Investigation on the Mechanical and Thermal Insulation Properties of Hollow Microspheres/Phenolic Syntactic Foams

Dai, Jing; Peng, Chao; Zhang, Shuyue; Wu, Shun; Shi, Minxian; Huang, Zhixiong

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2509090

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

On this page

Abstract Introduction Experimental Results and Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 2509090 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2509090

Investigation on the Mechanical and Thermal Insulation Properties of Hollow Microspheres/Phenolic Syntactic Foams

Jing Dai,¹Chao Peng,²Shuyue Zhang,¹Shun Wu,¹Minxian Shi,¹and Zhixiong Huang¹

Academic Editor: Marinos Pitsikalis

Received22 Nov 2021

Revised12 Feb 2022

Accepted15 Feb 2022

Published28 Mar 2022

Abstract

Hollow microspheres are widely used in syntactic foam as a lightweight filling material. Hollow glass microspheres (HGM) and hollow phenolic microspheres (HPM) were added to the phenolic resin to prepare phenolic syntactic foams. Then the mechanical properties, thermal insulation properties, and thermal property stability of them were studied. The mechanical test result shows that the flexural strength of phenolic syntactic foam gradually decreases with the increasing volume fraction of microspheres at room temperature. When the volume fraction of HGM is 20%, the specific strength of phenolic syntactic foam can rise to 0.0334 Nm/kg. HGM reduces the density of the phenolic syntactic foam and remains at high strength. In addition, the thermal conductivity of phenolic syntactic foam decreases with the increasing volume fraction of the hollow microspheres, indicating that the microspheres can effectively improve the thermal insulation performance of the phenolic syntactic foam. Meanwhile, the thermal conductivity of phenolic syntactic foam also increases as the heat treatment temperature rises. In addition, the thermal insulation performance of phenolic syntactic foam containing HGM is better than that containing HPM. Thermal analysis experiments show that the thermal weight loss rate becomes slower as the content of HGM increases. Therefore, HGM improves the thermal stability of the containing phenolic syntactic foam. However, the HPM reduces the thermal decomposition temperature and the thermal stability of the phenolic syntactic foam. This work provides the technical basis for applying phenolic syntactic foam as a heat insulation material.

1. Introduction

With the further development of aerospace technology, the requirements of spacecraft for thermal insulation technology have become more stringent. For example, there is a thermal protection system on the spacecraft’s surface. It usually consists of a thermal protection layer and a thermal insulation layer. The thermal protection layer dissipates heat through the mass ejection effect, and the heat insulation layer further blocks the remaining heat.

Common aerospace thermal insulation materials include aerogels [1–3], inorganic fiber thermal insulation materials [4–6], and syntactic foam [7–13]. Syntactic foam is a kind of polymer with an internal pore structure that can be well bonded with the ablation-resistant polymer to play a role in comprehensive thermal protection. Ordinary heat-preserving and heat-insulating syntactic foams generally use fly ash as a filling material, but their low heat resistance limits their use at high temperatures [14, 15]. The hollow microspheres realize the lightweight of syntactic foam and ensure that it has specific mechanical properties [16–18]. However, there are still few studies on the mechanical and thermal insulation properties of hollow microspheres and phenolic resin composite foams.

In this work, we chose phenolic resin as the matrix material by mixing it with hollow glass microspheres (HGM) and hollow phenolic microspheres (HPM). Then we investigated the effects of the hollow microspheres on the syntactic foam’s mechanical and thermal insulation properties.

2. Experimental

2.1. Raw Materials

The main raw materials and reagents used in this experiment are listed in Table 1.

