Metallic Material Limits For API Equipment Used In High Temperature .

1y ago
8 Views
2 Downloads
2.68 MB
67 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Albert Barnett
Transcription

This document is not an API Standard; it is under consideration within an API technical committee but has not received all approvals required tobecome an API Standard. It shall not be reproduced or circulated or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of API committee activities except with theapproval of the Chairman of the committee having jurisdiction and staff of the API Standards Dept. Copyright API. All rights reserved.Metallic Material Limits for APIEquipment Used in High TemperatureApplicationsAPI TECHNICAL REPORT 6METTHIRD EDITION, XXX 202X

This document is not an API Standard; it is under consideration within an API technical committee but has not received all approvals required tobecome an API Standard. It shall not be reproduced or circulated or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of API committee activities except with theapproval of the Chairman of the committee having jurisdiction and staff of the API Standards Dept. Copyright API. All rights reserved.Special NotesAPI publications necessarily address problems of a general nature. With respect to particular circumstances, local, state,and federal laws and regulations should be reviewed.Neither API nor any of API’s employees, subcontractors, consultants, committees, or other assignees make any warrantyor representation, either express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the informationcontained herein, or assume any liability or responsibility for any use, or the results of such use, of any information orprocess disclosed in this publication. Neither API nor any of API’s employees, subcontractors, consultants, or otherassignees represent that use of this publication would not infringe upon privately owned rights.API publications may be used by anyone desiring to do so. Every effort has been made by the Institute to ensure theaccuracy and reliability of the data contained in them; however, the Institute makes no representation, warranty, orguarantee in connection with this publication and hereby expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for loss ordamage resulting from its use or for the violation of any authorities having jurisdiction with which this publication mayconflict.API publications are published to facilitate the broad availability of proven, sound engineering and operating practices.These publications are not intended to obviate the need for applying sound engineering judgment regarding when andwhere these publications should be used. The formulation and publication of API publications is not intended in any wayto inhibit anyone from using any other practices.Users of this specification should not rely exclusively on the information contained in this document. Sound business,scientific, engineering, and safety judgment should be used in employing the information contained herein.Any manufacturer marking equipment or materials in conformance with the marking requirements of an API standard issolely responsible for conforming to all the applicable requirements of that standard. API does not represent, warrant, orguarantee that such products do in fact conform to the applicable API standard.All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Contact thePublisher, API Publishing Services, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005.Copyright 2018 American Petroleum Institute

This document is not an API Standard; it is under consideration within an API technical committee but has not received all approvals required tobecome an API Standard. It shall not be reproduced or circulated or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of API committee activities except with theapproval of the Chairman of the committee having jurisdiction and staff of the API Standards Dept. Copyright API. All rights reserved.ForewordNothing contained in any API publication is to be construed as granting any right, by implication or otherwise, for themanufacture, sale, or use of any method, apparatus, or product covered by letters patent. Neither should anythingcontained in the publication be construed as insuring anyone against liability for infringement of letters patent.The verbal forms used to express the provisions in this specification are as follows:— the term “shall” denotes a minimum requirement in order to conform to the standard;— the term “should” denotes a recommendation or that which is advised but not required in order to conform to thestandard;— the term “may” is used to express permission or a provision that is optional;— the term “can” is used to express possibility or capability.This document was produced under API standardization procedures that ensure appropriate notification andparticipation in the developmental process and is designated as an API standard. Questions concerning theinterpretation of the content of this publication or comments and questions concerning the procedures underwhich this publication was developed should be directed in writing to the Director of Standards, AmericanPetroleum Institute, 200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20001. Requests forpermission to reproduce or translate all or any part of the material published herein should also be addressedto the director.Generally, API standards are reviewed and revised, reaffirmed, or withdrawn at least every 5 years. A one-timeextension of up to 2 years may be added to this review cycle. Status of the publication can be ascertained fromthe API Standards Department, telephone (202) 682-8000. A catalog of API publications and materials ispublished annually by API, 200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20001.Suggested revisions are invited and should be submitted to the Standards Department, API, 200Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20001, standards@api.org.

