Mechanical Response of Titanium Aluminide (TiAl3)

by Ajmer Dwivedi and Jermaine Bradley

ARL-CR-0669 June 2010

prepared by

Dynamic Science, Inc.

1003 Old Philadelphia Rd., Suite 210

Aberdeen, MD 21001

under contract

W911NF-09-2-0012

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES

Disclaimers

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless 

so designated by other authorized documents.

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the 

use thereof.

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator.
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069

ARL-CR-0669 June 2010 

Mechanical Response of Titanium Aluminide (TiAl3) 

Ajmer Dwivedi and Jermaine Bradley 

Dynamic Science, Inc. 

prepared by 

Dynamic Science, Inc. 

1003 Old Philadelphia Rd., Suite 210 

Aberdeen, MD 21001 

under contract 

W911NF-09-2-0012 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
ii

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering 

and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 

including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson 

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to 

comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

June 2010

2. REPORT TYPE

Final

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

June 2009–August 2009

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Mechanical Response of Titanium Aluminide (TiAl3)

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

W911NF-09-2-0012

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Ajmer Dwivedi and Jermaine Bradley

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Dynamic Science, Inc.

1003 Old Philadelphia Rd., Suite 210

Aberdeen, MD 21001

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Research Laboratory

ATTN: RDRL-WMT-D

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

ARL-CR-0669

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

Compression tests have been performed on TiAl3 at strain rates from 0.00003–500/s. All tests were done at room temperature 

and were designed to investigate the stress-strain response of the material. In addition to these tests elastic constants were 

calculated from ultrasound measurements. The results were used to find an approximate failure stress for the material.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Solidica, ultrasonic consolidation, aluminide, titanium

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

17. LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACT

UU

18. NUMBER

OF PAGES

22

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Ajmer Dwivedi

a. REPORT

UNCLASSIFIED

b. ABSTRACT

UNCLASSIFIED

c. THIS PAGE

UNCLASSIFIED

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

410-306-0790

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii

Contents 

Acknowledgments v

1. Introduction 1

2. Material 2

3. Experiments 3

3.1 Low Rate ........................................................................................................................3

3.2 High Rate .......................................................................................................................4

4. Results and Discussion 5

4.1 Low Rate ........................................................................................................................5

4.2 High Rate .......................................................................................................................8

5. Conclusions 11

6. References 12

Distribution List 13
iv

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Photos of specimens used for ultrasound measurements. ...............................................2

Figure 2. View of test setup with spherical platens. .......................................................................4

Figure 3. Typical failed low rate specimen. ....................................................................................5

Figure 4. Stress–Stain curves calculated from strain gage data and theoretical linear elastic 

behavior based on ultrasound measurements. .........................................................................6

Figure 5. Stress–Strain curve for pre-loaded specimen compared to theoretical linear elastic 

curve. .......................................................................................................................................6

Figure 6. Stress–Strain curves for Tests 7a and 7b incorporating spherical platen. .......................7

Figure 7. Failure stresses of low rate specimens.............................................................................7

Figure 8. Strain signals from SHPB test. ........................................................................................8

Figure 9. Stress–Strain curve from the third SHPB test. Strain is measured with a strain-gage 

mounted directly on the specimen. .........................................................................................9

Figure 10. Stress–Strain curve from the fourth SHPB test. Strain is measured with a strain-gage 

mounted directly on the specimen. .......................................................................................10

Figure 11. Blue points represent maximum stress for specimens that did not fail and represent 

lower bounds for failure stresses. Red points are failure stresses for specimens that did 

fail. ........................................................................................................................................10

List of Tables 

Table 1. Wave speeds and elastic constants for TiAl3. ...................................................................3

Table 2. Test matrix for low rate experiments. ...............................................................................4

Table 3. Strain rates for quasi static compression tests. .................................................................8

Table 4. Strain rates for dynamic compression tests.....................................................................11
v

Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Daniel Casem for his technical direction and 

assistance in editing this report. Also, the authors would like to thank Codie Adams for his 

specimen preparation efforts. 
vi

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
1

1. Introduction 

Laminated materials are commonly used to combine desired features of two or more materials; 

some examples include glass fiber reinforced aluminum (GLARE) and layered titanium–carbon 

fiber materials. In addition, there is interest in the use of laminated materials for light-weight 

vehicle armor. Laminates of titanium and aluminum alloys, manufactured by Solidica, Inc., have 

been evaluated at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) for ballistic performance. These 

materials are made by a process known as Ultrasonic Consolidation (UC) in which acoustic 

waves are used to join foils of alternating layers of titanium and aluminum, creating a bulk 

material with reasonable interface strength. This bond strength can be increased by heat-treating 

in such a way that the material at the interface reacts to form the intermetallic material Titanium 

Aluminide (TiAl3), creating in effect a three-material laminate. 

