanone 2,6-dimethylaniline n-tridecane n-tetradecane RRT 0.30 0.22 0.37 0.52 0.60 Limits:The RSD of each RRT from two consecutive injections should be ≤1.0%Overall test 2BTest Solution:1.0% (W/W) n-Nonane and Hexadecane in Tetradecane.Settings:Column: Ultra-1 (25m x 0.32mm ID x 0.52µm film)Injection volume: 1 µlSolvent: TetradecaneOven temperature: 110°CGradient programme: 110°C, 20°C/min, 180°C (final time: 3.5 min)Detector temperature: 250°CInjector temperature: 200°CDetector: FIDFlow rates: Carrier gas (Helium): 2 ± 0.2 ml/minHydrogen: 30 ± 1.0 ml/minAir: 400 ± 20.0 ml/minMakeup (Nitrogen): 28 ± 1.0 ml/minSplit ratio: 15Split vent: 30 ± 3.0 ml/minSeptum purge: 3-5 ml/minMethod:Allow the system to equilibrate.Injection sequence:1)blank (Tetradecane)2) 6 replicates of the test solution. Calculate the mean of the retention times and peakareas and the relative standard deviation of n-Nonane and n-Hexadecane.Limits:Retention time repeatability: RSD of the peak retention times of the 6 replicates ≤ 2% Retention time (Rt) accuracy: for this example, the retention time ranges shown in the table below are proposed. Nevertheless, individual ranges should be predefined by the laboratory depending on the column used (e.g. Rt ± 0.2 min).Compound Rt (min)n-Nonane (C9) 1.3 – 1.7Tetradecane (C14) 4.0 – 4.7Hexadecane (C16) 5.1 – 6.0OVERALL TEST 3This test is a modified version of the overall test 1 to be used for the verification of: -Detector linearity: linearity of the areas recorded-Injector carry-over: area recorded in the blank runIt is described for both split and split less mode and may be combined with overall test 1. Split mode:Test solution: 1-octanol in n-hexane 1% (v/v)Prepare further reference solutions by diluting the test solution as described below. Settings: see overall test 1Injection sequence:5.0 ml of the test solution diluted to 25.0 ml with n-hexane (2 µl/ml): 2 injections10.0 ml of the test solution diluted to 25.0 ml with n-hexane (4 µl/ml): 2 injections15.0 ml of the test solution diluted to 25.0 ml with n-hexane (6 µl/ml): 2 injections20.0 ml of the test solution diluted to 25.0 ml with n-hexane (8 µl/ml): 2 injectionsi f combined with overall test 1 for repeatability: test solution (10 µl/ml): 6 injectionsn-hexane as blank (carry over)PA/PH/OMCL (06) 86 DEF - OMCL Guideline on Qualification of GC equipment (Annex 2) Split less mode:Stock solution: 1-octanol in n-hexane 1% (v/v)Test solution: Dilute 10 ml of the stock solution with n-hexane to 100 ml (corresponds to 1µl/ml of 1-octanol in n-hexane).Prepare further reference solutions by diluting the test solution with n-hexane.Settings: see overall test 1Injection sequence:5.0 ml of the test solution diluted to 25.0 ml with n-hexane (0.2 µl/ml): 2 injections10.0 ml of the test solution diluted to 25.0 ml with n-hexane (0.4 µl/ml): 2 injections15.0 ml of the test solution diluted to 25.0 ml with n-hexane (0.6 µl/ml): 2 injections20.0 ml of the test solution diluted to 25.0 ml with n-hexane (0.8 µl/ml): 2 injectionsif combined with overall test 1 for repeatability: test solution (1 µl/ml): 6 injectionsn-hexane as blank (carry over)Limits:Linearity: coefficient of correlation of the calibration line obtained with the reference solutions and the test solution: r2≥ 0.999.Carry-over: the percentage of the peak area corresponding to the analyte in the blank solution should be ≤ 0.2% of the peak area of this analyte in the chromatogram obtained with the solution with the highest concentration within the sequence.October 2006Page 11 of 11。

