Views 
   PDF Download PDF Downloads: 3221

 Open Access -   Download full article: 

Review on Machining of Aluminium Metal Matrix Composites

Pushpendra Kumar Jain*1, S. C. Soni2, Prashant V. Baredar3

1Barkatullah University Institute of Technology, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal-462046 ,MP, India,
2Bansal College of Engineering, Mandideep, Bhopal-462046, MP, India,
3Energy Department, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal-462003 MP, India

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.13005/msri/110204

Article Publishing History
Article Received on : 09 Oct 2014
Article Accepted on : 27 Oct 2014
Article Published : 03 Nov 2014
Plagiarism Check: Yes
Article Metrics
ABSTRACT:

Metal matrix composites have superior mechanical properties in comparison to metals over a wide range of operating conditions. This make them an attractive option in replacing metals for various engineering applications. This paper provides a literature review, on machining of Aluminium metal matrix composites (AMMC)especially the particle reinforced Aluminium metal matrix composites. This paper is an attempt to give brief account of recent work to predict cutting parameters &surface generated in AMMC.By suitably selecting the machining parameters, machining of AMMC can be made economical.

KEYWORDS: AMMC; Reinforcement; cutting speed; feed; depth of cut; surface finish; machinability etc.

Copy the following to cite this article:

Jain P. K, Soni S. C, Baredar P. V. Review on Machining of Aluminium Metal Matrix Composites. Mat.Sci.Res.India;11(2)

Copy the following to cite this URL:

Jain P. K, Soni S. C, Baredar P. V. Review on Machining of Aluminium Metal Matrix Composites. Mat.Sci.Res.India;11(2). Available from: http://www.materialsciencejournal.org/?p=670

Introduction

Composite materials consist of two or more materials that differ in chemical and physical properties and are not soluble in one another. The primary constituent in a composite material is the matrix phase that provides load transfer and structural integrity, while the reinforcementto enhance mechanical properties. The matrix and reinforcement materials can either be organic (polymers), inorganic (ceramic or glass) or metallic (aluminum, titanium, etc.). The most common forms of reinforcement materials are fibers (long and short), or particulates.

Composite materials have superior specific properties (high strength to weight ratio) compared to metals, high stiffness and good damage resistance over a wide range of operating conditions, making them an attractive option in replacing conventional materials for many engineering applications.Important properties of composite materials are: improved strength & stiffness, excellent fatigue resistance, high heat resistant, high wear resistant, high corrosion resistant, low weight etc. By suitable arrangement of metal matrix and reinforcement addition, it is possible to obtain desired properties for a particular application.

Matrix materials in Metal Matrix Composites (MMC) are aluminium, magnesium and titanium alloys. Reinforcing materials in MMC are silicon carbide, boron carbide, alumina and graphite in the form of particles, short fibers (whiskers) or long fibers. In Aluminium Metal Matrix Composites (AMMC), matrix material is aluminium and reinforcement materials are silicon carbide, aluminum oxide, boron carbide, graphite etc. in the form of fibers, whiskers & particles.This paper discusses the important aspects of machining of MMC especially the Aluminium metal matrix composites.

MACHINING OF ALUMINIUM METAL MATRIX COMPOSITE: A REVIEW

Though MMCs are manufactured to near net shape, a need often exists for machining. Machining characteristics depends on the reinforcement material, type of reinforcement (particle or whisker), distribution of reinforcement in the matrix, and volume fraction of the reinforcement and matrix.Machining results of MMC are different than metal machining due to presence of hard and brittle reinforcements. While machining tool encounters matrix and reinforcement materials alternatively, whose response to machining is entirely different. The main problem in machining MMC is the high tool wear, which leads to an uneconomical production process or makes the process impossible.Thus, machining of composite materials imposes special demands on the geometry and wear resistance of the cutting tools.

Figure 1 shows phenomenon of MMC machining. It is similar to machining of conventional metals.  In machining of MMC, there is excessive wear of cutting tool. The dominant wear mechanism is abrasion, which is generated by impacts at the cutting edge and by the sliding motion of the particles relative to the rake and clearance face.  Different wear mechanisms are responsible for the abrasive tool wear. These are known as micro ploughing, micro fatigue, micro cutting and micro cracking.The process of ploughing occurs due to material deformation and displacement by rounded part of the cutting edge BC. This is the plastic deformation zone where no chip is formed. In addition to ploughing, particle fracture and displacement also takes place in this region. The particle fracture and displacement is considered to occur mainly along the cutting line CD. 