Because intermetallics tend to be brittle, the addition of this third component is not without 

consequences. In an effort to understand the complete system, the ballistic evaluations 

mentioned above are being accompanied by numerical simulation, and the mechanical properties 

of each material must therefore be known. Although there is an abundance of data available for 

numerous titanium and aluminum alloys, this is not the case for TiAl3. To satisfy this lack of 

data, a series of compression tests were performed on TiAl3 at rates ranging from 0.00003 to 

500/s using both a servo hydraulic load frame and the Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) 

method. These experiments are the subject of this report. 

Although there is no compression data on TiAl3 available in the literature, some relevant work

has been done on similar metal–intermetallic laminate (MIL) composites. For example, the 

effect of internal stresses on the fracture toughness of Ti-Al3Ti composites has been investigated 

and compared with computational results by Li et al. (2004). Similarly, Peng et al. (2005) 

studied the mechanical and fracture behavior of Ti-Al3Ti that was produced by reactive sintering 

in a vacuum. The spall response of various ultrasonically consolidated Ti/Al laminates (also 

manufactured by Solidica and closely related to the current program) was studied in gas gun 

experiments and reported by Sano et al. (2009).

The remaining document is organized as follows. More details of the material studied here and 

its processing are given in section 2. The experimental techniques are described in section 3. 

The results are presented in section 4, along with a discussion of the results, which includes a 

fairly large specimen-to-specimen variation in observed behavior. Because of the brittle nature 

of TiAl3, and its low-strain to failure, this material is difficult to test, especially at elevated 

strain-rates. This problem is further compounded due to the difficulty in manufacturing TiAl3 in 

sizes large enough for mechanical testing. It is suspected that defects in the material due in part 

to manufacturing partially explain the variation of these results, especially in terms of the 

fracture behavior. More details are given in section 4. 
2

2. Material 

All specimens discussed in this report were provided in their as-tested condition by Solidica, Inc. 

The plate from which they were machined was manufactured using UC of foils of commercially 

pure titanium and Al 1100-O. The foil thicknesses are proprietary. The laminate is built up by 

rolling over each foil individually with a sonotrode that produces high frequency ultrasonic 

waves. The resulting friction causes the foil to become bonded to the layer beneath it. 

Following this process, the plate was pressed and heated (details proprietary). This results in the 

formation of fully consolidated TiAl3. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) scans of sectioned 

material indicate that the material is fully reacted. 

Using a buoyancy method the density of the TiAl3 was found to be 3282 kg/m3. The longitudinal 

and shear wave speeds were found using an ultrasonic pulse echo technique; for an example, see 

Bartkowski and Spletzer (2001). The wave speeds and elastic constants calculated from these 

values are reported in table 1. There was a significant amount of variation in the measurements 

due to specimen quality. The first and second pictures in figure 1 show surface flaws and 

incomplete layer bonding, respectively. The presence of these defects in the specimens 

negatively affected wave propagation through the material and caused variation in the data. 

Values for the highest quality specimen (#2, not pictured) were used for calculations found later 

in this report.

Specimens for the compression tests did not contain the obvious defects seen in figure 1, 

however, some surface irregularities (non-smoothness) were easily detectable with the naked 

eye. Unfortunately defects of this nature can serve as nucleation sites for fracture and affect the 

results discussed below. 

Figure 1. Photos of specimens used for ultrasound measurements. 
3

Table 1. Wave speeds and elastic constants for TiAl3. 

Specimen Longitudinal Wave 

Speed

ShearWave 

Speed K E G 

# (km/s) (km/s) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa)

1 7.6 4.7 91.8 171.5 72.1 0.189

2 7.7 4.7 97.0 176.9 73.9 0.196

3 7.7 4.5 102.5 165.5 67.2 0.231

3. Experiments 

3.1 Low Rates 

Low-rate compression experiments were performed at strain rates between 0.00003/s and 0.002/s 

using an Instron model #1331 servo-hydraulic load frame and an Instron 48.9-kN load cell. The 

test matrix is shown in table 2, and lists a variety of techniques used to improve the data. By 

their nature, brittle materials like TiAl3 deform only minimally before failure, and these small 

deformations can be difficult to measure with traditional cross-head measurements of 

displacement.1 This proved to be the case with these experiments, specifically specimens #1 and 

2. To overcome this, specimens 3–10 were instrumented with strain gages (Vishay Micromeasurements gages used: either EA-06-031DE-350 or EA-06-031EC-350) bonded to their 

surface to measure longitudinal strain directly. The only difficulty that arises here is that in some 

cases, one or more gage became unbounded from the specimen during loading and the strain 

measurement was lost prior to specimen failure. 

Brittle materials can also be sensitive to non-centric loading due to non-parallel platens or even 

from their own loading surfaces. Three techniques were used to mitigate these issues. To 

eliminate any initial ―settling‖ that was contributing to irregularities in the data some samples 

were loaded twice. In the table the notation ―a‖ denotes a test where the specimen was loaded to 

a point below the yield stress and released. The ―b‖ notation refers to the experiment in which 

the same specimen was compressed to failure. To deal with possible specimen irregularities, the 

loading faces of specimens 6–10 were finished (600 grit) with an Allied Techprep polisher, a 

machine designed for precise parallel polishing. Finally, specimens 7–10 were loaded with a 

spherically articulating platen in line with the load cell. This platen rotates slightly to minimize 

effects due to non-parallel load faces of either the specimen or the machine. A sketch of this test 

setup is shown in figure 2. 

 

1 Machine compliance corrections were used in all analyses, and all specimens were loaded between Tungsten Carbide 

platens and lubricated with MoS2 grease. 
4

Table 2. Test matrix for low rate experiments.

Test Number Strain Gages 600 Grit Finish Curved Platen

1 — — —

2 — — —

3 X — —

4 X — —

5 X — —

6a X X —

6b X X —

7a X X X

7b X X X

8a X X X

8b X X X

9 X X X

Figure 2. View of test setup with spherical platens.

3.2 High Rate

A Compressive SHPB (Follansbee, 1985) was used to achieve high rates, approximately 400/s. 

The bars were 9.525-mm diameter and made from Vascomax C350 Maraging steel. Because the 

specimens essentially behave elastically, pulse shaping was used to tailor the incident pulse to a 

ramp loading such that the specimens deformed at reasonably uniform strain-rates. All tests 

utilized the same shaper–a 0.8-mm thick piece of copper with a diameter of 9 mm. A total of 

five tests were conducted. The same difficulties encountered with the low-rate tests exist here, 

specifically, the small strain measurements. Strain gages were bonded to the specimens used in 

tests 3–5 to make more accurate strain measurements than those from the SHPB analysis. 
5

Similar techniques for pulse shaping and making small strain measurements have been 

documented in recent literature (Blumenthal and Gray, 1990; Nemat-Nasser et al., 1991; 

Ravichandran and Chen, 1991, 1997).

4. Results and Discussion 

4.1 Low Rate 

As discussed above, most of the experiments were not well-suited to measure stress-strain curves 

and only the failure stress. All of the specimens failed catastrophically with little noticeable 

plastic deformation, see for example the recovered specimen in figure 3. This sort of behavior is 

typical of ceramic-like materials. Also, because of its low ductility, it is reasonable to assume 

TiAl3 to be linear elastic to failure (σ = Eε). To evaluate the accuracy of this assumption the 

stress-strain curves shown below include the assumed linear elastic curve with slope equal to the 

measured elastic modulus from table 1. 

Figure 3. Typical failed low rate specimen. 

Figure 4 shows the stress-strain curve from Test #5. Specimen strain is measured with a strain 

gage mounted on the specimen. In light of the error associated with the small strain 

measurements the data is in good agreement with the assumed elastic modulus. It is noteworthy 

that at 230 MPa it appears as though the material begins to yield. It is unclear whether this 

portion of the graph represents actual material behavior or is the result of gage error. This 

specimen failed at a stress of 300 MPa, i.e., the strain gage survived the entire test. 
6

Figure 4. Stress–Stain curves calculated from strain gage data and theoretical 

linear elastic behavior based on ultrasound measurements.

The results from Test 6b are shown in figure 5. Two strain gages were bonded to this specimen, 

diametrically opposed and oriented to measure longitudinal strain. The figure only shows the 

material response up to gage failure. During Test 6a, the initial loading of this specimen, not 

pictured) the gages did not measure identical strains, indicating some non-centric loading that 

was reduced as a result of the preloading. The elastic modulus from the data in figure 5 is 

approximately 131 GPa, about one quarter less than the value measured from ultrasound. It is, 

however, strongly linear.

Figure 5. Stress–Strain curve for pre-loaded specimen compared to theoretical linear elastic curve.

Tests 7a and 7b repeated the previous experiment, but incorporated a spherical platen. The 

results are shown in figure 6. The data suggests that an initial stress of 50 MPa was attained 

before the specimen began to compress, but this is attributed to measurement error rather than 
7

actual material behavior. The specimen response was linear in both tests and was reasonably 

close the linear elastic line. This setup was used to conduct several more experiments, and 

yielded somewhat inconsistent results due to specimen variation. 

Figure 6. Stress–Strain curves for Tests 7a and 7b incorporating spherical platen.

The failure stresses for each of the low rate experiments are reported in figure 7, and the strain 

rates can be found in table 3. As expected, there was difficulty pinpointing a single failure stress 

for the material as illustrated by the scatter in the graph. Despite incorporating a spherically 

articulating platen and sanding specimens the variation persisted. Defects in the specimens 

arising from the manufacturing process are suspected to be the cause of the scatter. 

Figure 7. Failure stresses of low rate specimens.
8

Table 3. Strain rates for quasi static compression tests.

Test Number Strain Rate

(1/s)

1 0.00005

2 0.00005

3 0.002

4 0.0001

5 0.00008

6a 0.0002

6b 0.0002

7a 0.00009

7b 0.00009

8a 0.00005

8b 0.00009

9 0.00003

Note: The specimens used in Tests 1 and 2 did not have strain

gages; their rates were estimated from similar tests.

4.2 High Rate

Figure 8 shows representative time dependent strain signals from one of the SHPB tests. The red 

and blue curves are the strain pulses that occur in the incident and transmission bars,

respectively. The incident pulse is triangular due to the copper wave shaper that was placed on 

the impact end of the bar. Using the shaper allowed specimens to be tested at a constant strain 

rate and reduced wave dispersion in the bars. The green curve represents the data acquired from 

the strain gage on the specimen. The gage data shows that in this test the specimen was 

compressed at a roughly constant rate to approximately 6000 micro-strain, at which point it 

began to unload. The signal does not return to zero because some plastic strain was experienced. 

Figure 8. Strain signals from SHPB test.
9

A stress strain curve was calculated from the signals in figure 8 and is shown in figure 9. The 

specimen used in this experiment was tested at a strain rate of approximately 400/s and did not 

fail. The specimen was loaded to approximately 900 MPa, experienced very little plastic strain, 

and then was unloaded. There is a strong agreement between the experimental data and the 

assumed linear elastic behavior. This provides some validation of the modulus of elasticity 

calculated from the ultrasound measurements and indicates that the strain gage data accurately 

measures real material behavior. 

Figure 9. Stress–Strain curve from the third SHPB test. Strain is measured with a strain-gage 

mounted directly on the specimen.

The results from the fourth SHPB test are shown in figure 10. As in the previous test, initially 

the experimental stress strain curve strongly agrees with the theoretical calculation, but the 

values begin to differ at approximately 200 MPa. The slope of the experimental data still closely 

follows that of the assumed elastic behavior, particularly during elastic unloading.
10

Figure 10. Stress–Strain curve from the fourth SHPB test. Strain is measured with a strain-gage 

mounted directly on the specimen.

Figure 11 shows the maximum engineering stresses for the SHPB tests. As was the case with the 

low rate experiments it was difficult to find an exact failure stress for the material. Whereas all 

the specimens tested at low rates failed, this was not the case for the high rate experiments. 

Maximum stresses are reported in figure 11 for samples that did not fail because they represent 

lower bounds for failure stresses. Table 4 lists the strain rates from the high rate experiments for 

which data was available. The dynamic nature of the tests combined with the brittleness of the 

material made it difficult to obtain accurate strain rate estimates for every test.

Figure 11. Blue points represent maximum stress for specimens that did not fail and 

represent lower bounds for failure stresses. Red points are failure stresses 

for specimens that did fail. 
11

Table 4. Strain rates for dynamic compression tests. 

Test Number Strain Rate

(1/s)

3 400

4 500

5 250

5. Conclusions 

Data from compression tests on TiAl3 have been presented. The results demonstrate a large 

amount of variability in failure stresses for these samples. The average low rate failure stress 

was 552 MPa with a standard deviation of 245 MPa. The average high rate failure stress was 

642 MPa with a standard deviation of 166 MPa. This large variation is expected and due to the 

brittle nature of TiAl3. It also suggests the presence of a wide range of defects in the specimens. 

These could be due to both material manufacturing (i.e., inherent to the material itself) and 

specimen fabrication (e.g., surface defects from machining). For this material it is unclear the 

relative contributions of each. Regardless, the variance in the data is representative of how the 

material behaves and should be considered in modeling efforts. 

There were also difficulties in making small strain measurements for TiAl3, i.e., inferring 

specimen strain from crosshead displacement and the standard SHPB analysis was not accurate. 

To improve these measurements, gages were bonded directly to specimens, and some stressstrain curves were obtained at both high and low rates. From these, it was seen that there was 

some differences between the elastic moduli measured from the compression experiments and 

that measured from ultrasound. Furthermore, the material behaved almost elastically, although 

some plastic deformation was observed. 
12

6. References 

Bartkowski, P.; Spletzer, S. Porosity Effects on the Elastic Constants of Five Varieties of Silicon 

Carbide Ceramic; ARL-TR-2606; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, MD, November 2001. 

Blumenthal, W. R.; Gray, G. T., III. Characterization of Shock-Loaded Aluminum Infiltrated 

Boron Carbide Cermets. In Shock Compression of Condensed Matter-1989; Schmidt, S. C.; 

Johnson, J. N.; Davison, L. W., Eds.; Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, 1990; 

pp 393–396.

Follansbee, P. S. The Hopkinson Bar. In Mechanical Testing, Metals Handbook, 9th ed.; 

American Society for Metals: Metals Park, OH. 1985, Vol. 8, 198–217. 

Li, Tiezheng; Grignon, F.; Benson, D. J.; Vecchio, K. S.; Olevsky, E. A., Jiang, Fengchun; 

Rohatgi, A.; Schwarz, R. B.; Meyers, M.A. Modeling The Elastic Properties and Damage 

Evolution in Ti-Al3Ti Metal–Intermetallic Laminate (MIL) Composites. Materials Science 

and Engineering 2004, A374, 10–26. 

Nemat-Nasser, S.; Isaacs, J. B.; Starrett, J. E. Hopkinson Techniques for Dynamic Recovery 

Experiments. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 1991, A435, 371–391.

Peng, L. M.; Li, H.; Wang, J. H. Processing and Mechanical Behavior of Laminated Titanium - 

Titanium Tri-aluminide (Ti-Al3Ti) Composites. Materials Science and Engineering 2005, 

A406, 309–318.

Ravichandran, G.; Chen, W. Dynamic Compressive Failure of a Glass Ceramic Under Lateral 

Confinement. J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 1997, 45 (8), 1303–1328.

Ravichandran, G.; Chen, W. Dynamic Failure of Brittle Materials Under Uniaxial Compression. 

In Experiments in Micromechanics of Fracture Resistant Materials; K.-S., Kim, Ed.; ASME: 

New York, 1991; AMD-Vol. 130, pp 85–90.

Sano, T.; Catalano, J.; Casem, D.; Dandekar, D. Microstructural and Mechanical Behavior 

Characterization of Ultrasonically Consolidated Titanium- Aluminum Laminates; ARL-RP239; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, February 2009. 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

13

 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 (PDF INFORMATION CTR 

 only) DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD

 STE 0944 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 IMNE ALC HRR 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 RDRL CIO LL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 RDRL CIO MT 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 RDRL D 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

24 RDRL WMM B 

 C RANDOW 

 MAJ R HOWELL 

 G GAZONAS 

 M VANLANDINGHAM 

 B CHEESEMAN 

 RDRL WMP B 

 D CASEM 

 A DWIVEDI (2 HC) 

 J BRADLEY (2 HC) 

 C HOPPEL 

 S BILYK 

 T WEERASOORIYA 

 B LOVE 

 M SCHEIDLER 

 D DANDEKAR 

 RDRL WMM D 

 E CHIN 

 RDRL WMP D 

 R DONEY 

 D KLEPONIS 

 J RUNYEON 

 RDRL WMP E 

 D HACKBARTH 

 M BURKINS 

 S BARTUS 

 RDRL SLB A 

 B WARD 

 

 
14

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.