Test Case Sample Clauses

A Test Case clause defines the specific procedures, conditions, and criteria under which a product, system, or component will be evaluated to determine if it meets the required specifications. In practice, this clause outlines the steps to be followed during testing, the expected outcomes, and the parameters for success or failure, often referencing detailed test scripts or acceptance criteria. Its core function is to ensure that all parties have a clear, agreed-upon method for verifying compliance with contractual or technical requirements, thereby reducing ambiguity and potential disputes over performance.
Test Case. Analyze progress of the mission
View Source
Test Case. Hellisheidi geothermal power plant
View Source
Test Case. 3: Field observations The ATSPM vendor shall conduct a visual inspection of system performance and/or functionality in the field. This visual confirmation will document how the system satisfies requirements associated with field-observed operations and/or functions.
View Source
Test Case. Obtain suggestions provided by the DSS engine of the EMC triggered by reports or notification
View Source
Test Case. Reporting from IN-FIELD Emergency Responder (ER) at any phase of the emergency
View Source
Test Case. Validate notifications from the EMC
View Source
Test Case. United Downs Deep Geothermal Power (UDDGP) project
View Source
Test Case. Blood Flow in a Cerebral Aneurysm
View Source
Test Case. A NUMERICAL APPLICATION The scope of this section is the use of the proposed LCOE formula to establish the optimal contractual length and price for a VCPPA aimed to the creation of a 20 MW capacity new PV power plant. A basic assumption refers to the power plant total forecasted production that balance the total energy needs of multiple corporate buyers. The estimated total energy production- consumption is 28 GWh per year. The production profile refers to the annual average profile for the PV plant located in Southern Italy while the consumption profile refers to a non-residential user considering for simplicity that all the n-users have the same load profile. As mentioned, the proposed LCOE is a stochastic value, so to take any decision for the investment profitability and to establish the VCPPA contractual length and price, an LCOE sensitivity analysis is also performed. A. LCOE evaluation a) A PV power plant with a total capacity of 20 MW is considered; b) The estimated annual production of the installed PV power plant, supposed located in Southern Italy, assuming a correct installation (azimuth:0° , tilt: 30°) was prudently set at 1,430 kWh/kWp; c) The corporate buyer is composed of multiple users (about 1400) with an average annual energy consumption of about 20,000 kWh/year and contracted power of 10KW per each user; d) The yearly energy produced by power plant is considered equal to the yearly energy consumption of the corporate buyer and estimated in 28 GWh; e) The Seller exchanges the possible power plant energy surplus in the "wholesale market" (spot market in Italy), using the market Price (Pz Southern Italy) according to the current regulatory framework; f) The power plant cost is set to 800 €/kWp; g) A production decay of 0.3% per year is considered; h) A time interval from 5 to 20 years (power plant End-of-life) is considered to evaluate which is the best VCPPA price; i) The purchase and sale prices on the wholesale market are the average annual prices calculated during 2017; j) An overlapping degree (energy matching) between Production and Consumption profile, of at least 50% is assumed ; k) On the basis of point j): 50% of the corporate buyer consumption is purchased by the national electricity market at the market price and it determines mismatching costs CM(p) valuated considering the annual average PUN for the year 2017 of 53.94 €/MWh. l) Operating cost including access to electricity platform (IPEX of 17,500 €/year for the first year a...
View Source

Related to Test Case

  • Test Results The employer, upon request from an employee or former employee, will provide the confidential written report issued pursuant to 4.9 of the Canadian Model in respect to that employee or former employee.

  • Test The outer surface of the lamp lenses shall be subjected once or more than once to the action of the sand jet produced as described above. The jet shall be sprayed almost perpendicular to the surface to be tested. The deterioration shall be checked by means of one or more samples of glass placed as a reference near the lenses to be tested. The mixture shall be sprayed until the variation in the diffusion of light on the sample or samples measured by the method described in Appendix 2, is such that: Δ d = (T5 - T4) / T2 ≤ 0.0250 ± 0.0025 Several reference samples may be used to check that the whole surface to be tested has deteriorated homogeneously.

  • Positive Test Results In the event an employee tests positive for drug use, the employee will be provided, in writing, notice of their right to explain the test results. The employee may indicate any relevant circumstance, including over the counter or prescription medication taken within the last thirty (30) days, or any other information relevant to the reliability of, or explanation for, a positive test result.

  • Previously Reviewed Receivable; Duplicative Tests If any Review Receivable was included in a prior Review, the Asset Representations Reviewer will not conduct additional Tests on such Review Receivable, but will include the previously reported Test results in the Review Report for the current Review. If the same Test is required for more than one representation and warranty, the Asset Representations Reviewer will only perform the Test once for each Review Receivable, but will report the results of the Test for each applicable representation and warranty on the Review Report.

  • Hearing Tests Audiometric tests should be conducted within two months of a person commencing employment, and thereafter at intervals of two years.