See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235997816

Determination of single particle comminution characteristics of ores by drop

weight test

Conference Paper · December 2010

CITATIONS READS

0 523

3 authors, including:

Rahul K Soni C. Eswaraiah

CSIR-Institute of Minerals and Materials Technology CSIR-Institute of Minerals and Materials Technology
21 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS 37 PUBLICATIONS 201 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A mechanical peanut decorticator machine View project

A Automated Solar Tracking Device. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rahul K Soni on 15 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Breakage Energy Analysis in
Comminution with the use of Twin Pendulum Device
Soni, R.K.a, Eswaraiah, C.b, Mishra, B.K.b,*

a
Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad-826004 (India)

b
Institute of Minerals and Materials Technology (IMMT), Bhubaneswar-751013 (India)

Abstract

Single particle breakage tests have been used by a number of researchers to investigate

some salient features of the complex comminution process. A twin pendulum setup is designed

to indirectly measure the losses in energy for single particle breakage which is assumed to be

equivalent to comminution energy. Calculated comminution energies are analyzed for their

relations against breakage characteristics therefore impact energies, specimen size and operating

work index. Breakage pattern of material also analyzed with the determination of single

distribution parameter (t10). Comminution energies and breakage behavior both analyzed against

the transfer patterns of energy; transfer of part of impact energy to useful energy in comminution

and its dependency on breakage characteristics such as material hardness and size of material are

presented and discussed in this article. Above mentioned terms are modeled to bring conclusions

in a mathematical platform.

Keywords: comminution energy, twin pendulum, size distribution parameter, size distribution.

*
Correspoding Author: Eswaraiah, C., Institute of Minerals and Materials Technology (IMMT)
Bhubaneswar-751 013 (India)
Email: eswar@immt.res.in
1. Introduction

Modeling of milling operations has been traditionally based on population balance

models using first order kinetics which require the determination of breakage rate functions and

residence time distribution. Crushing and grinding are known energy intensive processes

(Schonert, 1979 [1]). In a typical mineral processing plant approximately 50 percent of total

energy consumption takes place by comminution only (Cohen, 1983 [2]). Single particle

breakage tests can provide near to accurate information on realistic breakage characteristics of

materials to develop comprehensive mathematical models and scale-up designs for comminution

process.

Comminution is a complex process resulting from a number of poorly understood micro-

processes (Schuhmann, 1940 [3]; Harris, 1966 [4]; Schonert, 1972 [5]; Rumpf, 1973 [6]; Buss et

al., 1978 [7]; Beke, 1981 [8]; Tarjan, 1981 [9]). The elementary comminution can be regarded as

a single particle subjected to stress. During such a breakage micro-event, two main modes of

comminution have been identified (Gaudin, 1926 [10]; Committee on Comminution and Energy

Consumption, 1981 [11]). In the major mode, the particle is subjected to compressive stresses. In

the minor mode, the rubbed or jostled so that stress concentration exist at some surface sites on

the corners or protrusions, leading to abrasion. Relatively little research has been reported on the

abrasive mode of comminution (Crabtree et al. 1964 [12]; Kinasevisch, 1964 [13]; Rose, 1983

[14]) probably because it appears to be slower and less efficient means of grinding. In addition, a

vast amount of research has been directed towards the study of breakage phenomena to

understand most difficult elementary comminution events (Bickle, 1958 [15]; Calcott, 1969 [16];

Rumpf, 1973 [6]; Lowrison, 1974 [17]; Lynch, 1977 [18]; Committee on Comminution and

Energy Consumption, 1981 [11]; Austin et al., 1984 [19]).

 The difficulty experienced by investigators in the analysis of the patterns of transmission

and utilization of impact forces lead to the development of pendulum devices. Bond, 1946 [20]

developed a twin pendulum apparatus to determine the impact crushing strengths of 76×50mm

rock particles under controlled crushing conditions. An attempt was made by Gaudin et al. (1946

[21]) to approximately quantify the rebound losses by using a special twin pendulum device.