This document is not an API Standard; it is under consideration within an API technical committee but has not received all approvals required tobecome an API Standard. It shall not be reproduced or circulated or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of API committee activities except with theapproval of the Chairman of the committee having jurisdiction and staff of the API Standards Dept. Copyright API. All rights reserved.ContentsTable of contents will be built by the API Editors prior to publication

This document is not an API Standard; it is under consideration within an API technical committee but has not received all approvals required tobecome an API Standard. It shall not be reproduced or circulated or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of API committee activities except with theapproval of the Chairman of the committee having jurisdiction and staff of the API Standards Dept. Copyright API. All rights reserved.IntroductionThe initial basis for this document was an API-funded project that was conducted by a task group charged by theAssociation of Well Head Equipment Manufacturers (AWHEM). The task group examined mechanical properties ofmetallic materials used for API 6A and API 17D wellhead equipment for service above 250 F. A total of elevendifferent alloys meeting API 6A, PSL 3 conditions were supplied “in condition” by a variety of suppliers. Materials inthis test program included alloys common to the oil and gas industry. The alloys tested included low-alloy steels,martensitic, precipitation-hardened and duplex stainless steels, and nickel alloys. Yield strength reduction ratios attemperatures of 300 F, 350 F, 400 F, and 450 F are reported. As a result of testing, yield strength reduction ratiosat 300 F to 450 F ranged from 92 % to 87 % for the low-alloy steels, 92 % to 88 % for the martensitic stainlesssteels, 81 % to 73 % for super duplex, 99 % to 89 % for the precipitation-hardened stainless steel, and 94 % to 89 %for the nickel alloys. The reported results represent an average over the different heats for each type of material.These results are intended to expand the data shown in API 6A for design and rating of equipment for use at elevatedtemperatures.After the accuracy of the derating factors for the precipitation-hardened stainless steel as published in the First Editionand in API 6A, 19th Edition, Annex G was questioned, another API-funded project was conducted by a task groupoperating under the direction of API Subcommittee 21. The results of this project have been added in the SecondEdition.The Third Edition incorporates the results of an API-funded project initiated in 2014 to obtain through laboratorytesting: tensile yield properties, tensile modulus at room, elevated temperature in both longitudinal and transversedirections compression yield properties, compression modulus at room, elevated temperature in both longitudinal andtransverse directionsUNS N07718 (Alloy 718) was selected as the first alloy to be tested to demonstrate the feasibility of obtainingthe desired material properties. Due to personnel changes over time and laboratory testing issues, the projecttook longer than anticipated, and only Alloy 718 was tested. The results of the testing have been used to updatethe recommended yield strength reduction ratios for Alloy 718 in Table 6, add recommended compression yieldstrength reduction ratios for Alloy 718 in Table 8, add recommended chord modulus values for Alloy 718 fromtension testing in Table 9, add recommended chord modulus for Alloy 718 from compression testing in Table 10.Analysis of test data indicated Alloy 718 had little anisotropy between longitudinal and transverse directions fortensile yield. Similar anisotropy in the compression yield strength while bit higher than tensile yield strength wasstill quite low on average. Also, compression yield strength at a given temperature in either direction was higherthan corresponding tensile yield strength consistently.

This document is not an API Standard; it is under consideration within an API technical committee but has not received all approvals required tobecome an API Standard. It shall not be reproduced or circulated or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of API committee activities except with theapproval of the Chairman of the committee having jurisdiction and staff of the API Standards Dept. Copyright API. All rights reserved.Metallic Material Limits for API Equipment Used in High TemperatureApplications1. ScopeThis document covers testing performed to develop recommended yield strength reduction ratios and elevated temperatureproperties for a number of steels, stainless steels, and nickel alloys used in oil and gas drilling and production equipment.2. Abbreviated TermsAWHEMAssociation of Well Head Equipment ManufacturersRTroom temperatureYSyield strengthERequivalent round3. Testing CriteriaTesting was performed in four phases, presented herein in chronological order as Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, andPhase IV. Initially, all testing was to be completed in two phases, but testing anomalies in Phase II prompted re-testingof some alloys in Phase III and later in Phase IV.Alloy candidates were recommended by AWHEM membership for analysis and confirmed by API’s approval of NewWork Item No. 2003-100786 in June 2002. Several material suppliers and several AWHEM member companiesdonated material for testing. Metallurgists on the task group screened material certificates to ensure a “normal”chemistry without enhancements for the material candidates listed in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3.Table 1—List of Alloys Included in Phase I TestingYield StrengthClassBar SizeAISI 413075K5 in. ERAISI 8630M75K5 in. ER21/75K5 in. ERAISI 414075K5 in. ERAISI 410 SS75K5 in. ERF6NM75K5 in. ERMaterial4 Cr1 MoTable 2—List of Alloys Included in Phase II TestingMaterialYield StrengthClassMaterial Size25 Cr Super Duplex a110K2.4 in. to 5.5 in. ODASTM A453 Gr 660100K0.75 in. to 1.5 in. OD718 (per Spec 6A718)130K1.25 in. to 8.5 in. OD x 5.5 in.725/625 Plus130K0.63 in. to 6.5 in. OD data, 9 in. OD test925110K1 in. to 6.5 in. ODa Pittingresistance equivalence number, PREN 40.