大气科学系微机应用基础Primer of microcomputer applicationFORTRAN77程序设计FORTRAN77 Program Design大气科学概论An Introduction to Atmospheric Science大气探测学基础Atmospheric Sounding流体力学Fluid Dynamics天气学Synoptic Meteorology天气分析预报实验Forecast and Synoptic analysis生产实习Daily weather forecasting现代气候学基础An introduction to modern climatology卫星气象学Satellite meteorologyC语言程序设计 C Programming大气探测实验Experiment on Atmospheric Detective Technique云雾物理学Physics of Clouds and fogs动力气象学Dynamic Meteorology计算方法Calculation Method诊断分析Diagnostic Analysis中尺度气象学Meso-Microscale Synoptic Meteorology边界层气象学Boundary Layer Meteorology雷达气象学Radar Meteorology数值天气预报Numerical Weather Prediction气象统计预报Meteorological Statical Prediction大气科学中的数学方法Mathematical Methods in Atmospheric Sciences专题讲座Seminar专业英语English for Meteorological Field of Study计算机图形基础Basic of computer graphics气象业务自动化Automatic Weather Service空气污染预测与防治Prediction and Control for Air Pollution现代大气探测Advanced Atmospheric Sounding数字电子技术基础Basic of Digital Electronic Techniqul大气遥感Remote Sensing of Atmosphere模拟电子技术基础Analog Electron Technical Base大气化学Atmospheric Chemistry航空气象学Areameteorology计算机程序设计Computer Program Design数值预报模式与数值模拟Numerical Model and Numerical Simulation接口技术在大气科学中的应用Technology of Interface in Atmosphere Sciences Application海洋气象学Oceanic Meteorology现代实时天气预报技术（MICAPS系统）Advanced Short-range Weather Forecasting Technique(MICAPS system)1) atmospheric precipitation大气降水2) atmosphere science大气科学3) atmosphere大气1.The monitoring and study of atmosphere characteristics in near space as an environment forspace weapon equipments and system have been regarded more important for battle support.随着临近空间飞行器的不断发展和运用,作为武器装备和系统环境的临近空间大气特性成为作战保障的重要条件。

万方数据万方数据万方数据万方数据万方数据高敏感心肌肌钙蛋白检测的临床应用作者：鄢盛恺， YAN Sheng-kai作者单位：卫生部中日友好医院检验科,北京,100029刊名：中华检验医学杂志英文刊名：CHINESE JOURNAL OF LABORATORY MEDICINE年，卷(期)：2010,33(9)被引用次数：10次1.鄢盛恺心脏标志物的临床应用与发展[期刊论文]-中国心血管杂志 2009(5)2.潘柏申;杨振华;吴健民冠状动脉疾病和心力衰竭时心脏标志物临床检测应用建议[期刊论文]-中华检验医学杂志 2006(9)3.鄢盛恺美国临床生化科学院检验医学实践指南:急性冠状动脉综合征和心力衰竭的生物标志物 20094.Morrow DA;Cannon CP;Jesse RL National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines:clinical characteristics and utilization of biochemical markers in acute coronary syndromes 20075.James S;Flodin M;Johnston N The antibody configurations of cardiac troponin I assays may determine their clinical performance[外文期刊] 20066.Christenson RH;Duh SH;Apple FS Toward standardization of cardiac troponin I measurements partⅡ:assessing commutability of candidate reference materials and harmonization of cardiac troponin I assays[外文期刊] 20067.Cobbaert CM;Weykanp CW;Michielsen EC Timedependent instability of cardiac troponins in human plasma spiked with NIST reference material 2921 20088.Panteghini M;Bunk DM;Christenson RH Standardization of troponin I measurements:an update[外文期刊] 2008(11)9.Tate JR;Bunk DM;Christenson RH Standardization of cardiac troponin I measurement:past and present 201010.Alpert JS;Thygesen K;Antman E Myocardial infarction redefined:a consensus document of The Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction[外文期刊] 2000(3)11.Thygesen K;Alpert JS;White HD Universal definition ofmyocardial infarction[外文期刊] 200712.Apple FS A new season for cardiac troponin assays:it's time to keep a scorecard[外文期刊] 200913.Bass A;Patterson JH;Adams KF Jr Perspective on the clinical application of troponin in heart failure and states of cardiac injury 201014.Clerico A;Giannoni A;Prontera C High-sensitivity troponin:a