2.2. Preparation of Hollow Microsphere/phenolic Syntactic Foam

This experiment used a casting process to prepare hollow microsphere/phenolic syntactic foam. The preparation process is as follows: first, 100 mL of the phenolic resin solution is stirred at a constant temperature in a water bath at 40°C until the alcohol is fully volatilized. After stirring for two hours, a certain amount of HGM or HPM was weighed and added to the stirred phenolic resin in batches to continue stirring. After thoroughly stirring, a certain amount of curing agent (toluene-4-sulfonic acid) was added to the phenolic resin. After stirring evenly, the resin slurry was poured into the mold that had been coated with the release agent. Then the mold was placed in an electric heating oven for curing. They were cured at 40°C for 10 hours, 60°C for 8 hours, 80°C for 6 hours, 100°C for 4 hours, and 120°C for 2 hours. Finally, the mold is taken out and demolded when the temperature drops to room temperature.

2.3. Heat Treatment of Hollow Microsphere/phenolic Syntactic Foam

The prepared phenolic syntactic foam was placed into a muffle furnace at a temperature of 300°C for about 15 minutes. Then it was taken out of the furnace and cooled for later use. Then the temperature of the muffle furnace was raised to 600°C. The sample was placed in the furnace for about 15 minutes and cooled for later use. Finally, the temperature of the muffle furnace was raised to 900°C. The sample was kept warm for about 5–10 minutes and then cooled for later use.

2.4. Characterization Tests

2.4.1. Density

According to the standard of fiber-reinforced plastics test method GB/T 1463–2005, the density of phenolic resin, phenolic syntactic foam containing 10vol%–50vol% HGM and phenolic syntactic foam containing 10vol%–30vol% HPM were measured.

2.4.2. Micromorphology

A JSM-7500F field emission scanning electron microscope (SEM) from Japan JEOL was used to observe the micromorphology of the HGM and HPM.

The micromorphology of the curved fracture surface of the HGM/phenolic syntactic foam with a volume fraction of 10%–50% and the HPM/phenolic syntactic foam with a volume fraction of 10%–30% was also observed and analyzed by SEM.

2.4.3. Mechanical Performance Experiment

A universal testing machine (RGM4100) was used to detect the bending strength of pure phenolic resin, phenolic syntactic foam with a volume fraction of 10vol%–50vol% HGM, and phenolic syntactic foam with a volume fraction of 10vol%–30vol% HPM. According to the test methods for properties of resin casting bodies (GB/T 2567–2008), an 80 mm × 15 mm × 4 mm test sample was cast in the mold. During the experiment, the loading rate was 2 mm/min and the span was 64 mm.

The specific steps are as follows: the test sample was placed in the middle of the test bench. The universal testing machine continuously applied a bending moment to the test sample during the experiment until the sample broke. The maximum bending load that the sample bears when it is broken is the bending strength of the sample.

2.4.4. Thermal Conductivity

In this experiment, the LFA457 laser thermal conductivity meter (NETZSCH instrument company, Germany) was used to measure the thermal conductivity of the HGM/phenolic syntactic foam. The test temperature range is from room temperature to 1000°C.

2.4.5. Thermal Stability

The thermal stability of HGM/phenolic syntactic foam and HPM/phenolic syntactic foam was tested using the STA449 C TG-DSC integrated thermal analysis mass spectrometer from NETZSCH in Germany. TG-DSC in N₂ atmosphere at a heating rate of 5°C/min from room temperature to 900 °C to explore phenolic syntactic foam’s thermal weight loss behavior in different temperature ranges.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Microscopic Morphology Analysis of Hollow Microspheres

Figure 1 shows the microstructure of HGM at different magnifications. The HGM is spherical in a regular shape in the scanning electron micrograph. The size of the HGM is uniform, and the HGM surface has more impurities. Figure 2 shows the microstructure of HGM at different magnifications. In the scanning electron micrograph, the HPM is irregularly spherical in size. The size of the microspheres is uneven, and the HPM surface is relatively smooth with fewer impurities.

3.2. Density Analysis of Hollow Microsphere/phenolic Syntactic Foam

The density of glass microspheres/phenolic syntactic foam is shown in Figure 3. It can be observed that the density of the syntactic foam gradually decreases as the volume of HGM increases. The density of pure phenolic resin is 1.199 g/cm³, and the density of the phenolic syntactic foam is reduced to 0.901 g/cm³ when the volume of the HGM increases to 50%. This is because the density of HGM is lower than that of phenolic resin. As the content of HGM increases, the quality of the HGM/syntactic foam decreases. As a result, its density also decreases.

The density of HPM/phenolic syntactic foam is shown in Figure 4. It can be observed that the density of the phenolic syntactic foam gradually decreases as the volume of HPM increases. When the volume of HPM increase to 30%, the density of the phenolic syntactic foam decreases to 0.712 g/cm³. Since the density of HPM is less than that of phenolic resin, the increase in the content of phenolic microspheres reduces the density of the phenolic syntactic foam. Comparing Figures 3 and 4, it can be seen that the HPM/phenolic syntactic foam has a lower density than the HGM/phenolic syntactic foam. This is because HPM has a lower density than HGM.

3.3. Mechanical Properties of Syntactic Foam at Different Volume Fractions

The flexural strength and specific strength of the HGM/phenolic syntactic foam are shown in Figure 5. It can be seen that the bending strength of the phenolic syntactic foam gradually decreases as the volume of HGM increases. The bending strength of pure phenolic resin is 37.59 MPa. When the volume fraction of the HGM increases to 50%, the flexural strength of the phenolic syntactic foam is reduced to 12.31 MPa. This is because the void proportion of phenolic resin increases with the increasing volume of the HGM. The void in the phenolic resin reduces the bending strength of the phenolic syntactic foam.

In addition, the specific strength, as an index that comprehensively describes the strength and density. It can be seen that the specific strength of the HGM/phenolic syntactic foam first increases and then decreases as the content of HGM increases. When the volume of HGM reaches 20%, the peak specific strength of HGM/phenolic syntactic foam is 0.0334 Nm/kg. This displays that HGM increases the specific strength of the phenolic syntactic foam.

The flexural strength and specific strength of the HPM/phenolic syntactic foam are shown in Figure 6. It can be seen that the flexural strength of the syntactic foam gradually decreases as the volume of HPM increases. The bending strength of pure phenolic resin is 37.59 MPa. When the volume fraction of HPM is 30%, the flexural strength of the phenolic syntactic foam reduces to 14.23 MPa. This is because the proportion of phenolic resin decreases as the content of HPM increases.

In addition, the specific strength of the phenolic syntactic foam gradually decreases as the volume of HPM increases. The specific strength of the pure phenolic resin is 0.0314 Nm/kg. When the volume fraction of HPM reaches 10%, the specific strength of the phenolic syntactic foam is 0.0313 Nm/kg. This is very close to the specific strength of pure phenolic resin. Thus, the phenolic syntactic foam with 10 vol% HPM guarantees its bending strength and meets the lightness requirement.

3.4. Mechanical Properties of Syntactic Foam after Heat Treatment at Different Temperatures

Figure 7 shows the bending strength of HGM/phenolic syntactic foam at room temperature, 300°C, 600°C, and 900°C, respectively. It can be seen that the flexural strength of the phenolic syntactic foam at room temperature is greater than that of the phenolic syntactic foam at different heat treatment temperatures. As the volume fraction of HGM increases, the flexural strength of the syntactic foam gradually decreases. However, the flexural strength of the composite foam is significantly reduced under elevated temperature conditions. In addition, the flexural strength of the syntactic foam increases slightly as the volume fraction of HGM increases. This is because the pyrolysis degree of the phenolic resin becomes more significant as the heat treatment temperature increases. After the released small molecules escaped, many pores were left in the phenolic resin. This phenomenon is more evident when the volume fractions of microspheres are small. On the other hand, the HGM, as the inorganic reinforcing phase, has better thermal stability. It strengthens the phenolic resin after high-temperature pyrolysis and reduces the pores that cause the sample to break. Therefore, the HGM can improve the bending strength of the phenolic syntactic foam after high-temperature heat treatment.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

The flexural strength of phenolic syntactic foam at room temperature, 300°C, 600°C, and 900°C is shown in Figure 8. It can be seen that the flexural strength of the phenolic syntactic foam at room temperature is greater than that at other temperatures. As the volume fraction of HPM increases, the strength of the phenolic syntactic foam gradually decreases at room temperature. This is because more stress is concentrated in the microspheres and resin matrix with the increase of HPM content. In addition, it triggers the premature rupture of large-sized HPM and microcrack formation in the phenolic matrix. When the temperature increases, the strength of the phenolic syntactic foam reduces. After high-temperature treatment, the strength of HPM/phenolic syntactic foam is reduced more significantly than that of HGM/phenolic syntactic foam. This is because high-temperature pyrolysis occurs both in the phenolic matrix and in the phenolic microspheres. Small molecules of the pyrolysis product create many pores in the phenolic resin matrix. The microcracks connect adjacent pores to form large cracks during the propagation process, making the sample easy to fracture and fail.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

3.5. Mechanical Properties of Phenolic Syntactic Foams

The bending strengths of HGM/phenolic syntactic foam and HPM/phenolic syntactic foam are shown in Figure 9. It can be seen that the bending strength of the HGM/phenolic syntactic foam is higher than that of the HPM/phenolic syntactic foam containing the same volume fraction of the microsphere. On the one hand, because the compressive strength of HGM is greater than that of HPM, the HGM/phenolic syntactic foam exhibits better mechanical properties at the same volume fraction of microspheres. On the other hand, the inner cavity of the phenolic microspheres encloses more air due to their larger particle size. This result indicates that the mechanical properties of HPM/phenolic syntactic foam are inferior to those of HGM/phenolic syntactic foam.

The specific strengths of HGM/phenolic syntactic foam and HPM/phenolic syntactic foam are shown in Figure 10. It can be seen that the specific strength of the HGM/phenolic syntactic foam is greater than that of the HPM/phenolic syntactic foam at the same volume fraction of the microsphere. This also indicates that the HGM/phenolic syntactic foam has better mechanical properties than the HPM/phenolic syntactic foam.

The micromorphologies of an HGM and HPM in phenolic syntactic foam are shown in Figure 11. It can be observed that there is a clear gap at the interface between an HGM and the phenolic resin in Figure 11(a). These gaps are also the reason why the mechanical properties of the HGM/phenolic syntactic foam decrease. Figure 11(b) shows that there is no gap at the interface between an HPM and the phenolic resin, and the interface is tightly bonded. It can also be seen from Figure 11 that the particle size of HGM is larger than that of HPM. When the phenolic syntactic foam is subjected to an external load, HPM is more prone to rupture than HGM. This is the main reason why the mechanical properties of HPM/phenolic syntactic foam are lower than those of HGM/phenolic syntactic foam at the same volume fraction of microspheres.

(a)

(b)

3.6. Thermal Conductivity of the Phenolic Syntactic Foam

The thermal conductivity of HGM/phenolic syntactic foam and HPM/phenolic syntactic foam at different heat treatment temperatures is shown in Figure 12. It can be observed that the thermal conductivity of the phenolic syntactic foam decreases as the volume fraction of the microsphere increases.

(a)

(b)

It indicates that the microspheres can improve the thermal insulation of the phenolic syntactic foam. On the other hand, the thermal conductivity of phenolic syntactic foam gradually increases as the heat treatment temperature increases. It shows that the thermal insulation performance of the phenolic syntactic foam reduces under high-temperature conditions. In addition, it can be observed that the thermal conductivity of HGM/phenolic syntactic foam is lower than that of HPM/phenolic syntactic foam with the same volume fraction of microspheres.

3.7. Thermal Stability of Phenolic Syntactic Foam

The TG curves of HGM/phenolic syntactic foams are shown in Figure 13. The thermal weight loss rates of HGM/phenolic syntactic foams at different temperatures are shown in Table 2. From Figure 13 and Table 2, three different stages of thermal weight loss can be observed. In the first stage, when the temperature is between room temperature and 300°C, the weight loss of the syntactic foam is 10.71–18.18%. In the second stage, when the temperature is between 300 and 600°C, the weight loss of the HGM/phenolic syntactic foam is from 23.96% to 38.21%. This stage is the main stage of the thermal decomposition of the syntactic foam. The remaining mass of the system is significantly reduced, and the weight loss rate increases. In the third stage, when the temperature is between 600 and 900°C, the weight loss of the HGM/phenolic syntactic foam is from 33.08% to 44.84%. The thermal decomposition of the resin matrix is basically completed, and the weight loss rate is reduced. In addition, the thermal stability of the HGM/phenolic syntactic foam is improved as the content of HGM increases. This is because the unstable oxygen-containing molecular chain in the phenolic resin has wholly decomposed in the range of 450 to 700°C. The thermal decomposition of the main chain of the aromatic ring structure mainly occurs in the phenolic resin matrix at this temperature. The existence of HGM effectively hindered the thermal decomposition degree of the system. As a result, the thermal weight loss rate decreases as the volume fraction of HGM increases.

The TG curve of HPM/phenolic syntactic foam is shown in Figure 14. The thermal weight loss rates of HPM/phenolic syntactic foams at different temperatures are shown in Table 3. From Figure 14 and Table 3, three different stages of thermal weight loss can also be observed. In the first stage, when the temperature is between room temperature and 300°C, the weight loss of the syntactic foam is 20.16–21.61%. In the second stage, when the temperature is between 300 and 600 °C, the weight loss of the HPM/phenolic syntactic foam is 38.44–40.03%. This stage is the main stage of the thermal decomposition of syntactic foam. The remaining mass of the system is greatly reduced, and the rate of weight loss increases. In the third stage, when the temperature is between 600 and 900 °C, the weight loss of the HPM/phenolic syntactic foam is 44.36–46.53%. The thermal decomposition of the resin matrix is basically completed, and the weight loss rate is reduced.

In addition, it can be seen that 10 vol% of HPM does not effectively improve the thermal stability of the phenolic syntactic foam in Figure 14. There is no gap at the interface between an HPM and the phenolic resin to delay the heat transfer in phenolic syntactic foam. Therefore, adding HPM to the phenolic resin decreases the thermal stability of the phenolic syntactic foam.

4. Conclusion

(1)The addition of HGM and HPM reduces the density of the phenolic syntactic foam. As the volume fraction of microspheres increases, the density of the phenolic syntactic foam gradually decreases. In addition, the HPM/phenolic syntactic foam has a lower density than the HGM/phenolic syntactic foam. Compared to HGM, HPM reduces the density of syntactic foam even more.(2)Mechanical performance experiments show that the strength of phenolic syntactic foam decreases gradually with the increase in the volume fraction of microspheres at room temperature. At high temperatures, the bending strength of phenolic syntactic foam increases slightly with the rise of the volume fraction of microspheres. In addition, the bending strength of the HGM/phenolic syntactic foam is higher than that of the HPM/phenolic syntactic foam. The specific strength of the HGM/phenolic syntactic foam containing 20 vol% of HGM increases more obviously than other HGM/phenolic syntactic foams. HGM/phenolic composite foam has the advantages of being lightweight and having good mechanical properties.(3)Thermal insulation experiments display that the thermal conductivity of phenolic syntactic foam decreases as the content of microspheres increases. As the heat treatment temperature rises, the thermal conductivity of the composite foam also increases. In addition, the thermal conductivity results confirm that HGM can improve the thermal insulation performance of phenolic syntactic foam more than HPM.(4)Thermal analysis experiments prove that the thermal weight loss rate becomes smaller as the content of HGM increases. HGM improves the thermal stability of the phenolic syntactic foam. With the rise of the content of HGM, the thermal stability of the phenolic syntactic foam gradually increases. However, HPM does not enhance the thermal stability of the phenolic syntactic foam.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are included in the article. Further data or information are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest with this study.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the Ministry of Education and equipment's pre-research joint fund project “Preparation, Ablation Mechanism, and High-Temperature Mechanical Properties of Graphene Modified Phenolic Resin” for supporting this work (no. 6141B070801).