The research work to assess the cutting forces, cutting temperature, tool wear, surface roughness and sub-surface damage during machining of particulate metal matrix composites has been extensively studied experimentally in the past. R. Teti [1] concluded that main problem in machining MMC is the high tool wear which makes machining uneconomical. Another critical factor is damage of the reinforcement in the subsurface zone which reduces the properties of the finished MMC part. D’Errico et al.[2] turned MMC parts using PCD & CVD tools and concluded

 

Figure 1:Machining of metal matrix composites [46]. 

Figure1: Machining of metal matrix composites [46].



Click here to View Figure

 

that these tool materials can be used for machining MMC. Gallab et al. [3] presented comprehensive tool wear models for Aluminium particulate MMC. They concluded that for evaluating temperatures and stresses generated in the cutting tool, numerical methods, such as the finite element method, offer a more promising approach compared to direct measurement techniques. Tay et al. developed 2-D model to compute the temperature distribution in the tool, chip and work piece. Marusich and Ortiz developed a Lagrangian finite element model of orthogonal high speed machining. Both ductile and brittle fracture initiation and propagation were accounted for during processing; an essential feature for determining shear-localized chip morphologies [4]. Shetty et al. [5] applied Taguchi’s technique in machining of MMC. The method helps in proper selection of machining parameters. Study found that tool wear is predominantly caused by abrasion of hard reinforcement particles in the MMC.

Kemal et al. [6] analyzed particle distribution in particulate MMC. Study shows that there is usually particle clustering or agglomeration occurs in PMMC. This clustering significantly decreases the local property of the PMMC. However, uniform distribution of particles in the final product is essential in the PMMCs to obtain desired mechanical and thermal properties.

Kılıckap et al. [7] investigated machining parameters on tool wear & surface roughness for 5% SiC-p Al-MMC. They found that cutting speed is the most influential machining parameter on tool wear. Feed rate is the second influential machining parameter. Higher depth of cut, slightly increased tool wear. Kannan et al. [8] investigated the effect of cutting parameters and particulate properties on the micro hardness variations of the aluminium matrix beneath the machined surface.  They concluded that geometrical defects like micro cracks, voids, pits and craters were predominantly formed due to particulate fracture and/or pull-out and in terfacial debonding.

Pramanik et al. [9] developed a mechanics model to predict the forces for machining aluminum alloy based MMCs reinforced with ceramic particles. The resultant cutting force was considered to consist of components due to chip formation, ploughing and, particle fracture and displacement. They showed that force due to chip formation is much higher than those due to ploughing and particle fracture. Pramanik et al. [10] investigated matrix deformation and tool-particle interactions during machining using finite element method. They showed that magnitude and distribution of stresses/strains in the MMC material and interaction of particles with the cutting tool are the main reasons for particle fracture and debonding during machining of MMC.

Dabade et al. [14] analyzed chip formation mechanism in machining of AMMC, using Taguchi method based experimentation, and concluded that at lower cutting speed (40 m min−1) thin flakes, needle type as well as segmented chips are formed, whereas at higher cutting speed (120 m min−1) generally, semi-continuous, continuous chips are formed. The length of chip and the number of chip curls increases with an increase in feed rate at given cutting speed and depth of cut.

Dandekar et al. [19] concluded that for mechanics modeling of machining, methods used are: finite element modeling (for machining at the macro scale), molecular dynamics studies(simulating nano metric cutting to capture atomic interactions) and multi-scale modeling(to bridge the gap between the atomistic and continuum scale). A number of methods have been proposed to reduce the computational cost for carrying out multi million atom simulations necessary to simulate micro machining using only MD. The hybrid FE-MD modeling provides an atomistic description (MD) near the region of interest and the FE modeling describes the rest of the substrate.