new tool for pathophysiological investigation and clinical practice 200915.Panteghini M Assay-related issues in the measurement of cardiac troponins 200916.Morrow DA;Antman EM Evaluation of high-sensitivity assays for cardiac troponin 200917.Reichlin T;Hochholzer W;Bassetti S Early diagnosis of myocardial infarction with sensitive cardiac troponin assays 200918.Keller T;Zeller T;Peetz D Sensitive troponin I assay in early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction 200919.Sabatine MS;Morrow DA;de Lemos JA Detection of acute changes in circulating troponin in the setting of transient stress test-induced myocardial ischaemia using an ultrasensitive assay:results from TIMI 35 200920.Apple FS;Pearce LA;Smith SW Role of monitoring changes in sensitive cardiac troponin I assay results for early diagnosis of myocardial infarction and prediction of risk of adverse events 2009 21.Hjortshφj S;Dethlefsen C;Kristensen SR Improved assay of cardiac troponin I is more sensitive than other assays of necrosis markers 200822.Hollander JE Highly sensitive troponins the answer or just more questions 200923.Morrow DA;Cannon CP;Rifai N Ability of minor elevations of troponin I and T to predict benefit from an early invasive strategy in patients with unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction:results from a randomized trial 200124.Apple FS;Smith SW;Pearce LA Use of the centaur TnI-Ultra assay for detection of myocardial infarction and adverse events in patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome[外文期刊] 200825.Wu AH;Lu QA;Todd J Short-and long-term biological variation in cardiac troponin I measured with a high-sensitivity assay:Implications for clinical practice[外文期刊] 2009(1)26.Schultze AE;Konrad RJ;Credille KM Ultrasensitive crossspecies measurement of cardiac troponin I using the erenna immunoassay system 200827.Berridge BR;Pettit S;Walker DB A translational approach to detecting drug-induced cardiac injury with cardiac troponins:consensus and recommendations from the Cardiac Troponins Biomarker Working Group of the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute 200928.Venge P;Johnston N;Lindahl B Normal plasma levels of cardiac troponin I measured by the high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I access prototype assay and the impact on the diagnosis of myocardial ischemia 200929.Eggers KM;Jaffe AS;Lind L Value of cardiac troponin I cutoff concentrations below the 99th percentile for clinical decision-making[外文期刊] 2009(1)30.Apple FS;Quist HE;Doyle PJ Plasma 99th percentile reference limits for cardiac troponin and creatine kinase MB mass for use with European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Consensus Recommendations[外文期刊] 200331.Vasile VC;Saenger AK;Kroning JM Biological and analytical variability of a novel high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T assay 201032.Eriksson S;Ⅱva T;Becker C Comparison of cardiac troponin I immunoassays affected by circulating autoantibodies 200533.Makaryus AN;Makaryus MN;Hassid B Falsely elevated cardiac troponin I levels[外文期刊] 200734.Jaffe A;Apple FS High-sensitivity cardiac troponin:hype,help,and reality 201035.Panteghini M;Hicks JM Biochemical markers in clinical cardiology:perspectives from present tofuture 200836.Plebani M;Zaninotto M Cardiac troponins:what we knew,what we know-where are we now 20091.潘柏申.PAN Bai-shen迎接高敏感方法检测心肌肌钙蛋白时代的到来[期刊论文]-中华检验医学杂志2010,33(9)2.宋凌燕.吴炯.宋斌斌.邵文琦.张春燕.王蓓丽.郭玮.