References

M. A. Hasan, R. Sangashetty, A. C. M. Esther, S. B. Patil, B. N. Sherikar, and A. Dey, “Prospect of thermal insulation by silica aerogel: a brief review,” Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series D, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 297–304, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Zhao, J. Zhu, T. Peng et al., “Preparation of functionalized halloysite reinforced polyimide composite aerogels with excellent thermal insulation properties,” Applied Clay Science, vol. 211, Article ID 106200, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Zou and T. Budtova, “Polysaccharide-based aerogels for thermal insulation and superinsulation: an overview,” Carbohydrate Polymers, vol. 266, Article ID 118130, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Zhang, Q. Tian, B. Wang et al., “Flexible porous SiZrOC ultrafine fibers for high-temperature thermal insulation,” Materials Letters, vol. 299, Article ID 130131, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Barrios and S. W. Van Sciver, “Thermal conductivity of rigid foam insulations for aerospace vehicles,” Cryogenics, vol. 55-56, pp. 12–19, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Yang, Q. Zhang, W. Zhang et al., “High thermal insulation and compressive strength polypropylene microcellular foams with honeycomb structure,” Polymer Degradation and Stability, vol. 183, Article ID 109406, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Wang, J. Zhao, G. Wang, L. H. Mark, C. B. Park, and G. Zhao, “Low-density and structure-tunable microcellular PMMA foams with improved thermal-insulation and compressive mechanical properties,” European Polymer Journal, vol. 95, pp. 382–393, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Song, W. Xiao, P. Wang, B. Liao, K. Yan, and J. Zhang, “Hollow glass microspheres-based ultralight non-combustible thermal insulation foam with point-to-point binding structure using solvent evaporation method,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 292, no. 7, Article ID 123415, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Yang, Y. Jiang, H. Liu et al., “Mechanical, thermal and fire performance of an inorganic-organic insulation material composed of hollow glass microspheres and phenolic resin,” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 530, pp. 163–170, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Yuan, Z. An, and J. Zhang, “Effects of hollow microsphere surface property on the mechanical performance of high strength syntactic foams,” Composites Science and Technology, vol. 199, Article ID 108309, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Huang, B. Wang, Y. Qin, and Z. Huang, “Effects of hollow glass microsphere content on properties of epoxy syntactic foams,” Acta Materiae Compositae Sinica, vol. 33, pp. 1630–1637, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Ozkutlu, C. Dilek, and G. Bayram, “Effects of hollow glass microsphere density and surface modification on the mechanical and thermal properties of poly(methyl methacrylate) syntactic foams,” Composite Structures, vol. 202, pp. 545–550, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kiran, A. A. K. Gorar, T. Wang et al., “Effects of hollow glass microspheres on the polybenzoxazine thermosets: mechanical, thermal, heat insulation, and morphological properties,” Journal of Applied Polymer Science, vol. 139, Article ID 51643, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Zhang, Z. Fan, S. Hu, Z. Shen, and H. Ma, “Mechanical response of the fly ash cenospheres/polyurethane syntactic foams fabricated through infiltration process,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 206, pp. 552–559, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Labella, S. E. Zeltmann, V. C. Shunmugasamy, N. Gupta, and P. K. Rohatgi, “Mechanical and thermal properties of fly ash/vinyl ester syntactic foams,” Fuel, vol. 121, pp. 240–249, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Zhang and J. Ma, “Effect of coupling agent on mechanical properties of hollow carbon microsphere/phenolic resin syntactic foam,” Composites Science and Technology, vol. 70, pp. 1265–1271, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Zhou, H. Zhao, J. Wang, W. Qiao, D. Long, and L. Ling, “Scalable preparation of hollow polymer and carbon microspheres by spray drying and their application in low-density syntactic foam,” Materials Chemistry and Physics, vol. 181, pp. 150–158, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Anbuchezhiyan, T. Muthuramalingam, and B. Mohan, “Effect of process parameters on mechanical properties of hollow glass microsphere reinforced magnesium alloy syntactic foams under vacuum die casting,” Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1645–1650, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Jing Dai et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

527

Downloads

509

Citations