Research on various designs of twin pendulum setup has been performed by several researchers

(Narayanan, 1986 [22]). Investigations reported can be broadly classified into (Narayanan, 1986

[22]):

(a) approximate determination of net energy required in breakage for characterizing of

comminution properties of materials under controlled crushing conditions

(b) detailed energy balance to accurately determine the net energy utilized in comminution

process for the analysis of breakage behavior brittle materials

2. Experimental

2.1. Experimental setup

To investigate the pattern of energy utilization in single particles breakage process, a

twin pendulum device is designed and fabricated similar to Narayanan et al., (1988 [23]). In

addition to referred setup a computer monitoring system added to setup for accurate

measurement of oscillation time periods. Computer monitoring system is incorporated with a

laser detection arrangement and a signal processor having compatibility with LabView-Data

Acquisition Toolbox (DAQ).

Schematic diagram of the Computer Monitored Twin Pendulum Device (CMTPD) is

presented in Fig.1. A ball pendulum weighing 4.685kg and a cylindrical pendulum weighing
6.853kg used as the input pendulum and rebound pendulum respectively. Diameters of both

pendulums are 10.4cm and are made of manganese-steel alloy. Length of the rebound pendulum

is 10.2cm. Each pendulum suspended from respective steel plates attached to main frame.

Connection of pendulums with steel plate made through adjustable sleeve and cotton rope of

1.5mm diameter. The pendulum length can be adjusted with a turn buckle on each of the two

ropes. Also, the pendulums alignment can be made through provided arrangement with the main

frame.

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of computer monitored twin pendulum device

This arrangement enabled the pendulum to be suspended in its most stable position so

that friction during its motion is minimized. Furthermore, the potentially uneven motions of the

rebound pendulum after a collision are rapidly corrected by the two ropes that tend to hold the

pendulum in the equilibrium position avoiding any twisting motion. Input pendulum can be

raised to a known height by the use of an attached nylon release thread. A 3-fin (with identical

spacing) arrangement is attached to the rebound pendulum as shown in figure 1 and figure 2.

The motion of the rebound pendulum via 3-fins is monitored through interruption of laser beam
and processed through data acquisition electronic card. Data acquired from setup is further

processed with LabView which resulted in oscillation time periods. Various setup dimensions

are also presented in figure 2.

Fig. 2: Dimensions for the twin pendulum device

2.2. Materials and Methods

Ore sample of BHQ, coal and magnetite with Bond’s operating work index as 17.5, 13 and

12.7 respectively were collected from different locations followed by their primary

comminution to obtain the closed size range samples of (-18+15)mm, (-9.5+8.0)mm and (-

6.3+5.6)mm. Before performing experiments calibration of rebound pendulum (Narayanan, et

al., 1988 [23]) was performed to obtain the parameter of linear relationship between rebound

pendulum time period and square of its angular displacement. For each sample, particles in the

desired number were taken according to their respective density such that the approximate

weight of sample becomes 50-60 gm. Then one by one particle from each sample was loosely

attached to the active face of rebound pendulum and input pendulum with different heights was
impacted on the particle. In the presented work 10 oscillation after each impact was monitored,

see Narayanan, et al., (1988 [23]) for complete experimental procedure. Each material and size

of it was experimented for three heights of input pendulum i.e. 5cm, 10cm and 15 cm, therefore,

three levels of impact energy. So, three materials, three sizes and three levels of impact energy

concluded 7 set of experiments or data.

2.3. Theoretical background

Mathematics for twin pendulum experiments can be derived from fundamental physics.

Detailed derivations (Narayanan, et al., 1988 [23]) shows conservation of linear momentum in

experimental setup as

M 1U1 + M 2U 2 = M 1V1 + M 2V2 (1)

where M is the mass of pendulum, U is the initial velocity before collision, V is the final

velocity after collision and subscripts 1 and 2 indicate input and rebound pendulums

respectively. With this coefficient of restitution can be calculated as

M 1 + M 2 V2
e=( ) −1 (2)
M1 U1

Coefficient of restitution easily leads to the calculation of final velocity of input pendulum

after collision. Energy of each pendulum before and after collision can be calculated with

measured velocities. Difference of energy for pendulums before and after collision can be

approximately regarded as useful energy of comminution.

EC = Ei − E r 1 − E r 2 (3)

where subscripts c, i, r1 and r2 are for comminution energy, input energy, residual energy of

input and residual energy for rebound pendulum.

