Document Information - American Petroleum I Materials...Web viewCSOEM SR3 Form -API 6A Tensile Testing - – API 6A Tensile Testing.doc CSOEM SR3 Form -API 6A Tensile Testing - – API 6A Tensile Testing.doc CSOEM SR3 Form -API 6A Tensile Testing ...
Post on 09-Apr-2018
CSOEM SR3 Form -API 6A Tensile Testing - Haeberle.docx API 6A Tensile Testing.doc
Standards Resource & Research Request (SR3) Form
Committee on Standardization of Oilfield Equipment & Materials
API Spec 6A
Specification for Wellhead and Christmas Tree Equipment
Twentieth Edition, October 2010
Committee / Subcommittee:
Priority Matrix Ranking: (to be completed by API)
Class 1(Rank 11-15)
Class 2(Rank 6-10)
Class 3(Rank 1-5)
Revise Current Standard
Withdraw Current Standard
Proposed Funding Type:
Total Funding Request
(Parts A & B):
Name of Submitter(s):
Tim Haeberle (GE Oil & Gas)
30 June 2011
Part A Resource PlanI. Background and Information:
1. Explain the business need for the proposed action. Indicate potential cost savings to industry where possible.
API Spec 6A Twentieth Edition and ISO 10423: 2009 both contain the same issues related to the tensile test requirements.
A. Section 220.127.116.11 and Section 18.104.22.168 do not state that the standard specimens are ASTM standard-sized specimens, although they do state that when sub-size specimens are used, they shall be the ASTM A370 standard sub-size specimens. This leaves open the use of ISO 6892-1 standard specimens and a potential failure to me the API acceptance criteria for elongation.
B. The yield strength acceptance criteria for bodies, bonnets, and end and outlet connections is limited to the 0,2% offset method yield strength values in Table 6. This is good! However, for mandrel hangers it is up to the manufacturer to specify not only the yield strength in MPa (psi), but also the method of determining the yield strength.
2. What is the scope of the standard?
This International Standard specifies requirements and gives recommendations for the performance, dimensional and functional interchangeability, design, materials, testing, inspection, welding, marking, handling, storing, shipment, purchasing, repair and remanufacture of wellhead and christmas tree equipment for use in the petroleum and natural gas industries.
3. Is this standard on the work program of another standards development organization (check all that apply)?
Other, please provide:
If yes, is the work being coordinated with the appropriate group? Are there special circumstances that would justify independent API initiation of the proposed action?
4. Are a volunteer chair and group of experts available to perform the proposed action?Please include names and company affiliation and indicate chair, if available.
Tim Haeberle, GE Oil & Gas
5. Is there a need to commit resources to supplement the development of the draft? Would a paid content specialist accelerate progress on the development/revision? Is there a readily available content specialist?
6. Are there special format requirements for final document, i.e. knowledge of ISO template required), significant graphics, photos or equations) required that would need extraordinary resources?
If Yes, please provide details:
7. Please provide any other information that is pertinent to the proposed action.
8. What are the implications of not initiating the proposed action? Include potential safety, reliability, environmental and financial impacts that may arise.
A. The use of the longer relative gage length of the ISO 6892-1 specimens can result in failure to meet the API 6A specified elongation acceptance criteria.
B. if the manufacturer does not specify the method of determining the yield strength as 0,2% offset for mandrel hangers, methods other than the 0,2% offset method may be used, and these may give higher or lower values than would be obtained if the 0,2% offset method were used as is required for bodies, bonnets, and end and outlet connections.
9. Is there research proposed to accomplish the proposed action?
If yes, complete Part B of this form.
II. Project Timing
Proposed start date:
Proposed date draft will be ready for letter ballot:
TG/WG: (estimated number of volunteers needed)
Content Management: ($ amount "if needed" or volunteer)
PART B Research PlanI. Background and Information
1. Proposed Research Title:
2. Proposed Project Scope:
3. Research Amount:
4. What is the business need for the proposed research?
5. Is the proposed research edition-specific for a single standard or will it result in technology enhancement for multiple standards?
If multiple standards, please cite the standards effected:
6. Research Timing:
Research is necessary prior to scheduled revision.
Research can be done concurrent with revision.
7. How does the research support the proposed action identified in Part A?
8. Is a joint industry project (JIP) a possibility?
If Yes, with who?
9. Are there opportunities for leveraged research with other organizations?
10. What are the implications of not performing the proposed research?
II. Dates and Funding:
Estimated Completion Date
Prior Research Funding Requested
Anticipated Future Research Funding Needs
Year 2: $
Year 3: $
Year 4: $
PART C Proposal Feedback/Approval InformationFor API Use ONLY
SC comments to Proposer/WG:
Date approved by subcommittee:
Date approved by ECS:
Date entered into API Publications DB: