Experimental Investigations on Some

Aspects of Machinability in Drilling of

Glass Epoxy Polymer Composites

S. Basavarajappa and Abay Venkatesh

Department of Studies in Mechanical Engineering, University B. D. T.
College of Engineering, Davangere 577 004, Karnataka, India

V.N. Gaitonde*
Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, B. V. B. College
of Engineering and Technology, Hubli 580 031, Karnataka, India

S.R. Karnik
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, B. V. B. College
of Engineering and Technology, Hubli 580 031, Karnataka, India

ABSTRACT: The glass epoxy polymer composites are extensively used for a wide
variety of applications in aerospace, automotive, and chemical industries due to an
excellent property profile. Even though these composites are produced as near net
shapes, the machining has to be performed in the final stage of production. Drilling
is one of the most common machining processes used to install the fasteners for
assembly of laminates. However, the drilling of these composites is rather a difficult
task due to the highly abrasive nature of reinforcement and hence there is a need to
study the machining performance. An attempt has been made in this article to
investigate the effects of spindle speed and feed on machinability aspects, namely,
thrust force, hole surface roughness, and specific cutting coefficient during drilling of
glass epoxy composites. The drilling experiments were performed as per full factorial
design for both glass epoxy composites and silicon carbide-filled glass epoxy
composite materials. The response surface methodology based mathematical models
were developed for analyzing the effects of cutting conditions on machinability
characteristics. The parametric analysis reveals that the silicon carbide-filled glass
epoxy composite material provides better machinability compared to glass epoxy
composite without the addition of filler.

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

E-mail: gaitondevn@yahoo.co.in

Journal of THERMOPLASTIC COMPOSITE MATERIALS, Vol. 25May 2012 363

0892-7057/12/03 036325 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/0892705711408166
The Author(s), 2011. Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
364 S. Basavarajappa et al.

KEY WORDS: polymer composites, silicon carbide-filled glass epoxy composites,

drilling, machinability, response surface methodology.

INTRODUCTION

HE COMPOSITE MATERIALS find wide applications in a variety of parts

T due to the combinations of several properties, which cannot be attained
with metals, ceramics, or polymers. Nowadays, the polymer matrix
composites have replaced many conventional metallic materials [1] and are
used for producing a large number of mechanical components such as gears,
pump impellers, cams, wheels, brakes, clutches, bearings, and seals [2]. The
glass fiber, carbon black, and CaCO3 are added to the polymer composites
in order to improve stiffness, strength, hardness, and modulus [3,4].
The glass epoxy composites are polymer composites, which show
numerous advantages in several fields of engineering such as aircrafts,
automobiles, chemical industries, defense, ships, medical applications, bio
mechanics, sports equipments, robots, and machines due to an excellent
property profile such as high-specific stiffness and strength, high damping,
good corrosive resistance, and low thermal expansion [5]. The fillers affect
the tensile properties according to their packing characteristics, size, and
interfacial bonding [6] and improve the fracture toughness of epoxy resin [7].
The fillers not only reduce the cost of composites but also meet the
performance requirements, which could not have been achieved using
reinforcement and resin ingredients alone [2]. Further, the different fillers
are added to reduce the friction and improve the wear properties [816]. As a
result of improved properties and potential applications, there exists a great
necessity to understand the problems associated with the machining of these
composites.
The machining of glass epoxy polymer composites differs drastically in
several aspects from the machining of conventional metals and alloys.
Further, the machining of these composites is rather a complex task owing
to its heterogeneity and anisotropic nature of the composite. Moreover, the
reinforcements are extremely abrasive and responsible for complex
deformation behavior, high tool wear, and poor surface finish. Even
though the glass epoxy composites are produced to near net shapes, an
additional operation such as drilling is essential to install the fasteners for
the assembly of the composite laminates. In aircraft industries, the drilling of
these composites is carried out for the purpose of joining using rivets, bolts,
and nuts.
Aspects of Machinability in Drilling of Glass Epoxy Polymer Composites 365

The successful performance of machining operation is affected by work

material properties. The properties as well as the characteristics of work
materials are expressed in terms of machinability. The cutting force, power,
specific cutting pressure, tool wear, tool life, and surface roughness are some
of the criteria, which are used to assess the machinability characteristics.
Although the machinability refers to work materials, the performance of
machining depends upon several parameters such as cutting conditions, tool
material, tool geometry, and machining operations [17]. Several researchers
carried out experimental investigations on the machining characteristics of
polymer composites. The literature survey regarding the machinability
aspects of polymer composites machining by some of the authors is
discussed below.
Rahman et al. [18] reported that the polymer softening action is
responsible for achieving a better surface finish rather than tool geometry
of cutter for machining of carbon/polyetheretherketone (PEEK) composites.
Chambers and Bishop [19] compared the machinability study of carbon/
epoxy and carbon/PEEK composites using different cutting tools. The effect
of cutting parameters on the various aspects of machinability during turning
of PEEK, PEEK CF30, and PEEK GF30 work materials using cemented
carbide and polycrystalline diamond tools was studied by several researchers
[2024]. Gaitonde et al. [25,26] have presented an investigative study on the
machining of PA6 and PA66 GF30 polyamides using response surface
methodology (RSM) based mathematical models for studying the effects of
cutting speed and feed on machinability. Gaitonde et al. have also employed
Taguchi technique [27] and artificial neural network [28] for studying the
machinability characteristics of unreinforced and reinforced polyamides.
The machinability of metal matrix composites (MMC) reinforced with
silicon carbide (20%) using polycrystalline diamond (PCD) inserts was
studied by considering the cutting time of tool wear, cutting forces, and
surface roughness of workpieces [2931]. Antonio and Davim [32] applied
the genetic algorithms (GA) for optimizing the cutting speed, feed rate, and
cutting time in the turning of MMC with PCD tool. Davim [33] also used
the Taguchi method to investigate the cutting performance during the
turning of MMC using PCD inserts. Sahin [34] carried out an investigative
research on tool wear during turning of SiCp-reinforced aluminum matrix
composites. Manna and Bhattacharyya [35] examined the influence of
cutting parameters on surface roughness of workpieces during turning of Al/
SiCMMC. Ciftci et al. [36] analyzed the effects of cutting speed and coating
of tool on tool wear during SiCp-reinforced Al-2014 alloy matrix composites
machining. Kilickap et al. [37] studied the behavior of tool wear and
work surface roughness during machining of silicon carbide-filled MMC
using cemented carbide tools. The exhaustive literature review by
366 S. Basavarajappa et al.

Basavarajappa et al. [38] on the machining of MMC reported that the

selection of machining parameters for optimal surface finish, tool life, and
cutting forces depends on matrix material, reinforcement type, volume
fraction, and size of the reinforcement.
Davim and Antonio [39] presented the experimental and numerical studies
on cutting forces, tool wear, and surface finish during drilling of particulate
MMC and the optimal drilling process parameters were determined. Davim
and Antonio [40] also proposed the GA approach for optimizing the cutting
conditions in the turning and drilling of aluminum matrix composites
considering machining forces, surface finish, and tool wear as the responses.
Davim [41] established the relationships between the machining parameters
(cutting speed, feed rate, and cutting time) and the various aspects of
machinability (tool wear, specific cutting force, and hole surface roughness)
in the drilling of MMC. Ramulu et al. [42] reported that the drilling force
decreases with the increase in hardness of drill material during drilling of
aluminum alloy reinforced with 10 vol.% and 20 vol.% of Al 2O3.
Basavarajappa et al. [43] investigated the influence of cutting conditions
on surface roughness of hole during drilling of Al2219/15%SiCp and
Al2219/15%SiCp-3%Graphite (hybrid) composites using multifaceted and
coated carbide drills. It was reported that the surface finish could be
improved using conventional coated carbide drills when compared to
multifaceted carbide drills. The investigative study on the drilling of these
materials revealed that the addition of graphite as reinforcement in Al/SiCp
composite reduces the thrust force [44] and tool wear [45]. Basavarajappa
et al. [46] also observed that the ceramicgraphite reinforced composite has
better machinability than the ones reinforced with SiCp composites during
drilling of hybrid MMC.
The quality of the drilled holes can be critical to the life of riveted joints
for which the holes are used. The various aspects of hole such as wall surface
roughness, axial straightness, and roundness of hole cross-section can cause
high stresses on the rivet leading to the failure [47]. On the other hand, the
delamination is a major problem associated with the drilling of fiber-
reinforced composite materials resulting in poor assembly tolerance and
long-term performance deterioration. It has been observed that the level of
delamination is related to thrust force and the key to solve delamination
problem lies in reducing the thrust force of drilling [48]. In order to
overcome these difficulties, it is necessary to select appropriate machining
parameters due to the fact that an unsuitable choice could lead to
unacceptable work material degradation. Hence, this investigation is an
effort in this regard where thrust force, surface roughness of hole,
and specific cutting coefficient related to thrust have been studied during
drilling of glass epoxy composites with and without the addition of fillers.
Aspects of Machinability in Drilling of Glass Epoxy Polymer Composites 367

Second-order mathematical models of thrust force, hole surface roughness,

and specific cutting coefficient related to thrust have been developed using
RSM approach for analyzing the effects of spindle speed and feed. The RSM
using statistical design of experiments (DOE) proved to be an efficient
modeling tool, which not only reduces the cost and time, but also provides
required information about the interaction effects with minimum number of
experiments [49]. In this investigation, the experiments were planned as per
full factorial design (FFD) of experiments and the adequacy of the quadratic
models has been tested through the analysis of variance (ANOVA).

RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY

The RSM is a modeling tool used for establishing the relationship

between the independent parameters and the desired criteria. The RSM is
useful for developing, analyzing, improving, and optimizing the process,
which provides an overall perspective of the system response within the
design space [49]. The modeling of the desired response to various process
parameters can be obtained through the DOE and by applying the
regression analysis. The DOE provides an occasion to study not only the
individual effects of each process parameter but also their interactions with
minimum number of experiments for achieving the optimum conditions.
Hence, RSM adopts both mathematical and statistical methods for
analyzing the interaction effects of the different process parameters on the
desired criteria when they are varied simultaneously.
In many situations, it is feasible to represent the independent process
parameters in a quantitative form and these parameters can be thought of
having a functional relation or response, which can be expressed as [49]:
Y x1 ,x2 ,x3 , . . . ,xk 1

where Y is the response, x1 ,x2 ,x3 , . . . ,xk the quantitative factors, and  the
response function. When the mathematical form of response function is not
known, it can be approximated within the experimental region by a
polynomial. Higher the degree of polynomial, better the correlation but
experimentation costs increase.

MATERIALS AND FABRICATION

A medium viscosity epoxy resin (LAPOX L-12) with a room temperature

curing polyamine hardener (K-6), both supplied by ATUL India Ltd.,
Gujarat, India, was employed as the matrix material throughout the
368 S. Basavarajappa et al.

Table 1. Composition of samples prepared.

Volume fraction (%)

Material code Epoxy Glass fiber SiCp filler
M1 40 60
M2 40 50 10

investigation. Due to good resistance to alkalis and better adhesive

properties owing to the cross-linking chain between the resin and the
hardener, this matrix material was particularly selected for this study. The
seven-mill plain weave bi-directional E-glass fabric (1216 mm) with epoxy
compatible finish was used as a reinforcement material and the silicon
carbide (SiCp) as a filler material.
In this investigation, the glass epoxy composite laminates were fabricated
using hand lay-up technique with a stacking sequence of [0/90]S. The
fabrication procedure consists of placing the glass fibers with epoxy
compatible finish on a substrate material, which had a release coat applied
on it. A curing agent (hardener) is mixed in the liquid epoxy to polymerize
the polymer and to form a solid network cross-linked polymer. The weighed
quantities at room temperature curing epoxy resin plus the hardener mix
was taken and then smeared over the glass fabric. On this, another layer of
glass fabric was laid and the process continued. The entire lay-up was
covered with a mat finished fabric over which the steel plate was placed with
the required release coat applied on it. The lay-up assembly was pressed in a
press. The laminates were cured at ambient conditions for a period of about
24 h. The prepared laminate has a size 320  270  10 mm3. In order to
prepare the silicon carbide (SiCp) filled glass epoxy composites, the silicon
carbide fillers of size 400 mesh are mixed with a known amount of epoxy
resin. The cured materials are then cut to samples of different sizes for
carrying out the drilling experiments.
In this study, two different material compositions of glass epoxy polymer
composites M1 and M2 were prepared for the machining tests. The 40%
volume fraction of epoxy was maintained constant for both the materials.
The composition of the samples prepared for the drilling experiments is
presented in Table 1.

EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
Planning of Experiments

To develop the mathematical models based on RSM, a careful planning of

experimentation is necessary, which can significantly reduce the number of
Aspects of Machinability in Drilling of Glass Epoxy Polymer Composites 369

Table 2. Process parameters and their levels.

Levels
Parameter Unit 1 2 3
Spindle speed (N) rpm 1000 1200 1400
Feed rate (f) mm/min 50 75 100

Table 3. Experimental layout plan and the responses.

Responses
Actual process
parameter settings Material M1 Material M2
Trial
no. N (rpm) f (mm/min) Ft (N) Ra (km) Kc (MPa) Ft (N) Ra (km) Kc (MPa)
1 1000 50 16.68 13.14 133.44 19.62 3.66 156.96
2 1200 50 14.71 11.14 141.216 18.64 3.61 178.944
3 1400 50 13.73 10.32 153.776 16.68 2.98 186.816
4 1000 75 21.58 14.2 115.0933 24.52 4.12 130.7733
5 1200 75 22.56 12.18 144.384 21.58 3.71 138.112
6 1400 75 24.53 12.35 183.1573 20.6 3.33 153.8133
7 1000 100 35.32 14.81 141.28 34.33 4.62 137.32
8 1200 100 29.43 13.2 141.264 29.43 4.61 141.264
9 1400 100 32.37 16.45 181.272 27.47 5.54 153.832

experiments when compared to conventional experimental design [49].

In this research of drilling experiments, cutting conditions such as spindle
speed and feed are identified as the process parameters, which affect the
machining performance such as thrust force, hole surface roughness, and
specific cutting coefficient. Three levels are defined for each of the process
parameters and the ranges of these parameters were selected based on
authors preliminary experiments. The effects of these parameters on
machinability characteristics are tested through a set of planned experiments
based on FFD to explore the quadratic response surface. Thus, nine
experiments based on FFD were planned [49]. The machining parameters
and their levels are illustrated in Table 2 and the experimental layout plan of
this investigation is given in Table 3.

Experimentation

The composite materials were cut into strips of size 150  90  10 mm3.
Surya VF30CNCVS vertical machining center was employed to perform the
370 S. Basavarajappa et al.

drilling experiments. The machining center is equipped with a maximum

feed of 4000 mm/min and a spindle speed of 6000 rpm with 15-kW spindle
motor. The proper clamping system was employed for fixing the composite
laminates in the machining center; 5 mm diameter solid carbide drill (R850-
0500-30-A1A-N20D, SANDVIK) was used throughout the experimenta-
tion. A fresh drill was used in every trial for each of the materials tested and
hence tool wear is negligible. The trials were randomized in order to remove
the effects of any factors unaccounted for.

Evaluation of Machinability Characteristics

The drilling fixture was mounted on the dynamometer and the thrust
force was measured using a strain gage drilling dynamometer. Each trial was
repeated twice and the average was taken as the process response. The
surface roughness of the drilled hole was measured using Mitutoyo SJ201
surface finish instrument having a metered cut-off length of 0.8 mm. Each
surface roughness value was obtained by averaging four measurements at
various positions of the wall surface of hole for each trial. The arithmetic
mean of departure of the roughness profile from the mean line was used to
evaluate the surface roughness. The specific cutting coefficient related to
thrust (Kt) is calculated from the following equation [50]:
2Ft
Kt MPa 2
fd

where Ft is the thrust force (N), f the feed (mm/rev), and d the drill diameter
(mm). The measured values of thrust force (Ft) as well as surface roughness
(Ra), and the computed values of specific cutting coefficient related to thrust
(Kt) for each of the materials tested i.e. glass epoxy composites without the
addition of filler (M1) and silicon carbide-filled glass epoxy composites (M2)
are summarized in Table 3.

Development of Mathematical Models

In order to analyze the effects of process parameters on machinability

aspects, it is necessary to develop the mathematical models based on RSM.
In this study, each parameter was investigated at multi-levels to study the
non-linearity effects of the process parameters. Hence, second-order RSM-
based mathematical models for thrust force (Ft), surface roughness of the
hole (Ra), and specific cutting coefficient related to thrust (Kt) have been
Aspects of Machinability in Drilling of Glass Epoxy Polymer Composites 371

developed with spindle speed (N) and feed (f) as the process parameters. The
RSM-based mathematical model is of the form [49]:
Y b1 b2 N b3 f b4 Nf b5 N2 b6 f2 3
where Y: response, i.e. Ft, Ra and Kt; b1,. . ., b6: regression coefficients of
polynomial equations are to be determined for each of the machinability
characteristics.The values of regression coefficients of the mathematical
model are determined by [49]:
B XT X1 XT Y 4
where B: matrix of parameter estimates; X: calculation matrix, which
includes linear, quadratic, and inter-action terms, XT: transpose of X and Y:
matrix of response. The mathematical models as determined by regression
analysis to predict thrust force (Ft), surface roughness of hole (Ra), and
specific cutting coefficient related to thrust (Kt) during drilling of M1 and
M2 materials are given as the following.

THRUST FORCE

FtM1 70:84889  0:11056N 0:150667f

5
0:000045Nf 0:001307N2

FtM2 42:40778  0:03593N  0:03367f 0:0000163Nf

6
0:003405N2  0:0002f2

SURFACE ROUGHNESS OF HOLE

RaM1 81:94556  0:10155N  0:26587f 0:0000343Nf

7
0:000427N2 0:000223f2

RaM2 15:55667  0:01036N  0:17387f 0:00000163Nf

8
0:00072N2 0:00008f2

SPECIFIC CUTTING COEFFICIENT

KtM1 420:0926  0:509623N  1:222613f 0:00022621Nf

9
0:001861N2 0:000983f2
372 S. Basavarajappa et al.

KtM2 238:1 0:0791N  4:1909f 0:00001198Nf

10
0:029264N2  0:000667f2

where N is expressed in rpm, f in mm/min, Ft in N, Ra in mm, and Kt in MPa.

The coefficient of f2 term is very small in Equation (5) and hence not
included in this equation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Adequacy Checking of Machinability Models

The statistical testing of the developed quadratic models was done

through Fishers test for the ANOVA [49]. The ANOVA consists of sum of
squares (SS) and degrees of freedom and the fundamental technique is a
partitioning of total SS and mean squares into components such as data
regression and its residual error. The mean square is the ratio of SS to
degrees of freedom. As per ANOVA, the calculated value of F-ratio of the
proposed model should be more than F-table for the model to be adequate.
The summary of the ANOVA results of the developed models is given in
Table 4.
The adequacy of the developed mathematical models is also verified
through coefficient of determination (R2) value after estimating the SS. The
R2 is used to test the goodness-of-fit of the proposed models, which provides
a measure of variability in observed values of response, and can be explained
by the controlled process parameters and their interactions [49] and is given
by:
SSregression SSR
R2 11
SSresidual error SSregression SSyy

here, SS due to regression is given by:

Xn  2
SSR yi,pred  y i, exp t 12
i

where yi, exp t : measured response corresponding to data set i; yi,pred :

predicted response corresponding to data set i; y i, exp t : overall average of
yi, exp t ; and n: number of data sets in the experimental design matrix. The SS
about the mean is given by:
X P 2
n
2 ni yi, exp t
SSyy yi, exp t  13
i
n
 Table 4. ANOVA results for machinability models.

Degrees of
SS freedom Mean square
Response Regression Residual Regression Residual Regression Residual F-ratio
Material: M1
Thrust force 459.943 18.433 5 3 91.989 6.144 14.97a
Surface roughness 26.6115 1.7343 5 3 5.3223 0.5781 9.21a
Specific cutting coefficient 3219.1 600.8 5 3 643.8 200.3 3.21c
Material: M2
Thrust force 264.622 1.707 5 3 52.924 0.569 92.99a
Surface roughness 4.5089 0.4711 5 3 0.9018 0.1570 5.74b
Specific cutting coefficient 2876.05 56.79 5 3 575.21 18.93 30.39a
a
Significant at 95% confidence interval (F(5, 3, 0.05) 9.01).
b
Significant at 90% confidence interval (F(5, 3, 0.10) 5.31).
c
Significant at 75% confidence interval (F(5, 3, 0.25) 2.41).
Aspects of Machinability in Drilling of Glass Epoxy Polymer Composites
373
374 S. Basavarajappa et al.

Table 5. Coefficient of determination values and % prediction error for

machinability models.

Material M1 Material M2
2 2
Response R % error R % error
Thrust force 0.9615 5.74 0.9936 2.07
Surface roughness 0.9388 2.92 0.9054 4.80
Specific cutting coefficient 0.8430 5.03 0.9810 1.43

The R2 values are presented in Table 5, which clearly indicate a very good
correlation between the experimental and the predicted values of the
machinability aspects considered.
Equations (5)(10) are used to test the accuracy of the developed
quadratic models using the experimental data of FFD. The % prediction
error of the model for the experimental data set of FFD is given by:
n  
100 X 
yi, expt  yi,pred 
   14
n i1 yi,pred

where yi, expt: measured value of machinability aspect considered corre-

sponding to ith trial, yi, pred: predicted value of machinability aspect
considered corresponding to ith trial, and n: number of trials in FFD.The
prediction error of the proposed models is given in Table 5 and found to be
within 6%. The comparison of the predicted and experimental values of
thrust force (Ft), surface roughness of hole (Ra), and specific cutting
coefficient related to thrust (Kt) for the experimental data of FFD during
drilling of M1 and M2 materials is displayed in Figures 13, respectively.
As seen from these figures, there exists a close relationship between the
experimental and the predicted values and it has been also found that there
are no abnormal variations between the experimental and the predicted
values. Hence, the proposed RSM-based second-order models can be used
for the prediction of machinability aspects.

Parametric Analysis on Machinability Characteristics

Equations (5)(10) are used to predict the machinability aspects, namely,

thrust force (Ft), surface roughness of hole (Ra), and specific cutting
coefficient related to thrust (Kt) by substituting the values of spindle speed
(N) and feed (f) within the ranges of the process parameters selected.
Aspects of Machinability in Drilling of Glass Epoxy Polymer Composites 375
Material: M1
Thrust force (Newton) 40
35
30
25 Experimental
20 Predicted
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Trial number

Material: M2
40
35
Thrust force (Newton)

30
25
Experimental
20
Predicted
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Trial number
Figure 1. Experimental and predicted values for thrust force.

The variations of the thrust force, hole surface roughness, and specific
cutting coefficient related to thrust with respect to the cutting conditions are
plotted for each of the work materials tested, as shown in Figures 46,
respectively.

THRUST FORCE

Thrust force is the reaction force against the advancement of drill into the
workpiece material. Figure 4 depicts the interaction effects of spindle speed
and feed on thrust force during drilling of glass epoxy composite without the
addition of filler (M1) and silicon carbide-filled glass epoxy composite (M2)
workpiece materials. As seen from this figure, the thrust force increases with
376 S. Basavarajappa et al.

Material: M1

18
Surface roughness (microns)

16
14
12
10 Experimental
8 Predicted
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Trial number

Material:M2
6
Surface roughness (microns)

4
Experimental
3
Predicted
2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Trial number
Figure 2. Experimental and predicted values for surface roughness of hole.

the increase in feed for a given value of spindle speed for both the materials
tested. This is explained by the fact that, at low feed, there is a smaller
resistance to drill in the direction of feed. On the other hand, at larger feed
rates, the work material offers more resistance in cutting direction; thereby
the increase in friction leads to higher thrust forces. Further, with the
increase in feed rate, the contact area between the work material and drill
increases and hence material removal rate (MRR) increases, which in
turn increases the thrust force. In addition, at higher feed rates, there is a
higher impact of cutting edges against the fibers as well as an increase in self-
generated feed angle, which considerably reduces the relief angle and thereby
Aspects of Machinability in Drilling of Glass Epoxy Polymer Composites 377
Material: M1
200
180
Specific cutting coefficient

160
140
120 Experimental
(MPa)

100 Predicted
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Trial number

Material: M2
200
180
Specific cutting coefficient

160
140
120 Experimental
(MPa)

100 Predicted
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Trial number
Figure 3. Experimental and predicted values for specific cutting coefficient.

rubbing takes place against the work material resulting in higher thrust
forces.
For a given feed, the thrust force is more or less same with the increase in
spindle speed and less sensitive to feed variations for the drilling of glass
epoxy composite material without filler (M1). On the other hand, the thrust
force has a tendency to decrease with the increase in spindle speed for a
given value of feed during drilling of silicon carbide-filled glass epoxy
composite material (M2). The decrease in thrust force with the increase in
speed is attributed to the reduced work-tool contact length. Further, it is
also observed that the thrust force sharply decreases with the increase in
spindle speed for higher feed rate (100 mm/min) compared to smaller feed
rate (50 mm/min).
378 S. Basavarajappa et al.

Material: M1
35
Thrust force (Newton)

30
25
50 mm/min
20
75 mm/min
15
100 mm/min
10
5
0
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400
Speed (rpm)
Material:M2
40
Thrust force (Newton)

35
30
25 50 mm/min
20 75 mm/min
15 100 mm/min
10
5
0
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400
Speed (rpm)
Figure 4. Effect spindle speed and feed on thrust force.

Figure 4 also indicates that the thrust force is slightly less sensitive to
variations in feed at lower values of spindle speed compared to higher values
of spindle speed for M2 material. It is also revealed from this figure that,
except for lower feed value (50 mm/min), the thrust force requirement for
M2 material is less compared to M1 material irrespective of the spindle
speed specified. During drilling of silicon carbide-filled glass epoxy
composite material (M2), as and when the drill advances, the interfacial
bond between the silicon carbide particle present under the lip area and
matrix material weakens before the epoxy material yields and the cracks are
initiated at these points. These cracks propagate and reach the edges of the
drilled hole, leading to a reduced uncut material without bending and hence
the reduced thrust. At higher feed values, the thrust force is increased due to
less reduction in interfacial bond strength between silicon carbide particle
and matrix material. Hence, this investigation reveals that the silicon
carbide-filled glass epoxy composite (M2) is easier to drill compared to glass
epoxy composite without the addition of filler (M1). The lower thrust forces
Aspects of Machinability in Drilling of Glass Epoxy Polymer Composites 379

Surface roughness (microns)

Material: M1
18
16
14
12 50 mm/min
10
75 mm/min
8
6 100 mm/min
4
2
0
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400
Speed (rpm)
Surface roughness (microns)

Material: M2
6
5
4 50 mm/min
3 75 mm/min
2 100 mm/min

1
0
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400
Speed (rpm)
Figure 5. Effect of spindle speed and feed on surface roughness of hole.

also imply slower drill wear as the magnitudes of thrust forces are expected
to relate strongly with tool wear rate.

SURFACE ROUGHNESS

The surface roughness plays a major role in determining the machining

accuracy. The variation of drilled hole surface roughness in relation to
cutting conditions is illustrated in Figure 5. It is observed that the surface
roughness decreases with the increase in speed and with further increase in
feed, the roughness increases for both the materials tested. With low feed
and high speed, the surface roughness decreases for both the composite
materials tested. This is due to the fact that, as explained in the previous
section, the thrust force increases with the increase in feed and hence poor
surface finish. However, with the increase in speed, temperature increases at
the cutting zone of drill that leads to softening of work material, which in
turn reduces the surface roughness.
380 S. Basavarajappa et al.

Material: M1
Specific cutting coefficient
190
180
170
50 mm/min
(MPa)

160
75 mm/min
150
100 mm/min
140
130
120
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400
Speed (rpm)
Material: M2
Specific cutting coefficient

190
180
170
50 mm/min
(MPa)

160
75 mm/min
150
100 mm/min
140
130
120
1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400
Speed (rpm)
Figure 6. Effect of spindle speed and feed on specific cutting coefficient.

Figure 5 also reveals that the surface roughness is highly sensitive to

variations in feed at higher values of speed compared to lower values of
speed for both the composite materials. For any given combination of speed
and feed, the surface roughness values of silicon carbide-filled glass epoxy
composite material (M2) are less compared to glass epoxy composite
without the addition of filler (M1). The possible reason might be the
burnishing and honing effect produced by the trapped silicon carbide
between drill and hole with the increase in cutting speed. However, as the
feed increases, the contact time between drill and workpiece decreases,
which in turn reduces the burnishing effect. During drilling of these
materials, the silicon carbide is sheared off due to increased hardness of
carbide drill leading to reduced surface roughness. Further, during drilling,
the matrix is getting well spread with lesser fiber getting exposed and
breakage of glass fiber takes place, which is attributed to the extensive loss
of the material due to fragmentation of glass fiber and their detachment
Aspects of Machinability in Drilling of Glass Epoxy Polymer Composites 381

from the test material due to the non-availability of a medium to hold them.
The silicon carbide particles, which are highly brittle in nature, will be
crushed into smaller particles during drilling especially at higher speeds with
lower feed rates and hence reduced surface roughness. Hence, from the
machining point of view, silicon carbide-filled glass epoxy composite
material (M2) provides a better surface finish when compared to glass epoxy
composite without the addition of filler (M1).
As can be seen from Figure 5, the surface roughness exhibits linear
behavior with feed and speed combination for M2 material, whereas the
behavior is non-linear in the case of M1 material. During drilling of glass
epoxy composite without the addition of filler (M1), for both the low
(50 mm/min) and medium (75 mm/min) feed rate values, the surface
roughness decreases with the increase in speeds up to 1250 rpm and the
surface roughness increases beyond 1250 rpm. On the other hand, for a
higher value of feed rate (100 mm/min), the surface roughness is more or less
remains same up to 1150 rpm and increases further beyond 1150 rpm. In the
case of silicon carbide-filled glass epoxy composite material (M2) drilling,
the surface roughness sharply decreases with the increase in speed for a
lower feed rate value of 50 mm/min, whereas the roughness more or less
remains constant irrespective of the speed for a medium feed rate of 75 mm/
min. On the other hand, the surface roughness continuously increases with
the increase in speed for a higher value of feed rate (100 mm/min).

SPECIFIC CUTTING COEFFICIENT

The variation of specific cutting coefficient with speed for different values
of feed is presented in Figure 6. It is observed that the specific cutting
coefficient increases nonlinearly with the increase in speed for any given
value of feed during drilling of glass epoxy composite without the addition
of filler (M1) material. With the further increase in feed, the specific cutting
coefficient has a tendency to increase with the speed. However, specific
cutting coefficient is highly sensitive to feed at higher speed values compared
to feed at smaller speed values. It is also revealed from this figure that
specific cutting coefficient is found to be minimal for a combination of low
value of speed (1000 rpm) and medium value of feed (75 mm/min) for the
drilling of glass epoxy composite without the addition of filler (M1)
material.
As seen from Figure 6, the specific cutting coefficient linearly increases
with increase in speed during drilling of silicon carbide-filled glass epoxy
composite (M2) material irrespective of feed. However, it is observed that
this effect is more predominant for a low feed rate value of 50 mm/min
382 S. Basavarajappa et al.

compared to medium (75 mm/min) and high (100 mm/min) feed values. It is
also found that the interaction effects due to speed and feed on specific
cutting coefficient appear to be negligible for medium and high feed rate
values. For a low feed rate value of 50 mm/min, the specific cutting
coefficient is more for all values of speed compared to medium and high
feeds for the drilling of silicon carbide-filled glass epoxy composite (M2)
material. The low value of feed rate indicates that shear model could not fit
the chip formation process adequately as the material is subjected to lower
strain rates and hence the specific cutting coefficient tends to increase. On
the other hand, at higher feed rates the number of fibers to be sheared will be
reduced and hence decrease in specific cutting coefficient. Figure 6 also
indicates that the requirement of specific cutting coefficient is less for a
combination of 1000 rpm (low speed) and 75 mm/min (medium feed) for the
drilling of silicon carbide-filled glass epoxy composite.
Some of the results of our analysis have been compared with the results
reported in the previous works on the drilling of composites. Davim and
Baptista [31] and Davim [41] performed drilling experiments on MMC. They
observed that feed and cutting speed have major roles in controlling the
surface roughness during drilling. Davim and Baptista [31] obtained the best
surface finish with a feed rate of 0.1 mm/rev for a lower cutting speed of
30 m/min, while the worst finish was obtained for the intermediate cutting
speed of 40 m/min. In our investigations also, we found that low feed values
are necessary for minimizing both the thrust force and surface roughness.
However, in our case, the surface roughness decreases with the increase in
speed and with the further increase in feed, the surface roughness increases
for both the composite materials tested.
The influence of different cutting conditions on the drilling of hybrid
MMC was investigated experimentally by Basavarappa et al. [43,44].
Basavarappa et al. [43] found that the surface roughness decreases with the
increase in cutting speed and increases with the increase in feed rate, which is
similar to the results obtained by Basavarappa et al. [44]. Our study also
supports these research findings. The experimental results analyzed by
Basavarappa et al. [44] indicated that the feed has significant effect in
reducing the thrust force and inclusion of graphite as an additional
reinforcement in Al/SiCp-reinforced composite also reduces the thrust force.
Their study also revealed that graphitic composites exhibit lesser thrust force
and higher surface roughness. The reduced thrust is mainly due to solid
lubricating property of the graphite and higher surface roughness is due to
the pullout of graphite from the surface. Our study also suggested that the
silicon carbide-filled glass epoxy composite is easier to drill and provides
better surface finish compared to glass epoxy composite without the
addition of filler.
Aspects of Machinability in Drilling of Glass Epoxy Polymer Composites 383

The investigations carried out by Basavarappa et al. [46] on the drilling of

SiCp and SiCpgraphitic-reinforced composites revealed that feed rate is the
main factor, which influences the thrust force, while the surface finish
increases with increase in cutting speed but decreases with increase in feed
rate. Ramulu et al. [42] also found that regardless of the tool material and
work material, the thrust force is highly dependent on feed rate, while the
cutting speed was found to have insignificant influence on the degree of
drilling forces. But our study does not support the findings of Ramulu et al.
[42] with regard to the influence of cutting speed on thrust force. In our case,
the thrust force increases with the increase in feed for a specified value of
spindle speed and is less sensitive to feed variations for the drilling of glass
epoxy composite material without filler. On the other hand, the thrust force
decreases with the increase in spindle speed for a given value of feed during
drilling of silicon carbide-filled glass epoxy composite material. However,
the surface roughness is more sensitive to variations in feed at higher values
of cutting speed compared to lower values of speed for both the composite
materials tested. However, the effect of cutting conditions on specific cutting
coefficient during drilling of the composites was not considered in any one
of the previous studies.
From the above discussions on parametric analysis of machinability
aspects, it is seen that thrust force, surface roughness, and specific cutting
coefficient depend on combination of speed and feed for the drilling of glass
epoxy composite without the addition of filler (M1) and silicon carbide-filled
glass epoxy composite (M2) workpiece materials. The investigative study
also indicates that the silicon carbide-filled glass epoxy composite exhibits
better machinability compared to glass epoxy composite without the
addition of filler. Although it is desirable to have minimum values of
thrust force, surface roughness, and specific cutting coefficient, the
requirement of cutting conditions is different for each of the machinability
characteristics, which also depend on the type of the composite. In general,
during drilling of thermoplastic materials, the heat will be generated due to
the friction between the tool and the workpiece material. This heat will in
turn soften the matrix materials and subsequently change the properties of
the materials in the localized region.