This document is not an API Standard; it is under consideration within an API technical committee but has not received all approvals required tobecome an API Standard. It shall not be reproduced or circulated or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of API committee activities except with theapproval of the Chairman of the committee having jurisdiction and staff of the API Standards Dept. Copyright API. All rights reserved.Table 3—List of Alloys Included in Phase III TestingMaterialYield StrengthClassMaterial SizeNickel Alloy 725/625 Plus120K1.25 in. to 6.0 in. ODNickel Alloy 925110K1.0 in. to 8.7 in. ODAnother API New Work Item approved in 2014 covered a new round of testing of austenitic precipitation-hardenedstainless steel ASTM A453 Grade 660 Class D (see Table 4). Three mills donated the material for testing.API SC21 work item approved in 2014 covered a new round of testing of Alloy 718 per API 6ACRA or API 6A718UNS N07718-120 (see Table 5). Material from three different mills were tested based on donation from the sources.A summary of the yield strength derating factors from testing of the 11 alloys is provided in Table 6 and comparesfavorably with the available data from literature, as provided in Table 7.NOTESee Annex L for alloy chemistries from the material certificates for each of the supplied alloy candidates.Table 4—List of Alloys Included in Phase IV TestingMaterialYield Strength ClassMaterial SizeASTM A453 Gr 660 Cl D105K1 in. ODTable 5—List of Alloys Included in Phase V TestingMaterialYield Strength ClassMaterial SizeAlloy 718 (API 6ACRA/API 6A718 UNSN07718-120)120K8 in. ODTable 6—Recommended Tensile Yield Strength Reduction Ratios in Percent by TemperatureMaterial aTemperature, F( C)300(149)350(177)400(204)450(232)AISI 4130 Low-Alloy Steel919089 c88AISI 8630M Low-Alloy Steel929089 c8721/4 Cr 1 Mo Low-Alloy Steel929190 c8988AISI 4140 Low-Alloy Steel929089 cAISI 410 Martensitic Stainless Steel919089 c88F6NM Martensitic Stainless Steel929189 c8825 Cr Super Duplex817876 c73ASTM A453 Gr 660 Precipitation-HardenedAustenitic Stainless Steel b97969594718 (per Spec 6A718/6ACRA) Nickel Alloy95949392725/625 Plus Nickel Alloy939290 c8992c90925 Nickel Alloyabc9291See the annexes for strength level of materials testedPhase IV data used to replace the Phase II recommended reduction ratios in the Second EditionInterpolated values; other values in the table not identified as interpolated are based on actual testing500(260)550(288)9089

This document is not an API Standard; it is under consideration within an API technical committee but has not received all approvals required tobecome an API Standard. It shall not be reproduced or circulated or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of API committee activities except with theapproval of the Chairman of the committee having jurisdiction and staff of the API Standards Dept. Copyright API. All rights reserved.Table 7—Tensile Yield Strength Reduction Factors in Percent by Temperature (from Literature)Temperature, F( )25 Cr (various UNS)807876—ASME BPVC Part D, Table Y-1ASTM A453 Grade 660 Class D——98—Carpenter Technology a718969595—MIL Handbook 5 b, c725/625 Plus93929292Special Metals Corporation d92593929090Special Metals Corporation dCarbon and Low-Alloy Steels——85—API 6A, Annex GMartensitic Stainless Steels——85—API 6A, Annex GAustenitic and Duplex Stainless Steels——80—API 6A, Annex GCorrosion-Resistant Alloys——95—API 6A, Annex GaCarpenter Technology Corporation, 1735 Market Street, 15th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103.bcdhttps://assist.dla.mil.Not known if these data were for the aerospace grade of 718 or the API grade of 718.Special Metals Corporation, 3200 Riverside Drive, Huntington, West Virginia 25705.Table 8 Recommended Compression Yield Strength Reduction Ratios for Alloy 718 (API6A718 /6ACRA)a in Percent by TemperatureabTemperature, F( % Retained CompressionYield9695 b9594 b9392See the annexes for strength level of materials testedInterpolated values; other values in the table not identified as interpolated are actual tested valuesTable 9 – Recommended Chord Modulus (30-90 ksi) for Alloy 718 (API 6A718/6ACRA)a from Tensile TestingaTemperature, F( C)75(24)300(149)400(204)500(232)550(260)Chord Modulus, 106 psi30.728.227.927.527.1See the annexes for strength level of materials testedTable 10 - Recommended Chord Modulus (30-90 ksi) for Alloy 718 (API 6A718/6ACRA)a from CompressionTestingaTemperature, F( C)75(24)300(149)400(204)500(232)550(260)Chord Modulus, 106 psi29.630.129.729.328.7See the annexes for strength level of materials tested