潘柏申.SONG Ling-yan.WU Jiong.SONG Bin-bin.SHAO Wen-qi.ZHANG Chun-yan.WANG Bei-li.GUO Wei.PAN Bai-shen高敏感方法检测心肌肌钙蛋白T的分析性能评价[期刊论文]-中华检验医学杂志2010,33(9)3.吴炯.宋凌燕.张春燕.郭玮.宋斌斌.王蓓丽.唐斌.西雁.潘柏申.WU Jiong.SONG Ling-yan.ZHANG Chun-yan.GUO Wei.SONG Bin-bin.WANG Bei-li.TANG Bin.XI Yan.PAN Bai-shen高敏感心肌肌钙蛋白T检测方法在诊断急性心肌梗死中的价值[期刊论文]-中华检验医学杂志2010,33(9)4.张春燕.宋凌燕.吴炯.宋斌斌.王蓓丽.唐斌.郭玮.潘柏申.ZHANG Chun-yan.SONG Ling-yan.WU Jiong.SONG Bin-bin.WANG Bei-li.TANG Bin.GUO Wei.PAN Bai-shen三种敏感的心肌肌钙蛋白Ⅰ检测方法分析性能评价及临床应用[期刊论文]-中华检验医学杂志2010,33(9)5.刘泽金.郑芳.张真路.范庆坤.王纯.LIU Ze-jin.ZHENG Fang.ZHANG Zhen-lu.FAN Qing-kun.WANG Chun碱性磷酸酶对肌钙蛋白Ⅰ测定干扰的评价[期刊论文]-中华检验医学杂志2010,33(9)6.宋凌燕.吴炯.郭玮高敏感心肌肌钙蛋白检测方法的临床应用[期刊论文]-检验医学2010,25(8)7.张括.王露楠.ZHANG Kuo.WANG Lu-nan定性免疫测定的试剂性能评价方法[期刊论文]-中华检验医学杂志2010,33(9)8.门剑龙.任静.MEN Jian-long.REN Jing D-二聚体临床应用及标准化分析进展[期刊论文]-中华检验医学杂志2010,33(8)1.张云.刘君.刘敏.高兴.黄敏.李晓燕.赵强元入院即刻cTnI检测"灰区"结果的研究[期刊论文]-现代检验医学杂志 2013(5)2.唐红霞.贾克刚.韩雪晶.何聪.尚子轶.甄利PATHFAST检测系统检测高敏感心肌肌钙蛋白Ⅰ的分析性能评价[期刊论文]-检验医学 2013(7)3.蔡迪娅.邱晓明.苏月梅.王宗泽.常艳敏ADVIA Centaur超敏肌钙蛋白Ⅰ测试法的性能分析及临床应用评价[期刊论文]-天津医药 2011(12)4.刘英丽.张静.于勇.朱静.王秋萍3种便携式仪器测定心肌肌钙蛋白Ⅰ性能的评价[期刊论文]-感染、炎症、修复2011(2)5.张绍武.宁洁.李治国.邹丽娟.张浩充血性心力衰竭患者血清高敏肌钙蛋白T水平变化及其临床意义[期刊论文]-陕西医学杂志 2013(12)6.张东浩.李影生化标志物检测在急性心肌梗死(AMI)诊断中的应用[期刊论文]-中国实用医药 2012(26)7.邱彬.杨云勇心肌损伤标志物联合检测在急性心肌梗死诊断中的应用[期刊论文]-中国初级卫生保健 2011(4)8.曾桂胜.陈肇杰.张保红.冼土生.刘尉.冯广满超敏心肌肌钙蛋白T在急性冠状动脉综合征诊断中的应用[期刊论文]-热带医学杂志 2013(2)9.李萌辉高敏心肌肌钙蛋白的临床研究进展[期刊论文]-国际检验医学杂志 2013(12)10.杨苏萍DVH参数联合血清生化指标预测放射性心脏损伤的研究进展[期刊论文]-中国心血管病研究 2013(12)引用本文格式：鄢盛恺.YAN Sheng-kai高敏感心肌肌钙蛋白检测的临床应用[期刊论文]-中华检验医学杂志2010(9)。

地球物理学的英语Geophysics is the scientific study of the Earth and its surrounding space environment, using the principles of physics to understand the processes that shape our planet. This field encompasses a wide range of topics, from the composition and structure of the Earth's deep interior to the behavior of its atmosphere and oceans.One of the key areas in geophysics is seismology, which focuses on the study of earthquakes and the propagation of elastic waves through the Earth. By analyzing seismic waves, scientists can learn about the Earth's internal layers, including the crust, mantle, and core. This information is crucial for understanding the tectonic processes that can lead to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.Another important aspect of geophysics is the study of the Earth's magnetic field, which is generated by the motion of molten iron in the planet's core. This field, known as geomagnetism, is essential for navigation and plays a protective role by deflecting solar wind and cosmic rays. Variations in the Earth's magnetic field can also provide insights into past geological events and the dynamics of the Earth's core.Geophysicists also explore the Earth's gravitational field, which can be affected by the distribution of mass within the Earth. Gravimetry, the measurement ofgravitational forces, is used to detect subsurface structures, such as oil reservoirs or mineral deposits, and to study the Earth's crust and mantle.In addition to these core areas, geophysics intersectswith other disciplines, such as meteorology, oceanography,and space physics. For example, the study of the Earth's atmosphere and its interaction with solar radiation is a part of atmospheric physics. Meanwhile, the study of the Earth's ionosphere and magnetosphere falls under the domain of space physics.Technological advancements have greatly enhanced the capabilities of geophysics. Seismic imaging techniques, satellite remote sensing, and computational modeling are just a few of the tools that have expanded our understanding ofthe Earth's complex systems.The applications of geophysics are vast, ranging from natural hazard prediction and mitigation to resource exploration and environmental monitoring. As our knowledge of the Earth's processes deepens, so too does our ability to address the challenges posed by a changing planet.。