CONCLUSIONS

The experimental investigations on the three aspects of machinability,

namely, thrust force, surface roughness of hole, and specific cutting
coefficient related to thrust during drilling of glass epoxy polymer matrix
composites with and without the addition of silicon carbide filler are
384 S. Basavarajappa et al.

presented in this article. For analyzing the effects of speed and feed on
machinability characteristics, the experiments were planned as per FFD to
minimize the experiments. The second-order mathematical models of thrust
force, surface roughness of hole, and specific cutting coefficient were
developed using RSM. The adequacy of the developed machinability models
was tested through the ANOVA. Based on the experimental results and
subsequent analysis, the following conclusions are drawn within the ranges
of the parameters selected.
1. The thrust force increases with the increase in feed for a specified value of
spindle speed for both the composite materials tested.
2. For a given feed, the thrust force is more or less the same with the
increase in spindle speed and less sensitive to feed variations for the
drilling of glass epoxy composite material without filler. On the other
hand, the thrust force decreases with the increase in spindle speed for a
given value of feed during drilling of silicon carbide-filled glass epoxy
composite material.
3. The thrust force is less sensitive to variations in feed at lower values of
spindle speed compared to higher values of spindle speed for silicon
carbide-filled glass epoxy composite material.
4. The surface roughness decreases with the increase in speed and with
further increase in feed the surface roughness increases for both the
composite materials tested.
5. The surface roughness is more sensitive to variations in feed at higher
values of speed compared to lower values of speed for both the composite
materials tested.
6. The specific cutting coefficient increases with increase in feed for any
given value of speed for the drilling of both the materials tested.
7. The specific cutting coefficient is minimal at low values of speed and feed
for the drilling of glass epoxy composite without the addition of filler
material. On the other hand, the specific cutting coefficient is found to be
minimal at low speed (1000 rpm) and medium feed value (75 mm/min).
8. The silicon carbide-filled glass epoxy composite material provides better
machinability compared to glass epoxy composite without the addition of
filler.

REFERENCES

1. Palabiyik, M. and Bahadur, S. (2002). Tribological Studies of Polyamide 6 and High-

Density Polyethylene Blends Filled with PTFE and Copper Oxide and Reinforced with
Short Glass Fibers, Wear, 253: 369376.
Aspects of Machinability in Drilling of Glass Epoxy Polymer Composites 385

2. Suresha, B., Chandramohan, G., Prakash, J.N., Balusamy, V. and Sankaranarayanasamy,

K. (2006). The Role of Fillers on Friction and Slide Wear Characteristics in Glass-Epoxy
Composite Systems, Journal of Minerals and Materials Characterization and Engineering,
5(1): 87101.
3. Sare, I.R., Mardel, J.I. and Hill, A.J. (2001). Wear-Resistant Metallic and Elastometric
Materials in the Mining and Mineral Processing Industries An Overview, Wear, 250:
110.
4. Zhou, S.S., Wu, L.M., Sun, J. and Shen, W. (2002). The Change of the Properties of
Acrylic-Based Polyurethane Via Addition of Nano-Silica, Progress in Organic Coatings, 45:
3342.
5. ASM. (1992). ASM Hand Book, Vol. 18, ASM International, Materials Park, Ohio, USA.
6. Srivastava, V.K., Prakash, R. and Shembekar, P.S. (1988). Fracture Behavior of Fly Ash
Filled FRP Composites, Composite Structures, 10: 271279.
7. Srivastava, V.K. and Shembekar, P.S. (1990). Tensile and Fracture Properties of Epoxy
Resin Filled with Fly Ash Particles, Journal of Materials Science, 25: 35133516.
8. Kishore, P., Sampathkumaran, S., Seetharamu, S., Vynatheya, S., Murali, A. and
Kumar, R.K. (2000). SEM Observations of the Effect of Velocity and Load on the Slide
Wear Characteristics Glass FabricEpoxy Composites with Different Fillers, Wear, 237:
2027.
9. Kishore, P., Sampathkumaran, S., Seetharamu, S., Thomas, P. and Janardhana, M.A.
(2005). Study on the Effect of the Type and Content of Filler in EpoxyGlass Composite
System on the Friction and Wear Characteristics, Wear, 259: 634641.
10. Basavarajappa, S., Ellangovan, S. and Arun, K.V. (2009). Studies on Dry Sliding
Wear Behaviour of Graphite Filled GlassEpoxy Composites, Materials and Design, 30:
26702675.
11. Basavarajappa, S., Joshi, A.G., Arun, K.V., Kumar, A.P. and Kumar, M.P. (2010). Three-
body Abrasive Wear Behaviour of Polymer Matrix Composites Filled with SiC Particles,
Polymer-Plastics Technology and Engineering, 49(1): 812.
12. Srivastava, V.K. and Wahne, S. (2007). Wear and Friction Behaviour of Soft Particles
Filled Random Direction Short GFRP Composites, Materials Science and Engineering A,
458: 2533.
13. Kishore, P., Sampathkumaran, S., Seetharamu, S., Vynatheya, A., Murali, R. and Kumar,
K. (2000). SEM Observations of the Effects of Velocity and Load on the Sliding
Wear Characteristics of Glass FabricEpoxy Composites with Different Fillers, Wear, 237:
2027.
14. Sawyer, W.G., Kevin, D., Freudenberg, Bhimaraj, P., Linda, S. and Schadler, A. (2003).
Study on the Friction and Wear Behavior of PTFE Filled with Alumina Nanoparticles,
Wear, 254: 573580.
15. Wang, J., Gu, M., Songhao, B. and Ge, S. (2003). Investigation of the Influence of MoS2
Filler on the Tribological Properties of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Nylon 1010 Composites,
Wear, 255: 774779.
16. Friedrich, K., Zhang, Z. and Schlarb, A.K. (2005). Effects of Various Fillers on the Sliding
Wear of Polymer Composites, Composites Science and Technology, 65: 23292343.
17. Groover, M.P. (1996). Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing Materials, Processes and
Systems, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
18. Rahman, M., Ramakrishna, S. and Thoo, H.C. (1999). Machinability Study of Carbon/
PEEK Composites, Machining Science and Technology, 3: 4959.
19. Chambers, A. and Bishop, G. (1995). The Drilling of Carbon Fibre Polymer Matrix,
Composites Process Manufacturing, 3: 565572.
20. Davim, J.P., Reis, P., Lapa, V. and Antonio, C.C. (2003). Machinability Study on
Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Unreinforced and Reinforced (GF30) for Applications in
Structural Components, Composite Structures, 62: 6773.
386 S. Basavarajappa et al.

