Test Matrix. Table 3-1 presents the sampling and analytical matrix to be used at the MHF Test. Emissions/Offgas sampling shall be at the * sampling location. Offgas grab samples will be taken and analyzed by an Xxxxxxxxxxx Lab. Sampling/testing will not be initiated until the start-up procedures have been completed and MHFs have stabilized at the desired production rate for the test. TABLE 3-1 Test Matrix Performance Test Program Purchaser’s Activated Carbon Production Facility Multiple Hearth Carbon Furnaces Xxxxxxxxx, Louisiana Test Parameters Sampling Method Sampling Duration Analytical Responsibility Sampling Rate Test Data Average * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Test Matrix. Table 3-1 presents the sampling and analytical matrix to be used at the MHF Test. Emissions/Offgas sampling shall be at the * sampling location. Offgas grab samples will be taken and analyzed by an Independent Lab. Sampling/testing will not be initiated until the start-up procedures have been completed and MHFs have stabilized at the desired production rate for the test. Exhibit 10.50(a) to Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2008 filed by ADA-ES, Inc. (File No. 000-50216) on November 7, 2008 TABLE 3-1 Test Matrix Performance Test Program Purchaser’s Activated Carbon Production Facility Multiple Hearth Carbon Furnaces Armistead, Louisiana Test Parameters Sampling Method Sampling Duration Analytical Responsibility Sampling Rate Test Data Average * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Exhibit 10.50(a) to Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2008 filed by ADA-ES, Inc. (File No. 000-50216) on November 7, 2008
Test Matrix. A sample of forty-two Ro-Ro vessels is utilised to form a suitable matrix that allows for meaningful comparisons between the various methods of assessing damage survivability as well as between the routes to ensuring compliance with current survivability standards. The main aim of this study is to present a critical evaluation of the emerging trends concerning the level of safety provided by the current damaged survivability standards for Ro-Ro vessels with the focus on the Stockholm Agreement requirements. More specifically, the study addresses the following methods and associated parameters: • SOLAS ’90 [GZmax, Positive GZ Range, Area under GZ Curve] • Stockholm Agreement Calculations [Limiting Hs] • Numerical Simulations [Limiting Hs] • Model Experiments [Limiting Hs] In addition to the above, the residual freeboard and damaged GMT are also considered. The sample of ships considered includes ships ranging in length from 85m to 205m and in damage stability standards from SOLAS ’74 to SOLAS ’90. The relevant details concerning the vessels in question together with the results pertaining to the damage survivability assessment according to the aforementioned methods are presented in Appendix A (available in “More MT Online” on the Web) with the operational sea states given in Table 2. Analysis of these results allowed for illustration of trends, consistency and relative significance between the methods used. A typical sample is shown in Figures 7 to 10.
Test Matrix. Tab. 1 gives an overview of the cyclic tests. The cyclic tests may contain a single load block or multiple load blocks. The cyclic tests can be divided into three main types: Constant amplitude tests (denoted by CA in the test ID), two-level block loading tests similar to Fig. 2-1 (denoted by BL in the test ID), and multi-level block loading demonstrator tests (denoted by DEM in the test ID). All cyclic tests are performed in -)control. The applied bending moment will be expressed as a fraction of the Ö fracture toughness of the material system ) =æ