This document is not an API Standard; it is under consideration within an API technical committee but has not received all approvals required tobecome an API Standard. It shall not be reproduced or circulated or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of API committee activities except with theapproval of the Chairman of the committee having jurisdiction and staff of the API Standards Dept. Copyright API. All rights reserved.4. Procedure4.1. Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III ProcedureIn Phase I and Phase II testing, three material test laboratories were selected to conduct elevated-temperature testsin accordance with ASTM E21 using 0.505 in. diameter test specimens. Of the three participating laboratories, theone with the best performance was selected to conduct all testing in Phase III. Phase I tensile specimens wereremoved from the mid-radius position. In Phase II and III, tensile specimens were removed from the 1/4T positionwhere possible. Mechanical tests were then performed at room temperature (RT), 300 F, 350 F, and 450 F to permitbracketing of results. The task group analyzed the resulting yield strength (YS) data from all the labs for each heat ofmaterial. Finally, each supplier’s data is reported confidentially to that supplier only in exchange for the donation ofmaterial.The tensile properties at elevated temperature used conventional tensile testing equipment modified slightly toaccommodate a radiant heating chamber. For precise control of temperature, the chamber was well insulated, whichalso minimized specimen exposure to undesirable surface contamination.The heating chamber was monitored using two thermocouples to maintain precise temperature control. A singlethermocouple was used to control chamber atmosphere temperature while the second thermocouple was attached tothe test specimen. Testing was initiated once the specimen and chamber atmosphere temperatures both reachedequilibrium. Predetermined strain rates were maintained through break.Tensile strength determination was made by use of an attached Class B-2 extensometer. The extensometer wasmodified to accommodate an extended reach into the heating chamber to fully engage the test piece through breakwhile shielding the instrument from extreme temperatures.Full size round test specimens were utilized. Measurements to determine percent elongation and percent reduction ofarea within the gauge length were conducted on broken specimens after cooling sufficiently to facilitate handling.All test procedures and calibrations were in full compliance with ASTM E-21 without exception. No special equipmentor processes were utilized in conducting hot tensile testing and there were no deviations to standard testing practices.4.2. Phase IV ProcedurePrior to the start of Phase IV elevated-temperature tensile testing, a study of the effects of low-temperature aging wasconducted. The purpose was to determine if low-temperature aging could have occurred during the Phase II testingand resulted in an increase in yield strength with increasing test temperature. This aging study was performed by amill that melts and processes ASTM A453 Grade 660 into various mill product forms. Bars from a single heat ofASTM A453 Grade 660 were heat treated using the two different solution-annealing temperatures specified in ASTMA453 for Grade 660 Class D, and precipitation hardened using the single aging cycle from ASTM A453 for Grade 660Class D. After solution annealing and precipitation hardening, the bars were subjected to additional thermal processingfor 16 hours at the test temperatures used in the elevated-temperature tensile test program. Tensile specimens werethen removed from the bars and tested at room temperature.Next, the elevated-temperature tensile test program was performed. Three heats of ASTM A453 Grade 660 Class Dmaterial from three different manufacturers were tested in accordance with ASTM E8 and ASTM E21, at twoindependent test laboratories.Another aging study was performed to investigate the behavior of the three specific heats used in this elevatedtemperature tensile test program. Bars from each heat were aged at 400 F for 1 hour to simulate the time the tensiletest specimens spent at temperature during the elevated-temperature testing. Tensile specimens were then removedfrom the bars and tested at room temperature at one laboratory using triplicate samples.

This document is not an API Standard; it is under consideration within an API technical committee but has not received all approvals required tobecome an API Standard. It shall not be reproduced or circulated or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of API committee activities except with theapproval of the Chairman of the committee having jurisdiction and staff of the API Standards Dept. Copyright API. All rights reserved.4.3. Phase V ProcedureBlanks for tensile and compression testing were removed from provided bars. Figure 1 shows the schematic used toget tensile and compression specimens for transverse testing. The blanks were sectioned via EDM (ElectricalDischarge Machining) from near surface as that was deemed the area of prime interest early in the process duringdiscussions. It is to be noted that testing of raw material as per API 6ACRA UNS N07718-120 specification is doneat mid-radius location for bar stock. The blanks were oriented to ensure all testing would be performed on samplesfrom the same relative location within the bar cross section. Full-size standard tensile specimens (0.5 in. diameterand 2.0 in. gauge length) were machined from these blanks per ASTM E8-16a and standard compression specimensper ASTM E9-09. Machining of all specimens was performed by the same facility to ensure uniformity of the machinedsurface and remove variability otherwise present from multiple machining sources. The machined specimens wereprovided to the testing facilities. Each facility performed a room temperature tensile test in both longitudinal andtransverse orientations, as well as elevated temperature tests per ASTM E21-09 and ASTM E209-89a (2000) fortension and compression respectively in both orientations. In addition to this, chord modulus between 30 ksi and 90ksi for each test was also evaluated. Sample ID was maintained to ensure traceability to the original bars.Figure 1 - Machining of Blanks for Transverse Tensile (Right) and Transverse Compression (Left)

This document is not an API Standard; it is under consideration within an API technical committee but has not received all approvals required tobecome an API Standard. It shall not be reproduced or circulated or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of API committee activities except with theapproval of the Chairman of the committee having jurisdiction and staff of the API Standards Dept. Copyright API. All rights reserved.5. Results5.1. Phase I ResultsThe detailed results for the alloys tested in Phase I are presented in Annex A through Annex F.Each material type was analyzed by comparing yield strength readings at RT, 300 F, 350 F, and 450 F for each heatand laboratory individually, using a pivot table. In this manner, differences due to material behavior and/or laboratoryabnormalities could be easily detected. Since the data set was too small to afford any statistical analysis, the resultswere averaged.Room temperature yield strength test results from three of the five heats of AISI 4130 were below 75 ksi. One heat wasonly 2 % below the required room temperature properties. However, two of those three heats were 12 % and 17 %below the minimum requirement. Material certification reports were reviewed by metallurgists on the task group andreasons for the low properties were not obvious. Averaging data from all the heats produced higher yield derating factorsthan seemed appropriate [92 % at 350 F compared with current values in API 6A, for carbon and low-alloy steels of 85% (see Bibliography)]. Consequently, results from two lowest property heats were ignored in the average, resulting in ayield derating of 90 % at 350 F. This discrepancy from reported room temperature yield properties was not found onany of the other five alloys tested. The conclusion from this discovery is that low hardenability alloys used for heavysection equipment must have proper design qualification. Thus, averaging only three heats of 4130 produced animproved correlation to the other low-alloy steel’s yield reduction ratio than averaging all five heats (see Annex A).One data point for 21/4 Cr 1 Mo at 450 F appeared bad, so it was excluded from the average. In all other cases, all datapoints for all five heats of the material were used. The variation of results for heats within a material showedapproximately 15 % over each temperature range, except for 410 that ran approximately 20 %. The variation betweenlabs was approximately 10 % for most materials, with one lab measuring on the low side in a majority of cases. A sampleplot of average yield strength reduction ratio (derating factor) for 8630M is shown in Figure 1. Thus, the derating factor at400 F was interpolated as 88.5 %.AISI 863095%94%93%YS Reduction Temperature - FFigure 2—AISI 8630M Strength Reduction with Temperature450475