21. Davim, J.P. and Reis, P. (2004). Machinability Study on Composite (Polyetheretherketone
Reinforced With 30% Glass Fibre-PEEK GF 30) Using Polycrystalline Diamond (PCD)
and Cemented Carbide (K20) Tools. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 23: 412418.
22. Karnik, S.R., Gaitonde, V.N., Mata, F. and Davim, J.P. (2008). Investigative Study on
Machinability Aspects of Unreinforced and Reinforced PEEK Composite Machining
Using ANN model, Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 27(7): 751768.
23. Mata, F., Gaitonde, V.N., Karnik, S.R. and Davim, J.P. (2009). Influence of Cutting
Conditions on Machinability Aspects of PEEK, PEEK CF30 and PEEK GF30 Composites
using PCD tools, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 209(4): 19801987.
24. Davim, J.P., Mata, F., Gaitonde, V.N. and Karnik, S.R. (2010). Machinability Evaluation
in Unreinforced and Reinforced PEEK Composites Machining Using Response Surface
Models, Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials, 23(1): 518.
25. Gaitonde, V.N., Karnik, S.R., Mata, F. and Davim, J.P. (2009). Study on Some Aspects of
Machinability Assessment in Unreinforced and Reinforced Polyamides, Journal of
Composite Materials, 43(7): 725739.
26. Gaitonde, V.N., Karnik, S.R., Mata, F. and Davim, J.P. (2010). Machinability Study in
Turning of Unreinforced (PA6) and Reinforced (PA66 GF30) Polyamide Composites with
Polycrystalline Diamond (PCD) Tools, International Journal of Materials and Product
Technology, 37(12): 140154.
27. Gaitonde, V.N., Karnik, S.R., Mata, F. and Davim, J.P. (2008). Taguchi Approach for
Achieving Better Machinability in Unreinforced and Reinforced Polyamides, Journal of
Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 27(9): 909924.
28. Gaitonde, V.N., Karnik, S.R., Mata, F. and Davim, J.P. (2010). Modeling and Analysis of
Machinability Characteristics in PA6 and PA66 GF30 Polyamides through Artificial
Neural Network, Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials, 23(3): 313336.
29. Davim, J.P. and Baptista, A.M. (2000). Relationship between Cutting Force and PCD
Cutting Tool in Machining Silicon Carbide Reinforced Aluminium, Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 103: 417423.
30. Davim, J.P. (2001). Turning Particulate Metal Matrix Composites, Journal of Engineering
Manufacture, 215: 371376.
31. Davim, J.P. and Baptista, A.M. (2001). Cutting Force, Tool Wear and Surface Finish in
Drilling Metal Matrix Composites, Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 215: 177183.
32. Antonio, C.A.C. and Davim, J.P. (2002). Optimal Cutting Conditions in Turning of
Particulate Metal Matrix Based on Experiment and a Genetic Search Model, Composites
Part A, 33: 213219.
33. Davim, J.P. (2003). Design of Optimisation of Cutting Parameters for Turning Metal
Matrix Composites Based on the Orthogonal Arrays, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 132: 340344.
34. Sahin, Y. (2003). Preparation and Some Properties of SiC Particle Reinforced Aluminium
Alloy Composites, Materials and Design, 24: 671679.
35. Manna, A. and Bhattacharyya, B. (2004). Investigation for Optimal Parametric
Combination for Achieving Better Surface Finish during Turning of Al/SiC-MMC,
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 23: 658665.
36. Ciftci, I., Turker, M. and Seker, U. (2004). Evaluation of Tool Wear when Machining
SiCp-reinforced Al-2014 Alloy Matrix Composites, Materials and Design, 25: 251255.
37. Kilickap, E., Cakir, O., Aksoy, M. and Inan, A. (2005). Study of Tool Wear and Surface
Roughness in Machining of Metal Matrix Composites, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 164165: 862867.
38. Basavarajappa, S., Chandramohan, G., Narasimha Rao, K.V., Radhakrishnan, R. and
Krishnaraj, V. (2006). Turning of Particulate Metal Matrix Composites Review and
Discussion, Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 220: 11891204.
Aspects of Machinability in Drilling of Glass Epoxy Polymer Composites 387

39. Davim, J.P. and Antonio, C.A.C. (2001). Optimal Drilling of Particulate Metal Matrix
Composites Based on Experimental and Numerical Procedures, International Journal of
Machine Tools and Manufacture, 41: 2131.
40. Davim, J.P. and Antonio, C.A.C. (2001). Optimization of Cutting Conditions in
Machining of Aluminium Matrix Composites Using a Numerical and Experimental
Model, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 112: 7882.
41. Davim, J.P. (2003). Study of Drilling Metal-Matrix Composites Based on the Taguchi
Techniques, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 132: 250254.
42. Ramulu, M., Rao, P.N. and Kao, H. (2002). Drilling of (Al2O3)p/6061 Metal Matrix
Composites, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 124: 244254.
43. Basavarajappa, S., Chandramohan, G., Prabu, M., Mukund, K. and Ashwin, M. (2007).
Drilling of Hybrid Metal Matrix Composites-Workpiece Surface Integrity, International
Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 47: 9296.
44. Basavarajappa, S., Chandramohan, G., Davim, J.P., Prabu, M., Mukund, K., Ashwin, M.
and Kumar, M.P. (2007). Drilling of Hybrid Aluminium Matrix Composites, International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 35: 12441250.
45. Basavarajappa, S. (2009). Tool Wear in Turning of Graphitic Hybrid Metal Matrix
Composites, Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 24: 484487.
46. Basavarajappa, S., Chandramohan, G. and Davim J.P. (2008). Some Studies on Drilling of
Hybrid Metal Matrix Composites Based on Taguchi Techniques, Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 196: 332338.
47. Eriksen, E. (2000). The Influence of Surface Roughness on the Mechanical Strength
Properties of Machined Short-Fibre-Reinforced Thermoplastics, Composite Science and
Technology, 60: 107113.
48. El-Sonbaty, I., Khashaba, U.A. and Machaly, T. (2004). Factors Affecting the
Machinability of GFR/Epoxy Composites, Composite Structures, 63: 329338.
49. Montgomery, D.C. (2003). Design and Analysis of Experiments, John Wiley, New York.
50. Abrao, A.M., Faria, P.E., Rubio J.C., Reis, P. and Davim, J.P. (2007). Drilling of Fiber
Reinforced Plastics: A Review, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 186: 17.