Chandrasekaran et al. [21] applied soft computing techniques in machining performance prediction and optimization.  They concluded that soft computing techniques are being preferred to physics-based models for predicting the performance of the machining processes and optimizing them. Dhavamani et al. [22] applied multi-objective optimization (based on Taguchi Method) for drilling processes of composite materials, as it increases the flexibility for selecting the optimal cutting parameters.

MACHINING PARAMETERS AND THEIR EFFECTS

In any conventional machining operation the primary machining parameters are cutting speed, feed, depth of cut etc. Properties of AMMC depend on matrix & reinforcement. Hence to assess the machining behavior of AMMC parameters like reinforcement orientation and tooling are also considered.

Effect of Cutting Speed

During machining of MMCs,at low cutting speeds, a built-up edge (BUE) has been observed by Manna et al. & Kilickap et al. [24-26]. Due to the BUE the cutting force at low cutting speeds is lower than the cutting force observed at higher cutting speeds. The presence of a BUE increases the actual rake angle of the tool resulting in a lower cutting force. Wang et al. & Manna et al. have shown a decrease in the cutting forces with an increase in the cutting speed [27-28]. In the study conducted by Manna and Bhattacharya [28], the effect of the cutting speed on the feed force and cutting force during turning of an Al/SiC composite was measured. It was observed that the feed force and the cutting force decreased with an increase in the cutting speed.

The tool life decreases while the surface finish improves only slightly with an in crease in cutting speed, since the tool temperature increases with cutting speed,thereby softening the tool material and consequently accelerating the diffusion wear [8, 29, 30]. Overall, the variation of surface roughness with cutting speed is not significant as the surface roughness is dominated by the size of reinforcement and the feed [29-31]. In terms of tool life, Manna and Bhattacharya [24-25]conducted studies using carbide tooling for machining of an Al/SiC composite and observed that the flank wear increased 2.5–3 times for an increase in cutting speed from 60 to 180 m/min. Another observation of flank wear variation with cutting speed is the very rapid increase in flank wear at cutting speeds above 100 m/min and hence cutting speed range of 60–100 m/min was suggested for machining of these composites. Ozben et al. [26] and Joshi et al. [32] both machined an aluminum matrix reinforced with SiC particles and observed that the cutting speed was one of the dominant factors in limiting the machinability of the composite.

Effect of Feed

Feed has considerable effect on the cutting forces as the cutting forces rise considerably with an increase in the feed [10, 33]. Many force prediction models for machining of MMCs have been given by researchers. Kishawy et al. [34] developed an energy-based analytical model to predict the forces in orthogonal cutting of an MMC using a ceramic tool at a low cutting speed. Pramanik et al. [10] developed a mechanics-based model for prediction of the cutting forces based on the mechanisms of chip formation, and the presence of the matrix and particle. Feed negatively affects the surface roughness, where the surface finish deteriorates with an increase in feed [29, 35].Furthermore feed has the largest effect on the damage observed in the sub-surface[4,36]. El-Gallab and Sklad concluded that the failure in the composite initiates along the voids generated around the SiC particles due to the high cutting forces observed at higher feeds. The voids join up to form micro cracks

and subsequent fracture along the shear band. On the other hand feed tendsto have less influence on the tool wear. A high feed can reduce the tool-wear ratedue to the improvement in the conduction of heat from the cutting zone to theworkpiece [8]. Feed increases the flank wear but only marginally as compared tocutting speed. At a cutting speed of 60 m/min increasing the feed three folds increased the flank wear 1.6 times, while increasing the speed three folds at a feed of 0.35 mm/rev the flank wear increased three times [24, 37].

Effect of Depth of Cut

Depth of cut has a negative effect on the surface finish and the sub-surface damage.An increase in depth of cut decreases the quality of the surface finish and the subsurface damage. Chambers [38] conducted a study on machining of a 15% by volume fraction of SiC in A356 aluminum alloy and concluded that the depth of cut did not significantly alter the tool life, with tool life decreasing with an increase in the depth of cut. Although the effect of depth of cut on tool wear is not significant, it has a stronger effect on the tool wear as compared to the feed asshown in machining of an Al/SiCp/15% composite with uncoated tungsten carbide tools [8, 24]. Additionally, an increase in the depth of cut increases the machining forces during the machining of MMCs.

Effect of Reinforcement

The presence of the reinforcement affects the machinability of composites substantially. The hard ceramic particles inthe matrix cause problems such as excessive tool wear. The size and the percentage volume fraction of the reinforcement play a significant role on the machinability of composites. Surface finish is mainly dependent on the average size and volume fraction ofthe particles. Ciftci et al. [39] machined an Al/SiCp composite with SiC particle size of 30, 45 and 110 µm and a reinforcement of 16% volume using both coated and un coated carbide tools. Theyconcluded that the tool wear and the surface finish are negatively affected by the particle size. This observation was further proved by Kannan et al. [8] while machining a composite with 10% by volume fraction of alumina particles in an Al 6061 matrix, with average particlesize of 9.5, 17, 20 and 25 µm. An increase in particle volume fraction also results in increased tool wear and subsequently affects the surface finish of the machinedwork piece. Higher tool wear is the result of the hard ceramic particles seen at a higher frequency by the cutting tool [8, 29, 39].Ozben et al. [26] machined an aluminum matrix reinforced with SiC particles in 5, 10 and 15% by volume fraction and observed that the cutting speed and percentage volume fraction of the particles were the dominant factors in limiting the machin ability of the composite. Joshi et al. [40] studied the effect of feed (0.084–0.17 mm/rev), cutting speed (22–88 m/min), tool inclination angle(15 and 45_) and percentage volume fraction of SiC particles in aluminum (10 and 30%) on machining of the MMC with a carbide tool and arrived at an empirical relationship between flank wear and cutting time as a function of the aforementioned parameters. The authors concluded that the cutting speed and the percentage volume fraction of the particles had the most significant effect on the tool life.

Effect of Tooling

While machining MMC the most commonly used tool material is poly crystalline diamond (PCD), although Chemical vapor deposition diamond (CVD), cubic boron nitride (CBN), alumina, silicon nitride and tungsten carbide (WC) tooling are also used as cutting materials.

PCD diamond tools are the most preferred, while carbide tools are preferred over ceramic tools [3, 29, 36, 41]. In case of carbide tooling low-cutting speeds andhigh-feed rates are utilized to maximize the tool life [8, 42]. High tool wear observed while machining of these composites is generally associated with carbide tooling. At higher cutting speeds ([350 m/min), the carbide tool showscatastrophic failure and hence the cutting speed is generally limited upto 300 m/min [29, 30, 36, 41,43-45]. In other tool materials, Tomac andTonnessen [42] compared the performance of chemical vapor deposition (CVD)coatings of TiN, TiCN and Al2O3 and concluded that the inserts with TiN coating performed the best in maximizing the tool life. To improve the tool life in carbide tools, Manna and Bhattacharya [24] machined at cutting conditions that sustained as table built-up edge (BUE) so as to protect the cutting tool. To minimize the surface roughness and sub-surface damage PCD tools are preferred since the wear rate associated with them is the lowest among available tool materials. Although PCD tools are used for machining Al/SiC composites, the high cost associated with them limits their use [29, 30, 36, 41].

CONCLUSION

The paper has provided a literature review on machining of particulate Aluminium metal matrix composites. Tremendous attempts have been made in the machining of AMMCs. The process remains still challenging due to the distribution and orientation of reinforcement in the matrix and non-homogeneous and anisotropic nature of composite as a whole. By suitably selecting the machining parameters, machining of AMMC can be made economical

