Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
TITANIUM:
PAST, PRE SENT, AND FUTURE
Report of th
e
Panel on Assessment of Titanium
Availability: Current and Future Needs
of the
Commi ttee on Technical Aspects of
Cri tical and Strategic Materials
NATIONAL MATERIALS ADV ISORY BOARD
Commi ssion on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Research Council
Publication NMAB-392
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D . C .
1983
OCR for page R2
NOTICE: The pro ject that is the sub ject of this report was approved by
the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are
drawn from the Councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of
the committee responsible for the report were chosen f or their special
competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
The report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according
to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members
of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering,
and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of
Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and
technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of
advising the federal government. The Council operates in accordance with
general policies determined by the Academy under the authority of its
congressional charter of 1863, which establishes the Academy as a
private, nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation. The Council
has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of
Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in the conduct of their
services to the government, the public, and the scientif ic and
eng ineering communities . It i s administered jointly by both Academies
and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Engineering and
the Institute of Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970,
re spectively, under the charter of the National Academy of Science s.
This study by the National Materials Advisory Board was conducted under
Contract No. EMiJ-C-0008 with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
This report is for sale by the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22151.
Printed in the United States of Americ-
ii
OCR for page R3
AB STRACT
The capabilities of the United States to meet current and anticipated
needs for titanium and its alloys are assessed. The various production
steps from ore through mill products are examined both historically and
for their adequacy to meet perceived future demands. Bottlenecks
throughout this production cycle are identified and promising solutions
to problems are put forward . Encouraging evidence of recent U.S. privet e
enterprise entrepreneurial activities is noted. End uses of titanium
mill products are reviewed historically as a basis to anticipate future
developments and requirements. Technological opportunities and the role
of innovation in the future of titanium are examined and several good
prospects are perceived. The close relationship of U.S. government
agencies with the U.S. titanium industry from its start three decades ago
is reviewed. Recommendations are made that would permit the industry to
serve the nation even better in the future.
iii
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
PANEL ON ASSESSMENT OF TITANIUM AVAILABILITY:
CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS
Chairman
WALTER L. FINLAY, Consultant, Port Townsend, Washington
Members
JAMES BOYD, Consultant, Carrel, California
ROBERT I. JAFEEE, Technical Manager, Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, California
ELBERT M. MAHLA, Retired (formerly E. I. du Pant de Nemours & Co., Inc.
Johns Island, South Carolina
NATHAN E. PROMISEL, Materials Consultant, Silver Spring, Maryland
JOE B. ROSENBAUM, Consulting Metallurgist, Salt Lake City, Utah
RICHARD A. WOOD, Principal Research Scientist, Physical Metallurgy
Section, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio
Li aison Repre sentatives
JOSEPH F . COLLINS, Manager of the Metals Team, Naval Air Sys tems Command ,
Washington, D . C.
ERIC FORCE, Titanium Commodity Specialist, Branch of Eastern Mineral
Resources j U.S . Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia
KENNETH R. FOSTER, Staff Specialist for Materials Policy, Off ice of Under
Secretary of Defense for Research & Engineering, Washington, D.C.
HENRY JOHNSON, Chief, Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratory, Metals
Branch, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
LANGTRY E. LYND, Commodity Specialist, Division of Nonferrous Metals,
U.S . Bureau of Mines, Washington, D . C.
JAMES J. MANION, JR ., Bureau of Industrial Economics, U . S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D . C.
v
OCR for page R6
ROBERT J. MROCZEK, Commodity Industry Analyst, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D. C.
RUS SELL L. RICHARDS, Chief Mini ng Engineer, Market and Technical
Research Division, Office of Stockpile Transactions, General
Services Administration, Arlington, Virginia
BRUCE STEINER, Special Assistant for Planning and Programming,
National Bureau of Standards, Center for Materials Science,
Washington, D. C.
CAB 50~1 officer
GEO AGE ECONOMOS
vi
OCR for page R7
COMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF
CRITICAL AND STRATEGIC MATERIALS
Chairman
JOHN E. TILTON, Professor, Department of Mineral Economics, Pennsylvania
State University, University Park
Member s
SAMUEL R. CALLAl7AY, Chief Materials Engineer, Electro-Motive Division,
General Motors Corporation, LaGrange, Illinois
JOEL P. CLARK, Professor of Materials Systems, Department of Materials
Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambri dge
DEVERLE P. HARRIS, Director of Mineral Economics, Professor of Geological
Engineering, Department of Mining and Geological Engineering,
University of Arizona, Tucson
ULRICH PETERSEN, Professor of Mining Geology, Department of Geological
Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
ALLEN S. RUSSELL, Vice President, Science and Technology, ALCOA,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
MORRIS A. STEINBERG, Director, Technology Applications, Lockheed
Corporation, Burbank, Calif ornia
MILTON E. WADSWORTH, Professor of Metallurgy and Associate Dean, College
of Mines, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City
Li al son Re pre se nt at ive s
JOHN R. BABEY, Director, Market and Technical Services Division, General
Services Administration, Washington' D.C.
MIKE BOZZELLI, Economic Program Officer, Resources Assessment Division,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FRANCIS E. BRANTLEY, Director, Production and Consumption Data Collection
and Interpretation, U.S . Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.
SYDNEY M. COHEN, Air Force Priorities and Allocations Officer,
Headquarters Washington, D . C.
RICHARD E. DONNELLY, Deputy Director, Production Research Office, Office
of the Undersecretary of Def ense for Research and Engineering,
Wa shing ton, D . C .
vii
OCR for page R8
DOUGLAS G. HARVEY, Director, Industrial Programs Office, U.S. Department
of Energy, Washington, D.C.
WILLIAM J. KAESTNER, Retired (formerly Program Manager, Ferroalloys and
Additive Alloys, Office of Basic Industries, Bureau of Domestic
Business Development, U.S. Department of Commerce), Washington, D.C.
CHARLES PETERSON, Department of the A`-my Defense Materials Systems
Officer, U.S. Army Material Deve lopment and Read ines s Command ,
Alexandria, Virginia
WILLIAM C. PRINZ, Deputy-Ch'ef, Office of Mineral Resources, U.S.
Geo log ical Survey, Res ton, Vi rginia
RUSSELL L. RICHARDS, Chief Mining Engineer, Office of Stockpile Disposal,
Market and Technical Research Division, General Services
Adminstration, FPRS, Washington, D. C .
ROBERT J . ZENTER, Commander, U. S . Army Material Development and
Readiness Command, Alexandria, Virginia
NMAB Staf f Of f leer
GEORGE ECONOMOS
viii
OCR for page R9
FOREWORD
The birth of a tonnage structural metal industry is an unusual event.
Only three such births have occurred in the past 100 years--aluminum,
magnesium, and titanium--and no new one is in prospect. Each of these
metal industries suffered severe supply and demand swings during its
formative decades. Of the three, the titanium industry was buffeted by
the most turbulent of times (the coming of age of jets and of ICBMs, plus
the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the Cold War) and consequent violent
demand fluctuations.
Partly by government supported and partly free enterprise, the
titanium industry coped remarkably well with the rapid alternations of
shortages and oversupplies of its first three decades. The severe
business problems that resulted caused several industrial giants to
withdraw from the industrial titanium race, managements were summarily
replaced, and the surviving companies were in less than optimum condition
to build to their full potential or to prevent periodic severe shortages
of their products. The latest of these shortages occurred in 1978-1980.
It prompted the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to request the
formation of a panel by the National Research Council's National
Materials Advisory Board to assess the capability of the United States to
meet current and anticipated titanium needs.
This charge to the panel could be construed narrowly or broadly.
Narrowly, the panel's assessment was straightforward. The 1979-1980
shortage resulted from an upsurge in the manufacture of more
fuel-efficient, commercial jet aircraft. This culminated in hedge buying
of sponge and mill products that stretched some deliveries to beyond two
years. Stimulated by these shortages, by the steady growth of industrial
uses during the 1970s and by perceptions of larger future markets, the
industry expanded worldwide and attracted newcomers who are building
advanced technology sponge plants. Accordingly, a comfortable excess of
sponge production capacity over anticipated needs seems assured at least
through the mid-1980s.
Construing its charge more broadly, however, the panel became aware
of several troubling considerations on which it could not arrive at a
quick consensus. If ignored, these seemed to some on the panel to have
the potential to undermine the adequacy of the U.S. titanium industry's
ability to meet the nation's probable needs in the decades ahead. These
troubling considerations focus on:
1.
~ss of U.S. Titanium sponge Production
The U.S. titanium industry, building on the excellent
development work of the U . S . Bureau of Mines, was the worldwide
pioneer in titanium sponge and mill product production starting
in 194 8. It still retains mill product pre-eminence, but in
ix
OCR for page R10
sponge production capacity, it is being overtaken by Japan and
has been well behind the Soviet Union for several years (see
Table 24~. In sponge quality, there is an arguable U.S.
deficiency, Japanese and Soviet sponge quality is higher,
particularly in lower volatiles, but augmented U.S. vacuum arc
remelting can fully correct this and U.S.
continue unexcelled in quality worldwide.
question is whether, in the broad context or the u.~. power
titanium mill products
The unanswered
, , _
struggle with the Soviet Union and the business battle with
Japan, the U.S. titanium industry can make its full potential
contra button to the nation.
2.
The Size and Constituents of the U.S. National (Titanium)
Stockpile
The existing titanium sponge stockpile is much lower than its
planned capacity, and a significant portion of that already low
quantity does not meet existing specifications. Even the sponge
which is within existing specifications is lower in quality than
that required by approximately one-third of U. S . titanium
melters. Moreover, the stockpile would be much more quickly
responsive to a national emergency if as much as half of its
total sponge authorization were replaced by ingots and perhaps
by alloy ingots and mill products. Appropriate specifications
f or all the f oregoing could be developed only by detailed
studie s.
Technologic Opportunities That are Large in Promise But
Debatably Small in Prospect
Titanium has several potentially large technologic opportunities
but with proportionately large feasibility questions. Examples
include tonnage powder metallurgy, heat exchangers for ocean
thermal energy conversion, and rapidly solidified alloys. Their
neglect, relative both to the Soviet Union and Japan and to
competitive metals (notably aluminum), could affect adversely
the titanium industry's ability to contribute its full potential
to the nation in the future.
The panel recognized that nowhere in the literature was there a
broad, up-to-date, integrated overview of the titanium field that an
agency specialist or legislator could use conveniently to assess
alternative courses of action on such troubling considerations
listed above. Accordingly, the panel has endeavored to supply
report such an overview.
Walter L. Finlay
Chairman
x
as those
in its
OCR for page R11
PREFACE
Concern regarding the capability of the U.S. titanium industry to compete
with foreign sources of supply and to meet current and anticipated
defense and commercial demands has been expressed in both the industrial
and government sectors. Shortages have been encountered in various
stages of the industrial supply chain, the most recent being the apparent
titanium sponge and mill product shortages of 1979-1980. It has been
difficult, however, to determine whether these were true materials
shortages, reflections of short-term bottlenecks in the supply chain, or
possibly just short-lived panic buying situations.
This problem prompted the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
in concert with other interested government groups, to request the
National Materials Advisory Board of the National Research Council t o
undertake a study to assess the capability of the United States to meet
current and anticipated needs for titanium and its alloys. The various
production steps (from mining and refining to final billet or sheet forms
used to fabricate final components for commercial and military uses and
scrap recovery) were to be examined critically. The major objectives
were to identify bottlenecks that impede the flow of materials through
this cycle and to recommend improvements and incentives to ensure the
availability of the needed titanium and to minimize backlogs in the
production chain. Costs, new or unconventional technologies, innovation,
and similar factors affecting the titanium industry and its stability
also were to be examined .
To present a broad and technically sound but unencumbered view of the
current production capability of the titanium industry, a panel was
assembled of people who had played a prominent role in the titanium
incus try ' s birth and early development but had no current titanium
industry ties. Expertise sought of panel members involved such areas as
geology and sources of ore supply; mining and benef iciation; trading and
economics; metal extraction, refining, and alloy production;
metallurgical forms production; and advanced technology and foreign
developments. (Appendix A contains a short professional resume of each
panel member. ~
The panel received information from representatives of companies that
produce or use titanium and mill products and visited a number of
titanium production and processing facilities. At a 3-day
limited-attendance meeting, 11 invited guests made formal presentations
on titanium perspectives, and panel members met at various times with
other experts throughout the country. (Appendixes B and C present
detailed iT~f ormation on these activities.
xi
OCR for page R12
This report presents the result of the panel' s examination and
appraisal of the titanium industry. The panel wishes to note, however,
that its resources were not sufficient to permit it to authoritatively
determine whether the U. S. titanium industry is likely to contribute its
f ull potential to the United States in the business battle with Japan and
i n the power s truggle with the Soviet Union. The panel hopes that the
studies needed to examine this ~ ssue will be conducted and, to aid in
such ef f art s, it has identif fed f our ma jar areas of concern in need of
attention as identif fed in the f oreward.
Information available to the panel up to February 1982 is contained
in this report.
W. L. Finlay
Chairman
xii
OCR for page R13
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The panel thanks the following for sharing their thoughts on current
and projected activities in the titanium industry: E. N. Agua, Director,
Materials Research, Gould Laboratories, Gould, Inc.; J. Byrne, President,
TIMET Division, Titanium Metals Corporation of America (TMCA); G. Cobel,
President, D-H Titanium Company; A. H. Freedman, Manager, Metallics,
Northrup Corporation; D. D. Goehler, Manager-757 Materials Technology,
Boeing Commercial Aircraft Company; R. L. Kane, President, Titanium
Industries Corporation; W. A. Owczarski, Manager, Technical Planning,
Pratt ~ Whitney Aircraft Group, United Technologies; R. F. Simenz,
Manager, Materials and Processes, Lockheed California Corporation; K.
Stalker, Materials and Process Laboratories, Aircraft Engine Group,
General Electric Company; D. M. Strollo, Vice President, Marketing, RMI
Titanium, RMI Company; and D. H. Turner, Vice President, Titanium Alloy
Operations, HOWMET Turbine Components Corporation.
The panel's education was further enhanced by the generous reception
given them by titanium producers and processors on two tours
(March 31-April 1, 1981, and April 27-30, 1981) of various facilities. (A
short summary of these tours is in Appendix C). The following
individuals and their companies are gratefully acknowledged: E. Dulis of
the Crucible Research Center, Colt Industries, Pittsburgh (Oakdale),
Pennsylvania; G. B. Cobel and D. H. Turner of the D-H Titanium Company,
Freeport, Texas; F. Caputo of the Oregon Metallurgical Corporation
(OREMET), Albany, Oregon; J. Alexander of the Precision Castparts
Corporation, Portland, Oregon; J. Daniell and D. M. Strollo of the RMI
Company, Ashtabula and Niles, Ohio; J. Byrne and W. W. Minkler of the
TIMET Division, TMCA, Toronto, Ohio; and J. Walters of the TIMET
Division, TMCA, Henderson, Nevada.
Special thanks go to the following individuals who met separately
with the panel, or certain members of the panel, to discuss specific
areas of concern (see Appendix C): L. Blakely, Boeing Commercial
Aircraft Company; G. Keller, Rockwell International Corporation;
W. O. Nisbet and E. F. Baroch, International Titanium Corporation;
H. D. Kessler, HOWMET Turbine Components Corporation; and I. Perlmutte
f ormerly of the Air Force Materials Laboratory.
The panel also wishes to acknowledge the generous assistance of
W. W. Minkler, President of Transition Metals Associates, Inc. (retired
Vice President-Technology, TIMET Division, TMCA) a well-known veteran of
the titanium industry. He met with the panel in Palo Alto, California,
and in Washington, D. C., in response to numerous requests from the panel
for specific data on problem areas in the titanium industry. W. H.
Avery, Director of Ocean Energy Systems of the Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory, also was most helpful in supplying the panel
with documents describing the ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC)
program and i ts long-term pro spec t s and t ime table .
xiii
OCR for page R14
Finally, the panel thanks the liaison representatives assigned to
this study. Their assistance was invaluable in identifying the experts
in the titanium production, processing, and product manufacturing areas
who were called upon by the panel to help in the study. In addition, the
chairman thanks panel member Richard Wood for his detailed review of the
re port . This extra ef f art was most helpful in preparing the f inal draf t
of the report.
xiv
OCR for page R15
ABSTRACT
FOREWORD
PREFACE
ACKNOWLEDG TIME NTS
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 CONCLUS IONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 3 BACKGROUND OF THE U . S. . TITANIUM INDUSTRY
Unique Features
Pre-Industrial History
The Start of the Industry
Infrastructure of the Industry
Model f or Cooperative Research and Development
CHAPTER 4 AVAILABILITY, PROCESSING, AND SPECIFICATIONS OF
TITANIUM ORE AND TITANIUM TETRACHLORIDE
Titanium Ores
Curre nt Ore Supply
Ore Occurrence
Re sources and Concentrate Production
Reserves and Resources
Synthe tic Rutile
Cur rent Practice
Slag Beneficiation Research
TiO2 Pigment and '1iC14
TiO2 Via Sulfuric Acid Digestion
TiO2 Vi a TiC14
Pri ce Comparison of Titanium Materials
Appraisal of Exploration, Mining, and Concentrating Technology
Specif ication for Minerals and Mineral Concentrates
Rutile
Synthetic Rutile
Slags f ram Ilmenite
Ilmenite Concentrates
Specif ications Covering Titani um Tetrachloride
xv
ill
ix
xi
xiii
1
7
11
11
~2
13
18
19
23
23
26
27
27
27
32
32
33
33
33
34
34
35
36
36
36
37
37
37
OCR for page R16
CHAPTER 5 WINNING TITANIUM METAL SPONGE:
U. S. Production of Titanium Sponge
Magnesium Reduction of TiC14 (Kroll Process)
TIMET Divi sion of TMCA
Oreme t
Te ledyne Wah C hang A1 bany ~ TWCA)
International Titanium, Inc.
