Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 R1
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 R1
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 R1

OCR for page R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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