Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 54, Issue 6, pp 4471–4483 | Cite as

Can nanoparticle toughen fiber-reinforced thermosetting polymers?

  • Kunwei Liu
  • Christopher W. MacoskoEmail author


Many tougheners have been developed for thermosetting resins. Numerous studies indicate that the mode-I fracture toughness of a thermosetting resin (GIC_Resin) can be effectively enhanced by rubber tougheners such as liquid rubber and core–shell rubber, and inorganic rigid particles such as silica, clay, carbon nanotubes, or graphene. Can these additives also toughen fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs)? In particular, can they improve the mode-I interlaminar fracture toughness of FRPs (GIC_Comp)? To answer how much toughness improvement is transferred from resin to FRPs, we reviewed data from more than 50 publications related to interlaminar toughening. The performance of various types of tougheners in the resin and/or FRPs is summarized, and toughening mechanisms are also discussed. We found a wide range of improvement in fracture toughness in FRPs with the addition of nanoparticles, from negative improvement in some silica and carbon particle studies to an improvement ratio equal to that achieved in the resin. Overall, rubber tougheners are the most effective tougheners, but on average, only about 30% of the relative improvement in resin toughness translated to GIC_Comp increase. The enhancement in GIC_Comp after incorporating rigid particles tougheners is even less, but rigid particles do not decrease the strength and modulus of the final FRPs. Other toughening strategies, such as using multiple types of tougheners, and coating or depositing nanoparticle onto the fiber reinforcements are also discussed, and we suggest some strategies to design FRPs with optimal delamination resistance.



This research was funded by Adama Materials. The authors thank the reviewers for helpful comments and Dr. Siyao He for his valuable discussions and guidance in this review.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10853_2018_3195_MOESM1_ESM.docx (150 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 150 kb)