REFERENCES

  1. R. Teti, Machining of Composite Materials, CIRP Annals- Manufacturing Technology Vol. 51 Issue 2 (2002) 611-634.
    CrossRef
  2. G.E.D’Errico, R. Calzavarini, Turning of metal matrix composites, Journal of Material Processing Technology, 119 (2001) 257-260.
    CrossRef
  3. M. El-Gallab, M. Sklad, Machining of Al/SiC particulate metal matrix composites part III: comprehensive tool wear models, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 101 (2000) 10-20.
    CrossRef
  4. Mariam S. El-Gallab , Mateusz P. Sklad, Machining of aluminum/silicon carbide particulate metal matrix composites Part IV: Residual stresses in the machined workpiece, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 152 (2004) 23–34.
    CrossRef
  5. Raviraj Shetty, Raghuvir B. Pai, Shrikanth S.Rao, Rajesh Nayak, Taguchi’s Technique in Machining of Metal Matrix Composites, Journal of the Braz. Soc. of Mech. Sci. & Eng., Vol. XXXI, No. 1 (2009) 12-20.
    CrossRef
  6. Kemal Aldasa, Mahmut D. Mat, Experimental and theoretical analysis of particle distribution in particulate metal matrix composites, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 160 (2005) 289–295.
    CrossRef
  7. E. Kilickap, O. Cakir , M. Aksoy, A. Inan, Study of tool wear and surface roughness in machining of  homogenized SiC-p reinforced aluminium metal matrix composite, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 164–165 (2005) 862–867.
    CrossRef
  8. S. Kannan, H.A. Kishawy, Surface characteristics of machined aluminium metal matrix composites, International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 2017–2025.
    CrossRef
  9. A. Pramanik, L.C. Zhang , J.A. Arsecularatne, Prediction of cutting forces in machining of metal matrix composites,  International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 1795–1803.
    CrossRef
  10. A. Pramanik, L.C. Zhang , J.A. Arsecularatne, An FEM investigation into the behavior of metal matrix composites:Tool–particle interaction during orthogonal cutting, International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 47 (2007) 1497–1506.
    CrossRef
  11. Uday A. Dabade, Suhas S. Joshi, R. Balasubramaniam , V.V. Bhanuprasad, Surface finish and integrity of machined surfaces on Al/SiCp composites, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 192–193 (2007) 166–174.
    CrossRef
  12. Sebastian Balos, Leposava Sidjanin, Micro deformation of soft particles in metal matrix composites, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 482–487.
    CrossRef
  13. S. Kannan, H.A. Kishawy, I. Deiab, Cutting forces and TEM analysis of the generated surface during machining metal matrix composites, Journal of materials processing technology 209 (2009) 2260–2269.
    CrossRef
  14. Uday A. Dabade, Suhas S. Joshi, Analysis of chip formation mechanism in machining of Al/SiCp metal matrix composites, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 4704–4710
    CrossRef
  15. J.P. Davim, Jose Silva, A.M. Baptista, Experimental cutting model of metal matrix composites (MMCs), Journal of Materials Processing Technology 183 (2007) 358–362
    CrossRef
  16. Abeesh C. Basheer, Uday A. Dabade, Suhas S. Joshi, V.V. Bhanuprasad, V.M. Gadre, Modeling of surface roughness in precision machining of metal matrix composites using ANN, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 197 (2008) 439–444.
    CrossRef
  17. L.C. Zhang, Cutting composites: A discussion on mechanics modeling, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 4548–4552.
    CrossRef
  18. I. Llanos, J. A. Villar, I. Urresti & P. J. Arrazola, Finite element modeling of oblique machining using an arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian formulation, Machining Science and Technology 13:3 (2009) 385–406.
    CrossRef
  19. Chinmaya R. Dandekar, Yung C.Shin, Modeling of machining of composite materials: A review, International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 57 (2012) 102-121.
    CrossRef
  20. J. Paulo  Davim, C.A. Conceicao Antonio, Optimization of cutting conditions in machining of aluminium matrix composites using a numerical and experimental method, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 112 (2001) 78–82.
    CrossRef