001工程测量engineering survey002测量学surveying003普通测量学elementary surveying004地形测量学topography005测量控制网surveying control network006平面控制网（又称“水平控制网”)horizontal control network 007高程控制网vertical control network008平面控制点horizontal control point009高程控制点vertical control point010平面坐标horizontal coordinate011控制测量control survey012地形测量topographic survey013三边网trilateration network014边角网triangulateration network015导线网traverse networt016三边测量trilateration survey017边角测量triangulateration018导线测量traverse survey019水平角horizontal angle020垂直角vertical angle021点之记description of station022测站station023测站归心station centring024照难点归心sighting centring025照准点sighting point026闭合导线closed traverse027附合导线connecting traverse028支导线open traverse029经纬仪导线theodolite traverse030视差导线subtense traverse031视距导线stadia traverse032平板仪导线plane-table traverse033距离测量distance measurement034电磁波测距electro-magnetic distance measurement 035标准检定场standard field of length036光电测距导线EDM traverse037小三角测量minor triangulation038线形锁linear triangulation chain039线形网linear triangulation network040图根控制mapping control041导线边traverse leg042导线折角traverse angle043导线结点junction point of traverses044导线曲折系数meandering coefficient of traverse045导线角度闭合差angle closing error of traverse046导线全长闭合差total length closing error of traverse 047导线相对闭合差relative length closing error of traverse 048导线纵向误差longitudinal error of traverse049导线横向误差lateral error of traverse050控制点control point051导线点traverse point052图根点mapping control point053高程点elevation point054碎部点detail point055图解图根点graphic mapping control point056解析图根点analytic mapping control point057坐标增量increment of coordinate058坐标增量闭合差closing error in coordinate increment059前方交会［forward］intersection060侧方交会side intersection061后方交会resection062边角交会法linear—angular intersection063边交会法linear intersection064贝塞尔法Bessel method065莱曼法Lehmann method066横基尺视差法subtense method with horizontal staff067竖基尺视差法subtense method with vertical staff068复测法repetition method069高程控制测量vertical control survey070水难测量leveling071附合水准路线annexed leveling line072闭合水准路线closed leveling line073支水准路线spur leveling line074水准网leveling network075视线高程elevation of sight076多角高程导线polygonal height traverse077独立交会高程点elevation point by independent intersection 078高程导线height traverse079严密平差rigorous adjustment080近似平差approximate adjustment081典型图形平差adjustment of typical figures082等权代替法method of equal-weight substitution083多边形平差法adjustment by method of polygon084结点平差adjustment by method of junction point085工程控制网engineering control network086施工控制网construction control network087三维网three一dimensional network088变形观测控制网control network for deformation observation 089勘测设计阶段测量survey in teconnaissance and design stage090施工测量construction survey091竣工测量finish construction survey092纵断面测量profile survey093横断面测量cross-section surveyo5。