 The angle of displacement of the rebound pendulum, A (degrees) from its equilibrium

position is computed from oscillation time period, T, and calibration constants, a and b, use of

the relationship

T −a
A = 16 * (4)
b

A typical breakage distribution can be represented by number of methods, among which

Narayanan, 1988 model (Single parameter, t10 model) and Klimpel and Austin (1984) model are

frequently used models.

2.3.1. Narayanan, 1988 model (Single parameter, t10 model)

Narayanan and Whiten (1988) have widely used a novel procedure for estimation of
breakage distribution functions of ores from the so called t-family of curves. In this method, the
product size distribution can be represented by a family of curves using marker points on the size
distribution defined as the percentage passing at a fraction of the parent particle size. They have
proposed empirical equations for relating the reference curve data t10with the impact energy.
Narayanan et al., (1983) [24], Pauw et al., 1988 [25], Bourgeois, 1993 [26] and King, 2002
[27] proposed Eq. (5) to represent the breakage distribution
9 α
[{ } ]
n −1
t n = 1 − (1 − t10 ) (5)

In the Eq. (5) given above, n in the equation is the ratio of geometric mean specimen (feed)
and product sizes and tn is the cumulative fraction passing to the corresponding n values. So t10
is the cumulative fraction passing by the geometric mean product size 1/10th to the geometric
mean specimen size. For example in case of specimen size of (-9.5+8.0) mm, t10 is the
(9.5 * 8.0)
cumulative fraction passing by the size of = 0.8718 mm.
10
2.3.2. Klimpel and Austin (1984)
xi γ x
Bi, j = ϕ ( ) + (1 − ϕ )( i ) β (6)
xj xj
 Model consists of more number of parameters. In the equation ‫ܤ‬௜,௝ is the cumulative amount
breaking from the jth size to below of ith size. ‫ݔ‬௜ and ‫ݔ‬௝ are the sieve sizes at ith and jth level
respectively, where j value is greater than i value. ߮, ߛ and ߚ in the equation are model
parameters.
A wide research on equation (6) concluded its failure for breakage representation in
several ways. Equation is having more number of parameters of parameters as compared to
equation (5), and after performing regression and therefore determining the parameters it found
difficult to correlate those with the breakage characteristics i.e. impact energy, particle size and
material hardness. Parameters dependency on these characteristics found highly unpredictable.
Only parameter φ showed weakly that it is specimen size dependent and independent of ore and
specific input energy.

3. Analysis and procedure

3.1. Calibration of experimental setup

Calibration of the experimental setup is a critical step in for research. Equation (4) can be re-

written as

A
T = a + b( ) 2
4

Above linear equation needs calibration of rebound pendulum to obtain the values of a and b.

For this rebound pendulum was raised to heights of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 cm and then allowed for

oscillations. 10 swings of oscillation in each case monitored and resulted in time period for each

case. A linear regression as per equation (4) resulted in values of a and b as 1.466 and 0.0007.

3.2. Observations from experiments

 Demerits of model given as equation (6) are already enlightened in 2.3.3 and so authors did

not attempted to examine breakage distribution against Klimpel model. However, physical

experiments described in subsection 2.2 were followed by number of steps for analysis.

Breakage product were first segregated in different size ranges and then examined for their

differential weights, which were fitted into equation (5) in the MATLAB curve fitting

toolbox. It is important to note that tn values are on the fractional basis and a percent passing

value can be obtained by multiplying it with a factor of 100.Table 1 gives the limiting

conditions set in the curve fitting toolbox of Matlab.

Regression parameters fixed to fit the sieve analysis results.

Unknowns Start Point Lower Limit Upper Limit
α 0 0 10.0
t10 5.0e-02 5.0e-02 5.0e-01
All α and t10 values for 27 experiments were obtained from regression. Goodness of fit values for
the confidence level of 99%, mainly R-square and Adjusted R-square for all regression found
more than 0.90. SSE (sum of squares due to errors), RMSE (root mean squared errors) values
obtained shown the excellent level of fit. A typical graphical regression result is shown in figure
3. In figure, χ is the geometric mean of specimen size and the product sizes are represented by x.
Obtained values of t10 and α were tabulated along with respective SSE, R-square, Adjusted R-
square and RMSE. All regressions were obtained with more than 0.95 R-square values.
 Fig 3. A typical regression plot for Single parameter (t10) equation
Physical experiments corresponded to three heights of input pendulum i.e. 5cm, 10cm

and 15cm. These energies were converted into corresponding kg-cm (Ei) values followed by

energy values in Kwh/ton. Time periods supplied by LabView, through equation (4) computed

the angular displacement, followed by the computation of the vertical displacement of rebound

pendulum resulted in the energy and velocity of rebound pendulum. Let, U1 and U2 are the

velocities of input and rebound pendulum before collision and after collision they obtain the

velocities V1 and V2 respectively. So, the coefficient of restitution was calculated from equation

(2). Which led to the tabulated values of U1, V1 and V2, and therefore the energies of input and

rebound pendulums before and after collision. Thus equation (3) can be used to calculate the

values of comminution energy, Ec, divided by mean particle weights to obtain specific

comminution energies, E cs. It is important to note that losses in energy are considered in the

research as comminution energy, E c. Table 2 below summarizes the mean particle weights of

the material with their sizes used in experiments.

Table 4
Mean particle weights of single particle in gram for different ores and specimen sizes (χ)
Ore\Specimen size(mm) -18+15 -9.5+8.0 -6.3+5.6
Magnetite 5.05 1.57 0.58
Quartz 3.14 1.13 0.32
Coal 1.58 0.58 0.18
V1 = V2 − e *U1 (7)

2
E r1 = M 1 *V1 (9)
2g

4. Results and discussion

3.3.1. Breakage distribution of the materials was analyzed first for their

dependencies on breakage characteristics. As mentioned earlier Narayanan (1988),

Single parameter t10 model, is concluded to be a better option for representing breakage of

material. Model consist of two parameter that are α and t10. Dependency of α and t10 to breakage

characteristics such as impact energy (EI) or comminution energy (ECS), specimen particle size

and material hardness as Bond’s work index (WIo) are shown in article on individual basis.

Figure 4 and 5 below shows the variation in parameter ‘t10’ with comminution energy under

influence of work index (WIO) and specimen size (χ).

Fig. 4: Relationship between the size distribution parameter ‘t10’ and comminution energy for

size (-9.5+8.0)mm

Fig. 5: Relationship between the size distribution parameter ‘t10’ and comminution energy for all

sizes of quartz
It is self explainable that how t10 is increasing with the increase in comminution energy. As

comminution energy is increasing breakage of a material of particular specimen size increases

and reflected in terms of t10. While it is difficult to generalize the conclusions from figure 5, as

lower specimen sizes of a material shows more breakage, which can be taken as more breakage

for smaller particles that does not states true with the findings of earlier research. Reasons to

explain the phenomena are given in the article. (1) t10 is the measurement of size fraction passing

1/10th of the specimen size, and so it is somehow measurement of fine generation and here when

size is decreasing it leads to increase in fines generation and that is measured in terms of t10. It is

notable to see the comminution of coal marked by some of the authors, Sahoo, 2006 [28] have

suggested use of t50 instead of t10 for breakage analysis of coal in their handling systems. The

former breakage product percent which is 5 times smaller than of later is a suitable parameter for

coal as it is a brittle and easily breakable material, and so needs comparatively smaller size to be

considered for a analysis of fines generation. In addition, Weedon et al., 2000 [29] also

suggested consideration of t50 for the degradation of iron ores by twin pendulum device. (2)

Earlier researches were mostly on drop weight tests and their breakage distribution

representation with t10, in which some of the researches might have found increase in t10 with

increase in specimen size. It can be notable to consider that losses in drop weight tests are nearly

constant with respect to input energy, when it is compared to the case of twin pendulum tests, as

in twin pendulum test a significant part of energy is going to the oscillations of rebound and

impact pendulum after collision. Figure 6 shows the transfer patterns of energy for comminution

for magnetite. Three levels of energy input therefore, 5cm, 10cm and 15cm height of input

pendulum, are marked in figure as EI in Kwh respectively. In figure comparison for three sizes of
specimen is shown, which concludes better energy transfer in lower size particles, and therefore

can be considered as a reason for more breakage of smaller sized particles.

Fig. 6: Transfer pattern of energy and its comparison for three specimen sizes of

magnetite

In addition to above, it is also important to compare energy transfer pattern dependency on

material characteristic and determination of comminution energy against the material

characteristics, which are shown in figure 7, 8 and 9.

Fig. 7: Energy transfer patterns for all three material of size of (-9.5+8.0) mm

Fig. 8: Variation of absolute specific energy with input energy for three sizes of quartz
 Fig. 9: Variation in specific comminution energy with input energy for (-6.3+5.6) mm size

It important to note that in figure 6 and 7 the maximum values for ECS/EIS does not exceed

the value of 0.6, which means that at least 40% of the input energy is lost in oscillations and

unwanted vibrations of input and rebound pendulum after collision. Also, in figure 4 and 9 coal

has shown unpredictable behavior, as it is having a Bond’s work index value of 13.0 that falls

between the values, 13.5 for magnetite and 12.7 for quartz. However, in figures the

corresponding values for coal do not lie in between of magnetite and quartz, this is due non-

mineral characteristics of coal. Coal is highly brittle, easily breakage material and generates

more fine, and so in figure 4 it is having high values for t10. Also, coal is a lighter material in

comparison, therefore shows increased values of ECS in figure 9, as ECS is derived by dividing

the EC by the mean particle weight.

As mentioned earlier, Narayanan, 1988 model (Single parameter, t10 model) requires to

determine two parameters, therefore t10 and α. Analysis for t10 for its dependency on breakage
characteristics is already mentioned in the article. One needs to determine α also to work with

this model.

Fig. 10: Dependency of parameter ‘α’ on energy input for three ores

Fig. 11: Dependency of parameter ‘α’ on specimen size of ores for three levels of input

energy

Though, Sand et al., 2004 [32] reported that α decreases with the increase in specimen size

while the present research concludes a contradictory result. Also, Sand et al., 2004 [32] drew an

important conclusion as parameter α to be independent of energy input; a similar agreement is

found true in this work.

 Fig. 12: fluctuation in coefficient of restitution with input energy

Fluctuation in coefficient of restitution (e) is shown in figure 12. A general increase in

COR is found with increase in input energy. However, the rate of increase in COR shows

significant decrease, when it moves from 46.85 to 70.27 Kwh input energy as compared to its

move from 23.42 to 46.85 Kwh input energy. In disagreement to above Mishra, 2003 [30]

suggested decrease in COR with increase in input energy, as a result of comparatively high

energy dissipation at higher impact velocity. Researchers have found vague conclusions in this

regard; it mostly depends upon the range of impact velocity. However, result found in

presented work for COR shows high agreement with Narayanan, 1985 [31].
Abbreviations