  21. M. Chandrasekaran & M. Muralidhar & C. Murali Krishna & U. S. Dixit, Application of soft computing techniques in machining performance prediction and optimization: a literature review, International Journal of Advance Manufacturing Technology 46 (2010) 445–464.
    CrossRef
  22. C. Dhavamani, T. Alwarsamy, Optimization of cutting parameters of composite materials using genetic algorithm, European Journal of Scientific Research Vol.63 No.2 (2011) 279-285.
  23. C. Dhavamani1, T. Alwarsamy, Review on optimization of machining operation, International Journal of Academic Research Vol. 3. No. 3. (2011)  476-485.
  24. Manna A, Bhattacharya B, A study on machinability of Al/SiC-MMC, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 140 (1-3) (2003) 711–716.
    CrossRef
  25. Manna A, Bhattacharya B, Investigation for optimal parametric combination for achieving better surface finish during turning of Al/SIC-MMC, International Journal ofAdv Mfg Technology 23 (2004) 658-665.
    CrossRef
  26. Ozben T, Kilickap E, ÇakIr O, Investigation of mechanical and machinability properties of SiC particle reinforced Al-MMC, J Mater Process Tech, (2008),  198(1–3):220–225.
    CrossRef
  27. Wang J, Huang CZ, Song WG, The effect of tool flank wear on the orthogonal cutting process and its practical implications. J Mater Process Tech 142(2) (2003) 338–346.
    CrossRef
  28. Manna A, Bhattacharayya B, Influence of machining parameters on the machinability of particulate reinforced Al/SiC-MMC,  Int J Adv Manuf Tech 25 (2005), 850–856.
    CrossRef
  29. Lin JT, Bhattacharyya D, Lane C, (1995) Machinability of a silicon carbide reinforcedaluminium metal matrix composite. Wear 181–183(Part 2) (1995), 883–888.
    CrossRef
  30. Muthukrishnan N, Murugan M, Prahlada Rao K, Machinability issues in turning of Al-SiC (10 p) metal matrix composites. Int J Adv Manuf Tech, 39 (2008), 211–218.
    CrossRef
  31. Davim JP, Diamond tool performance in machining metal-matrix composites,  J Mater Process Tech 128(1–3) (2002), 100–105.
    CrossRef
  32. Joshi SS, Ramakrishnan N, Nagarwalla HE, Ramakrishnan P, Wear of rotary carbide tools in machining of Al/SiCp composites, Wear 230(2) (1999) 124–132.
    CrossRef
  33. Pramanik A, Zhang LC, Arsecularatne JA, Machining of metal matrix composites: effect of ceramic particles on residual stress, surface roughness and chip formation. Int J Mach Tool Manu 48(15) (2008),1613–1625
    CrossRef
  34. Kishawy HA, Kannan S, Balazinski M, An energy based analytical force model for orthogonal cutting of metal matrix composites. Ann CIRP 53(1) (2004),91–94.
    CrossRef
  35. Davim JP,Design of optimisation of cutting parameters for turning metal matrix composites based on the orthogonal arrays, J Mater Process Tech 132(1–3) (2003),340–344.
  36. El-Gallab M, Sklad M,  Machining of Al/SiC particulate metal matrix composites. Part II: Work piece surface integrity. J Mater Process Tech 83(1–3), (1998), 277–285.
  37. Davim JP, Baptista AM, Relationship between cutting force and PCD cutting tool wear in machining silicon carbide reinforced aluminum. J Mater Process Tech 103(3), (2000), 417–423.
    CrossRef
  38. Chambers AR, The machinability of light alloy MMCs. Composites Part A-Appl Sc 27(2), (1996), 143–147.
    CrossRef
  39. Ciftci I, Turker M, Seker U, Evaluation of tool wear when machining SiCp-reinforced Al-2014 alloy matrix composites. Mater Des 25(3), (2004), 251–255.
    CrossRef
  40. Joshi SS, Ramakrishnan N, Nagarwalla HE, Ramakrishnan P, Wear of rotary carbide tools in machining of Al/SiCp composites. Wear 230(2), (1999), 124–132.
    CrossRef
  41. Ding X, Liew WYH, Liu XD, Evaluation of machining performance of MMC with PCBN and PCD tools. Wear 259(7–12), (2005), 1225–1234.
    CrossRef
  42. Tomac N, Tannessen K, Rasch FO, Machinability of particulate aluminium matrix composites. Ann CIRP 41(1), (1992), 55–58.
    CrossRef
  43. Chambers AR, The machinability of light alloy MMCs. Composites Part A-Appl S 27(2), (1996), 143–147.
    CrossRef
  44. Arsecularatne JA, Zhang LC, Montross C, Wear and tool life of tungsten carbide, PCBN and PCD cutting tools,  Int J Mach Tool Manu 46(5), (2006), 482–491.
    CrossRef
  45. Heath PJ, Developments in applications of PCD tooling. J Mater Process Tech 116(1), (2001), 31–38.
    CrossRef
  46. Davim JPaulo, Machining of metal matrix composites, Springer, 2011.
Share Button

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Designed by: Designtohost
Copyright © 2024 MSRI