This document is not an API Standard; it is under consideration within an API technical committee but has not received all approvals required tobecome an API Standard. It shall not be reproduced or circulated or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of API committee activities except with theapproval of the Chairman of the committee having jurisdiction and staff of the API Standards Dept. Copyright API. All rights reserved.5.2. Phase II ResultsThe detailed results for the alloys tested in Phase II, with the exception of Alloy 725/Alloy 625 Plus and Alloy 925, arepresented in Annex G through Annex K.As a result of limited material availability, material size for testing was variable and in one case the task group had topurchase a limited amount of one heat. One supplier furnished their own test data for several heats in two materialtypes. Test temperatures were slightly different, and results did not correlate exactly with actual test data from ourmaterial testing. The greatest data correlation problem was with 725/625 Plus. Each material type was analyzed bycomparing yield strength readings at RT, 300 F, 350 F, and 450 F for each heat and laboratory individually, using apivot table. In this manner, differences due to material behavior and/or laboratory abnormalities could be detected. Sincethe data set was too small to afford much statistical analysis, the results were averaged. In a few cases, inconsistentdata (11 points) were rejected to prevent distortion of results. In each of those cases, the rationale used was to drivethe results in a conservative direction. Inconsistent data points were examined with the labs. At one lab, some strangedata points were caused by the extensometer extensions slipping or by movement of the test specimen. Examination ofstress/strain curves verified the problem. These data were rejected and re-tested as Phase III.5.3. Phase III ResultsThe detailed results for the alloys tested in Phase III are presented in Annex J and Annex K.Seven heats of 725/625 Plus and eight heats of 925 were tested. To maintain consistency in the data analysismethodology of Phase I and Phase II testing, the yield strength reduction factors were averaged. A linear relationshipbetween temperature and reduction factor was assumed, given the narrow temperature range in the study. Typically,for high- strength nickel alloys the temperature range that is of interest spans a much larger range. Each material typewas analyzed by comparing yield strength readings at RT, 300 F, 350 F, and 450 F for each heat. Since the dataset was too small to afford much statistical analysis, the results were averaged. The raw data along with the stress/strain curves were examined in order to cull any data that would appear unusual. No anomalies in the data wereobserved that allowed the use of the entire data set to define the reduction factors.5.4. Phase IV ResultsThe detailed results for the re-testing performed on ASTM A453 Grade 660 are presented in Annex H, along with theearlier results for this alloy.The results of the initial aging study as provided in Annex H Table H.2 and Table H.3 demonstrated that exposure tothe elevated-temperature test program temperatures for 16 hours did not result in any increase in either the yieldstrength or tensile strength of the bars.The elevated-temperature tensile testing was performed next. The results of the elevated-temperature tensile testingare provided in Table H.4. The data set was analyzed by comparing yield strength readings at room temperature,300 F, 350 F, 400 F and 450 F for each heat.The analysis of the yield strength data from the three heats indicated that the heat designated as Heat A in Table H.4demonstrated a significant increase in yield strength at 350 F and 400 F. Although Heat B and Heat C alsodemonstrated some nonlinear behavior, it was not as pronounced as

Several material suppliers and several AWHEM member companies donated material for testing. Metallurgists on the task screened material certificates to group a "normal" ensure chemistry without enhancements for the material candidates listed in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3. Table 1—List of Alloys Included in Phase I Testing . Material

Related Documents:

-45 Light Gold Metallic/ Bronze Metallic-58 Silver Metallic/ Charcoal Metallic-91 Quartz Diamond Metallic/ Burgundy II-219 Silver Blue Metallic/ Ember Blue Metallic-609 Light Aqua Mist Metallic/ Dark Ivy-753 Mocha Frost Metallic/ Medium Brown Metallic 5126 Shown Full Scale. TOP: Shades

Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original

api 20 e rapid 20e api 20 ne api campy api nh api staph api 20 strep api coryne api listeriaapi 20 c aux api 20 a rapid id 32 a api 50 ch api 50 chb/e 50 chl reagents to be ordered. strips ref microorganisms suspension inoculum transfer medium i

Latest API exams,latest API-571 dumps,API-571 pdf,API-571 vce,API-571 dumps,API-571 exam questions,API-571 new questions,API-571 actual tests,API-571 practice tests,API-571 real exam questions Created Date

3 API Industry Guide on API Design Apiary - Apiary jump-started the modern API design movement by making API definitions more than just about API documentation, allowing API designers to define APIs in the machine-readable API definition format API blueprint, then mock, share, and publish

Metallic Bonding Metallic Bonding The metallic bond consists of positively charged metallic cations that donate electrons to the sea. The sea of electrons are shared by all atoms and can move throughout the structure. Metallic Bonding Metallic Bonding In a metallic bond: – The resulting bond is a cross between covalent and ionic .

Metallic 487 Ember Black Metallic* 452 Black Sapphire Metallic** 019 Black Stone* 700 Twilight Bronze Metallic* 712 Rich Java Metallic* *Not available for R-Design **R-Design only 467 Magic Blue Metallic 705 Biarritz Blue Metallic Please note: It’s not possible to reproduce exact origina

Ember STL-743. Crimson STL-768. Meadow STL-771. Ink SCM-918 Linen. SCM-921 Forest. SCM-922 Storm. SCM-923 . Black. B03 Cabernet. B07 Camel. B08 . Metallic Copper. B11 Metallic Espresso. B13 Metallic Antique Gold. B14 Metallic Brass . B15 Metallic Charcoal. B16 Metallic Silver. B17 Metallic