All my experience with ASTM was in material selection for the construction of spacecraft and military electronics. The housing industry may be different.

From my perspective, it either conforms, or it doesn't. If you can't test it, how can you say it conforms?

If you have a square peg, and cannot make it fit into an existing ASTM round hole, then you simply create a square hole.

From the Wiki artice on ASTM: "[ASTM] Standards are developed within committees, and new committees are formed as needed, upon request of interested members."

New stuff comes along all the time. For example, in 2008 ASTM published new Biodiesel Blend Specifications.

I will use the measurement of R value, the resistance to heat flow, as an example. Insulation in sheet form is fairly easy to measure, but if there is any geometry involved things get trickier. I have had conversations with third party test labs who recommend doing the heat flow tests in conjunction with the material the insulation is most commonly used with and calling it a "modified" test. Others have suggested removing the offending geometry and testing the remainder as standard sheet insulation and calling it a "modified" test. Can anyone designate a test as "modified" or are these overzealous sales efforts?

You can qualify it by "similarity".

ASTM methods are "modified" on a regular basis to conform to industry and/or material specific requirements by manufacturers, agencies, and associations.

AASHTO, ACI, AWS, ICC, AWCI and every state materials agency are prime examples of entities whose tests are ASTM based, in part, as modified, or even in their entirety. And, many of these are the "committee" that developed the test to become ASTM originally.

ASTM is not the only game in town so to speak, but nearly every method out there has it's roots in ASTM, and vice versa.

The real bottom line is;

What will the end consumer, requiring testing as a means of QC/QA, accept as proof to that end.

uncommon pointed it out nicely - What will the end consumer, requiring testing as a means of QC/QA, accept as proof to that end.

When we started out making hot briquetted iron from hot direct reduced iron many of the standard tests for direct reduced iron didn't meet the need. We developed new and modified tests.

It was easy for the customer to see the problem and the new methods were accepted with no real problem.

Russ

CR4 Admin Deleted Post Reason: Spam

From the consumer's point of view I am glad there are standards to be met so that life is not totally caveat emptor.

From a manufacturer's perspective the square pegs have a difficult time when the square holes are codified.