磨损伤害常数的英语Wear Damage Constant: A Technical Overview.In the realm of engineering and materials science, the wear damage constant is a crucial parameter that quantifies the rate of material loss due to friction, abrasion, or other forms of mechanical action. This constant isessential for predicting the lifespan of components, optimizing their design, and ensuring reliable performance in various applications.1. Definition and Background.The wear damage constant, often denoted as 'K' or 'k', is a mathematical representation of the wear rate. It is typically derived from experimental data that measures the mass loss or volume loss of a material over time. This constant accounts for various factors such as material properties, applied loads, sliding velocities, and environmental conditions.2. Factors Influencing the Wear Damage Constant.Material Properties: The hardness, toughness, and ductility of a material significantly affect its wear resistance. Softer materials tend to wear more quickly,while harder and tougher materials can withstand greater abrasive forces.Applied Loads: The magnitude and distribution of loads applied to a material significantly influence its wear rate. Higher loads typically lead to faster wear.Sliding Velocities: The speed at which two surfaces slide against each other also affects wear. Highervelocities can generate more heat and friction, leading to accelerated wear.Environmental Conditions: Temperature, humidity, and the presence of corrosive agents can significantly impact the wear rate of materials.3. Types of Wear.The wear damage constant can vary depending on the type of wear mechanism involved. Some common types of wear include:Abrasive Wear: This occurs when hard particles or surfaces scrape against a material, causing its removal. The wear rate is often proportional to the hardness of the abrasive particles and the applied load.Adhesive Wear: This type of wear occurs when two surfaces adhere to each other and then tear apart, leaving material deposits on one or both surfaces. Adhesive wear is often seen in metal-to-metal contacts.Fatigue Wear: This occurs due to repeated cyclic loading, which leads to the formation of cracks and subsequent material removal. Fatigue wear is common in components that experience alternating loads or vibrations.4. Measurement and Prediction of Wear Rate.Measuring the wear rate and predicting its behavior over time is crucial for accurate wear modeling. Various experimental techniques, such as pin-on-disk tests, reciprocating wear tests, and tribometers, are used to determine the wear rate under controlled conditions. These tests allow researchers to quantify the wear damage constant under specific operating conditions.5. Applications and Importance.The wear damage constant finds applications in various industries, including automotive, aerospace, mining, and manufacturing. By understanding and predicting the wear rate of materials, engineers can design components that last longer, perform better, and require fewer maintenance interventions. This knowledge also helps in optimizing the operation of equipment and systems to minimize wear and maximize efficiency.6. Conclusion.The wear damage constant is a fundamental parameter in materials science and engineering that helps in quantifying and predicting the wear rate of materials. Understanding the factors that influence this constant and the various types of wear mechanisms is crucial for developing durable and reliable components in various applications. With the advancement of materials science and tribology research, the prediction and management of wear-related failures are becoming increasingly sophisticated, paving the way for more efficient and sustainable systems.。