Sodium Reduction of TiC14 (llunter Process)
RMI Company
Direct Electrowinning of Titanium Sponge
ASH Ti tanium Company
TIMET Electrowinning Cell
Other Sponge-Winning Technologies
Transportation of TiC14
Energy Use in Manufacturing Titanic Sponge
Appraisal of Titanium Sponge Production Technology
Titanium Sponge Quality and Specif ications
CHAPTER 6 U . S . NATIONAL TITANIUM STOCKPILE
CHAPTER 7 TITANIUM MELTING, ALLOYING, MILL PROCESSING,
AND HEAT TREATING
Ingot Me lting
Present Practice
The Future of Titanium Melting
Alloying
Emerg ing A1 lays
The Future of Titanium Alloying
Mi 11 Processing
Typical Current Practice
The Future of Mill Processing
Heat Treating
Curre nt Treatment s
Strengthening Heat Treatments
The Future of Heat Treating
Specif ications for Titanium-Base Ingots, Mill Products,
and A1 laying Addi Lions
Ingot
Unalloyed and Alloyed Mill Products
Scrap
Alloying Addition
Miscellaneous Specif ications
CHAPTER 8 PERCEIVED BOTTLENECKS IN TITANIUM PROCESSING
Ore
Ti tanium Te trachloride
Ti tanium Sponge
Ingot Me lting
41
42
42
44
45
45
45
46
47
47
48
49
49
50
50
51
52
59
63
63
63
64
68
69
71
72
72
73
74
74
76
76
77
77
78
78
78
85
87
87
88
89
90
xvi
OCR for page R17
Prima ry Fabrication
Ingot Surf ace Conditioning
Bloom Forging
Bloom Conditioning
Bille t and Bir
Flat-Rolled Products
Rol 1-and-Weld Tubing
Extrusions
Conventional Powder Metallurgy
Castings
Specialty Product s
General Comments on Bottleneck
Custom-Job Shop Status
Ti tanium Tonnage Powder Metallurgy
Sun ry
C HAP TAR 9 E NI) USES OF TITANIUM
Reason for Titanium Use
Use Hi story
Aerospace Applications
Gas Turbine Engines
Airframes
Mi ssiles and Space Vehicles
Non-Aerospace Applications
Ordnanc e
Marine Uses
Indus tri al Us es
CHAPTER 10 TITANIUM SUPPLY , DEMAND, AND PRICE TRENDS
Ti tanium Supply
Sponge
Ingot
Mill Processing
T! tanium Demand
Histori cal Demand
Near Term
Long Term
Major Future Titanium Markets
Aerospace
Marine
Industrial
Ec anomies
Sumatra ry
CHAPTER 11 TECHNOLOGIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR TITANIUM
Metal-Winning Processes
Sponge and Alloy Metal Consolidation and Processing
Yttrium and Rare Earth Additions
xvii
92
92
92
92
93
93
94
94
95
95
95
95
95
96
96
101
101
106
108
108
112
116
117
117
119
120
125
125
125
129
131
132
132
135
136
137
137
141
141
150
151
153
153
154
154
OCR for page R18
Near-Net-Shape Processing
Superplastic and Diffusion Bonding
Precision Casting
Precision Powder Metallurgy Molding of Complex Shapes
Titanium Mill Products by Tonnage Powder Metallurgy
Rapid Solidification Technology
CHAPTER 12 INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES
The Markets
Ability of the Indus try to Cope
Al ter net ive s
Reliable Estimates of Military Requirements
Incenti ve s
Stockpiles
Strategic Stockpiles
Economic Incentives and D~scentives for Expansion
Research and Development
APPENDIX A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF PANEL MEMBERS
APPENDIX B GUEST CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STUDY
APPENDIX C PLANT TOURS
APPENDIX D The U.S. AIR FORCE TECHNOLOGY MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
APPENDIX E TYPES OF TITANIUM ORE DEPOSITS
Ilmenite and Leucoxene
Rutile and Anatase
Perovskite and Sphene
Titanium in West Coast Sand-Gravel, Gold Placer and
Si lice-Clay Operat ions
APPENDIX F EXCERPTS FROM TITANIUM TETRACHLORIDE SPECIFICATIONS
APPENDIX G RUTILE SPECIFICATIONS
APPENDIX H TITANIUM SPONGE SPECIFICATIONS
AP PE HDI X I LIST ING OF THE INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS IN
THE U . S . TITANIUM INDUSTRY
155
156
157
158
159
160
163
164
165
165
166
166
167
168
168
170
171
175
177
181
183
183
183
183
186
189
195
197
201
APPENDIX J GREATER AIRCRAFT FUEL EFFICIENCY BY TEAMING
GRAPHITE-EPOXY AND TITANIUM 205
APPENDIX K TONNAGE POWDER METALLURGY DU PONT TITANIUM
TONNAGE POWDER METALLURGY 207
xviii