CMTPD Computer Monitored Twin Pendulum Device

DAQ Data acquisition toolbox

BHQ Banded hematite quartz

COR Coefficient of restitution

References

[1] Schonert, K., 1979. Energy aspects of size reduction of brittle materials, Zement-kalk-
Gips (Translation No. 1/79), No. 3: 40-44.
[2] Cohen, H.E., 1983. Energy usage in mineral processing, Trans. I.M.M., 92: C160-C164.
[3] Schuhmann, R., 1940. Principles of Comminution, A.I.M.I. Technical publication No.
1187.
[4] Harris, C.C., 1966. On the role of energy in comminution: A review of physical and
mathematical principles, Trans. I.M.M., 75: C37-C56.
[5] Schonert, K., 1972. Role of fracture physics in understanding Comminution phenomena,
Trans. S.M.E./A.I.M.E., 252: 21-26.
[6] Rumpf, H., 1973. Physical aspects of Comminution and new formulation of a low of
comminution, Powder Technology, 7: 145-159.
[7] Buss, B., Shubert, H., 1978. Results of investigation into comminution micro-processes
(German), Neve Bergbautechnik, (12): 706-710.
[8] Beke, B., 1981. The process of fine grinding, 15-65 (Dr. W. Junk, Publishers:
Boston/London).
[9] Tarjan, G., 1981. Mineral processing, vol. 1: 35-185 (Akademiai Kiado: Budapest).
[10] Gaudin, A.M., 1926. An investigation of crusher phenomena, Trans. S.M.E./A.I.M.E.,
73: 253-310.
[11] Committee on Comminution and Energy Consumption, 1981. Comminution and Energy
Consumption, National Materials Advisory Board Report No. NMAB-364, 50-160
(National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.).
[12] Crabtree, D.D., Kinasevisch, R.S., Mular, A.L., Meloy, T.P., Fuerstenau, D.W., 1964.
Mechanics of size reduction in comminution systems. Part I. Impact, abrasion and
chipping grinding, Trans S.M.E./A.I.M.E, 229: 201-206.
[13] Kinasevisch, R.S., Crabtree, D.D., Mular, A.L., Meloy, T.P., Fuerstenau, D.W., 1964.
Mechanics of size reduction in comminution systems. Part II. Interpreting size distribution
curves and the comminution event hypothesis, Trans. S.M.E./A.I.M.E, 229: 207-210.
[14] Rose, H.E., 1983. Material removal by surface abrasion in masses of particles, Trans.
I.M.M., 92: C138-C146.
[15] Bickel, W.H., 1958. Crushing and Grinding-A bibliography, 20-75 (Dept. of Scientific
and Industrial Research, HMSO, London).
 [16] Calcott, T.G., 1969. Recent developments in size reduction theory in Symposium on
Size-reduction, 33-38 (University of Sydney).
[17] Lowrison, G.C., 1974. Crushing and Grinding-the size reduction of solid materials, 35-
120 (Butterworths, London).
[18] Lynch, A.J., 1977. Mineral crushing and grinding circuits, their simulation, optimization,
design and control, 8-45 (Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co. Amsterdam).
[19] Austin, L.G., Luckie, P.T., Klimpel, R.R., 1984. Process Engineering of Size Reductions:
Ball Milling. 181-229 (S.M.E./A.I.M.E.: New York).
[20] Bond, F.C., 1946. Crushing tests by pressure and impact, Mining Technology, Technical
preprint No. 1895, 169: 58-65.
[21] Gaudin, A.M., Hukki, R.T., 1946. Principles of comminution–size and surface
distribution, Trans. S.M.E.A.I.M.E., 169: 67-94.
[22] Narayanan, S.S., 1986. Single particle breakage tests: a review of principles and
applications of comminution modeling, Bull. Proc. Australas. Inst. Min. Metall., 291(4):
49-58.
[23] Narayanan, S.S., Whiten, W.J., 1988. Determination of comminution characteristics from
single-particle breakage tests and its application to ball-mill scale-up, Trans. Inst. Min.
Metall., Sect. C: Mineral Process. Extr. Metall., 97: C115-C124.
[24] Narayanan, S.S., Whiten W.J., 1983. Breakage characteristics of ores for ball mill
modeling, Proceedings of Aus. IMM, 286, June, pp.31-39.
[25] Pauw, O.G., Mare, M.S., 1988. The determination of optimum impact-breakage routes
for an ore, Powder Technology, Vol 54, pp.3-13.
[26] Bourgeois, F., 1993. Micro-scale Modelling of Comminution Processes. Thesis,
University of Utah.
[27] King, R.P., 2002. Modeling and Simulation of Mineral Processing Systems, first ed.
Butterworth-Heinemann Publishers, NY.
[28] Sahoo, R., 2006. Review: An investigation of single particle breakage tests for coal
handling system of the gladstone port, central queensland university, rochampton,
queensland, 4702, Australia, powder technology, vol. 161, issue 2, pp. 158-167.
[29] Weedon, D.M., Wilson, F., 2000. Modeling iron ore degradation using a twin pendulum
breakage device, Int. J. of mineral processing, vol. 59, issue 3, pp. 195-213.
[30] Mishra, B.K., 2003. A review of computer simulation of tumbling mills by the discrete
element method: Part I—contact mechanics, Int. J. Miner. Process., 7, 73-93.
[31] Narayanan, S.S., 1985. Development of a laboratory single particle breakage technique
and its application to ball mill modeling and scale-up, PhD thesis, University of
Queensland, Australia.
[32] Sand, G.W., Subasinghe, G.K.N., 2004. A novel approach to evaluating breakage
parameters and modeling batch grinding, Minerals Engineering, Extractive Metallurgy
Program, Department of Mineral Science and Extractive Metallurgy, Murdoch University.

View publication stats