1.目标旨在实现能源效率，安全与电磁兼容，建立起LED灯泡必须满足的要求1.1.适用范围1.1.1这项法规适用于控制装置内置于灯体或灯头内，并形成一个单一、不可拆卸的LED灯泡，这项法规是为那些在60赫兹的交流配电下运行， 额定电压127 V和/或220 V或电压范围覆盖相同区域范围或直流（DC或CC），有浪涌保护，馈电电压为250伏，适用于家用和类似用途而制定的，具有以下要求：--额定功率小于等于60瓦;- -额定电压大于50V，小于250V(AC)，使用ABNT NBR IEC 62560:2013 标准灯头 (B15d, B22d, E11, E12, E14, E17, E27, G5, G9, G13, GU10, GZ10)- -额定电压小于50V(AC/DC)使用G4, GU4, GY4, GX5.3, GU5.3, G6.35, GY6.35, G53, GU7, G5, G5.3, G13灯头的灯泡-LED灯管，内置控制装置，灯头为G5，G13或R17DC，并且用于替换NBR IEC60081标准尺寸荧光灯管的LED灯管。

注意：当灯泡在灯具中进行实际操作时，性能数据可能偏离本法规制定的规定值。

1.1.2以下含有元器件集成和灯头的不可拆卸的LED灯泡不适用于本标准：-- 有彩色透镜，发出彩光的LED灯泡，-- 拥有装饰外壳，并发出彩色光的RGB灯;-- 内置有控制装置并控制产生彩光的LED灯泡;-- OLED（有机发光二极管）。

-2.缩写ABNT 巴西技术标准协会（英：巴西技术标准协会）国际标准化组织3，引用标准ABNT IEC TS 62504:2013LED和LED模块普通照明的术语和定义ABNT NBR IEC 60061­1:2011 Bases of bulbs, bulb holders, as well as matrix for the control ofinterchangeability and safety Part 1: Bulb Bases第1部分：灯的基础部分，灯泡，灯座，以及控制互换性和安全性的模型的基础内容ABNT NBR IEC 60360:1996 Standard method to determine the temperature rise of the bulb base 确定灯泡底座的温度上升的标准方法ABNT NBR IEC 60529:2005 Degrees of protection for Electrical equipment enclosures (IP code)电气设备外壳的保护等级（IP代码）ABNT NBR IEC 60598­1:2010 Lamps - Part 1: General requirements and tests灯具 - 第1部分：一般要求与试验ABNT NBR IEC 60695-2­10:2006 F ire ha z ard testing - Part 2-10: Test methods of incandescent/heated wire - equipment and general test method火灾危害性试验 - 第2-10部分：白炽灯/加热丝试验方法 - 设备和通用试验方法ABNT NBR IEC 60695-2­11:2006 F ire ha z ard testing - Part 2-11: Test methods of incandescent/heated wire – flammability test method for finished products火灾危害性试验- 第2-11部分：白炽灯/加热丝试验方法 –针对成品的可燃性试验方法ABNT NBR IEC 60695-2­12:2013 F ire ha z ard tests Part 2-12: Test methods of incandescent/heated wire - Test M ethod for material flammability火灾危害性试验2-12部分：白炽灯/加热丝试验方法 - 对物质可燃性测试方法ABNT NBR IEC 60695-2­13:2013 F ire ha z ards tests Part 2-13: Test methods of incandescent/heated wire - Test method for flammability temperature to incandescent wire (G W IT) for materials火灾危险性测试第2-13部分：白炽灯/加热丝试验方法 - 燃点白炽灯丝（G W IT）的材料可燃性的实验方法ABNT NBR IEC 62031:2013 LED modules for general lighting - Safety specifications LED普通照明组件 - 安全规范ABNT NBR IEC 62560:2013 LED lamps with control de v ice incorporated for general lighting ser v icesfor a v oltage > 50 V - Safety specifications 为普通照明纳入控制装置的LED灯具的电压要大于50V - 安全规范ANSI/IEEE C.62.41-1991IEEE Recommended Practice on Characterization of Surges inLow-Voltage (1000 V and Less) AC Power Circuits 针对低压（1000 V及以下）AC电源电路的浪涌特性的IEEE推荐规程AN SI-NE M A-AN SLGC78 - 09377-2011 Specification of the chromaticity of solid state lighting products固态照明产品的色度规范CIE 13.3: Method of Measuring and Specifying Color Rendering of Light Sources光源显色的测量和说明方法CIE 13.3: Measurement of Luminous Flow光通量的测量CISPR 15:2013 Limits and Methods of Measurements of Radio DisturbanceCharacteristics of Electrical Lighting and Similar Equipments电气照明和类似设备的无线电骚扰特性的测量方法和限定ENERGY STAR Eligibility Criteria - Program Requirements for Integral LED Bulbs资格标准– 对整体LED灯泡的计划要求IEC 60439-845:1987 International Electrotechnical Vocabulary, Lighting国际电工词汇，照明IEC 60439-3:2005 Bulb caps and holders together with gauges for the control ofinterchangeability and safety - Part 3: Gauges灯泡帽和灯座及其互换性和安全性控制测量仪 - 第3部分：测量仪IEC 60081:1997 Bulbs Double-capped fluorescent - Performance specifications灯泡双端荧光灯 - 性能规格IEC 60432-1:1996 Incandescent bulbs - Safety specifications - Part 1: Tungsten filamentbulbs for domestic and similar general lighting purposes白炽灯 - 安全规范 - 第1部分：钨灯丝灯泡家用和类似场合普通照明用IEC 6030:2005 Maximum bulb outlines for incandescent bulbs白炽灯泡的最大外廓注1：为避免ABNT 标准的某一个版本和IEC 标准的大多数现行版本类似，应该用NBR 来替换IEC 标准。