|
|
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
| ==Sandbox begins below== | | ==Sandbox begins below== |
| <div class="nonumtoc">__TOC__</div> | | <div class="nonumtoc">__TOC__</div> |
| [[File:Geotechnical boring for Red Bridge viaduct, March 2018 .jpg|right|350px]]
| |
| '''Title''': ''What standards and regulations affect a construction and engineering laboratory?''
| |
|
| |
| '''Author for citation''': Shawn E. Douglas
| |
|
| |
| '''License for content''': [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International]
| |
|
| |
| '''Publication date''': November 2023
| |
|
| |
| ===Standardized test methods used by construction and engineering laboratories===
| |
|
| |
| Interestingly, it appears that labs performing construction and geotechnical testing have roughly a 50 percent chance of being ISO/IEC 17025- or ISO 9000-certified, with those not having this certification opting for more localized or relevant certifications to, for example, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) or a state-level department of transportation (DoT). (Source: personal research.) If the lab is limiting its clientele to within the state, it may make more sense to simply focus on something like AASHTO accreditation for the lab's specific set of tests, as the costs of getting accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 for localized work may not make sense. This gets even more complicated as accreditation standards can vary across cities and states, as well as across more national and internationally focused accreditation bodies. This variance can be slight, but just enough to force these types of labs to attempt certification with multiple entities in order to expand business, increasing costs further. All this heterogeneity in the materials testing accreditation landscape—and thus in determining which standard test method to use—has led to calls for a more uniform federal-level recognition program for these and other materials testing labs, one that relies on a unified, industry-backed set of test methods that are applicable across most local, state, and federal borders.<ref name="NRCStand95">{{Cite book |date=1995-03-15 |title=Standards, Conformity Assessment, and Trade: Into the 21st Century |author=National Research Council |url=http://www.nap.edu/catalog/4921 |chapter=Chapter 3: Conformity Assessment |publisher=National Academies Press |place=Washington, D.C. |pages=65–102 |doi=10.17226/4921 |isbn=978-0-309-05236-8}}</ref><ref name="ArnholdConfom">{{cite web |url=https://ex-magazine.r-stahl.com/article/detail/konformitaetsbewertung-in-den-vereinigten-staaten |title=Conformity Assessment in the USA |author=Arnhold, T.; Berner, W. |work=Ex-Magazine |publisher=R. Stahl AG |accessdate=08 November 2023}}</ref><ref name="ZVEIReduction23">{{cite web |url=https://www.zvei.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Presse_und_Medien/Publikationen/user_upload/2023_04_21_ZVEI-Seiter_Abbau_technischer_Handelshemmnisse_im_Rahmen_von_TTC_en.pdf |format=PDF |title=Reduction of technical barriers to trade within the framework of the Transatlantic Trade Council (TTC) |author=Wirths, F. |publisher=ZVEI e.V |date=14 March 2023 |accessdate=08 November 2023}}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| ===Regulations related to this type of testing===
| |
|
| |
| ==Conclusion==
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ==References==
| |
| {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}
| |