  1. 1.
    Hunston D (1984) Composite interlaminar fracture: effect of matrix fracture energy. J Compos Technol Res 6:176–180Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bradley WL (1989) Understanding the translation of neat resin toughness into delamination toughness in composites. Key Eng Mater 37:161–198Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tang YH, Ye L, Zhang Z, Friedrich K (2013) Interlaminar fracture toughness and CAI strength of fibre-reinforced composites with nanoparticles: a review. Compos Sci Technol 86:26–37Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hunston DL, Moulton RJ, Johnston NJ, Bascom W (1987) Matrix resin effects in composite delamination: mode I fracture aspects. In: Johnston NJ (ed) Toughened composites: symposium on toughened composites. ASTM International, Philadelphia, pp 77–94Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ngah SA, Taylor AC (2016) Toughening performance of glass fibre composites with core–shell rubber and silica nanoparticle modified matrices. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 80:292–303Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siddiqui NA, Woo RSC, Kim JK, Leung CCK, Munir A (2007) Mode I interlaminar fracture behavior and mechanical properties of CFRPs with nanoclay-filled epoxy matrix. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 38:449–460Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim JK, Baillie C, Poh J, Mai YW (1992) Fracture toughness of CFRP with modified epoxy resin matrices. Compos Sci Technol 43:283–297Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hsieh TH, Kinloch AJ, Masania K, Lee JS, Taylor AC, Sprenger S (2010) The toughness of epoxy polymers and fibre composites modified with rubber microparticles and silica nanoparticles. J Mater Sci 45:1193–1210. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeCarli M, Kozielski K, Tian W, Varley R (2005) Toughening of a carbon fibre reinforced epoxy anhydride composite using an epoxy terminated hyperbranched modifier. Compos Sci Technol 65:2156–2166Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Compston P, Jar PYB, Burchill PJ, Takahashi K (2002) The transfer of matrix toughness to composite mode I interlaminar fracture toughness in glass–fibre/vinyl ester composites. Appl Compos Mater 9:291–314Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Friedrich K, Walter R, Carlsson LA, Smiley AJ, Gillespie JW (1989) Mechanisms for rate effects on interlaminar fracture toughness of carbon/epoxy and carbon/PEEK composites. J Mater Sci 24:3387–3398. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hwang W, Han K (1989) Interlaminar fracture behavior and fiber bridging of glass-epoxy composite under mode I static and cyclic loadings. J Compos Mater 23:396–430Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seyhan AT, Tanoglu M, Schulte K (2009) Tensile mechanical behavior and fracture toughness of MWCNT and DWCNT modified vinyl-ester/polyester hybrid nanocomposites produced by 3-roll milling. Mater Sci Eng A Struct 523:85–92Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ratna D, Banthia AK (2004) Rubber toughened epoxy. Macromol Res 1:11–21Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Quan D, Ivankovic A (2015) Effect of core–shell rubber (CSR) nano-particles on mechanical properties and fracture toughness of an epoxy polymer. Polymer 66:16–28Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sober DJ (2007) Kaneka core–shell toughening systems for thermosetting resins. Kaneka Texas Corporation, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zeng Y, Liu H-Y, Mai Y-W, Du X-S (2012) Improving interlaminar fracture toughness of carbon fibre/epoxy laminates by incorporation of nano-particles. Compos B Eng 43:90–94Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dadfar M, Ghadami F (2013) Effect of rubber modification on fracture toughness properties of glass reinforced hot cured epoxy composites. Mater Des 47:16–20Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tsai JL, Huang BH, Cheng YL (2009) Enhancing fracture toughness of glass/epoxy composites by using rubber particles together with silica nanoparticles. J Compos Mater 43:3107–3123Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bagheri R, Marouf BT, Pearson RA (2009) Rubber-toughened epoxies: a critical review. Polym Rev 49:201–225Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pearson RA, Yee AF (1986) Toughening mechanisms in elastomer-modified epoxies. J Mater Sci 21:2475–2488. Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yee AF, Li DM, Li XW (1993) The importance of constraint relief caused by rubber cavitation in the toughening of epoxy. J Mater Sci 28:6392–6398. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Declet-Perez C, Francis LF, Bates FS (2015) Deformation processes in block copolymer toughened epoxies. Macromolecules 48:3672–3684Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Collyer AA (2012) Rubber toughened engineering plastics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kinloch AJ, Mohammed RD, Taylor AC, Sprenger S, Egan D (2006) The interlaminar toughness of carbon-fibre reinforced plastic composites using ‘hybrid-toughened’ matrices. J Mater Sci 41:5043–5046. Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu K, He S, Qian Y, An Q, Stein A, Macosko CW (2017) Nanoparticles in glass fiber-reinforced polyester composites: comparing toughening effects of modified graphene oxide and core–shell rubber. Polym Compos. Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klingler A, Sorochynska L, Wetzel B (2017) Toughening of glass fiber reinforced unsaturated polyester composites by core–shell particles. Key Eng Mater 742:74–81Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ma J, Mo M-S, Du X-S, Rosso P, Friedrich K, Kuan H-C (2008) Effect of inorganic nanoparticles on mechanical property, fracture toughness and toughening mechanism of two epoxy systems. Polymer 49:3510–3523Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kinloch A, Masania K, Taylor A, Sprenger S (2009) The fracture of nanosilica and rubber toughened epoxy fibre composites. In: Proceedings of ICCMGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kinloch AJ, Masania K, Taylor AC, Sprenger S, Egan D (2008) The fracture of glass-fibre-reinforced epoxy composites using nanoparticle-modified matrices. J Mater Sci 43:1151–1154. Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liang YL, Pearson RA (2010) The toughening mechanism in hybrid epoxy–silica–rubber nanocomposites (HESRNs). Polymer 51:4880–4890Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sprenger S, Kothmann MH, Altstaedt V (2014) Carbon fiber-reinforced composites using an epoxy resin matrix modified with reactive liquid rubber and silica nanoparticles. Compos Sci Technol 105:86–95Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carolan D, Ivankovic A, Kinloch AJ, Sprenger S, Taylor AC (2017) Toughened carbon fibre-reinforced polymer composites with nanoparticle-modified epoxy matrices. J Mater Sci 52:1767–1788. Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thostenson ET, Chou TW (2006) Processing-structure-multi-functional property relationship in carbon nanotube/epoxy composites. Carbon 44:3022–3029Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Opelt CV, Becker D, Lepienski CM, Coelho LAF (2015) Reinforcement and toughening mechanisms in polymer nanocomposites–carbon nanotubes and aluminum oxide. Compos B Eng 75:119–126Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mirjalili V, Hubert P (2010) Modelling of the carbon nanotube bridging effect on the toughening of polymers and experimental verification. Compos Sci Technol 70:1537–1543Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Eqra R, Janghorban K, Daneshmanesh H (2015) Mechanical properties and toughening mechanisms of epoxy/graphene nanocomposites. J Polym Eng 35:257–266Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chandrasekaran S, Sato N, Tolle F, Mulhaupt R, Fiedler B, Schulte K (2014) Fracture toughness and failure mechanism of graphene based epoxy composites. Compos Sci Technol 97:90–99Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Domun N, Hadavinia H, Zhang T, Sainsbury T, Liaghat GH, Vahid S (2015) Improving the fracture toughness and the strength of epoxy using nanomaterials: a review of the current status. Nanoscale 7:10294–10329Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rafiee MA, Rafiee J, Wang Z, Song HH, Yu ZZ, Koratkar N (2009) Enhanced mechanical properties of nanocomposites at low graphene content. ACS Nano 3:3884–3890Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Park YT, Qian YQ, Chan C, Suh T, Nejhad MG, Macosko CW, Stein A (2015) Epoxy toughening with low graphene loading. Adv Funct Mater 25:575–585Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wichmann MH, Sumfleth J, Gojny FH, Quaresimin M, Fiedler B, Schulte K (2006) Glass-fibre-reinforced composites with enhanced mechanical and electrical properties–benefits and limitations of a nanoparticle modified matrix. Eng Fract Mech 73:2346–2359Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kermansaravi M, Pol MH (2016) Experimental investigation on the effects of carbon nanotubes on mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of laminated composites. Polym Compos 39:E797–E806Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Seyhan AT, De la Vega A, Tanoglu M, Schulte K (2009) Thermal curing behavior of MWCNT modified vinyl ester‐polyester resin suspensions prepared with 3‐roll milling technique. J Polym Sci Pol Phys 47:1511–1522Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Menbari S, Ashori A, Rahmani H, Bahrami R (2016) Viscoelastic response and interlaminar delamination resistance of epoxy/glass fiber/functionalized graphene oxide multi-scale composites. Polym Test 54:186–195Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ray SS, Okamoto M (2003) Polymer/layered silicate nanocomposites: a review from preparation to processing. Prog Polym Sci 28:1539–1641Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pavlidou S, Papaspyrides CD (2008) A review on polymer—layered silicate nanocomposites. Prog Polym Sci 33:1119–1198Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wang K, Chen L, Wu JS, Toh ML, He CB, Yee AF (2005) Epoxy nanocomposites with highly exfoliated clay: mechanical properties and fracture mechanisms. Macromolecules 38:788–800Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Han JT, Cho K (2005) Layered silicate‐induced enhancement of fracture toughness of epoxy molding compounds over a wide temperature range. Macromol Mater Eng 290:1184–1191Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Liu TX, Tjiu WC, Tong YJ, He CB, Goh SS, Chung TS (2004) Morphology and fracture behavior of intercalated epoxy/clay nanocomposites. J Appl Polym Sci 94:1236–1244Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Subramaniyan AK, Sun C (2008) Interlaminar fracture behavior of nanoclay reinforced glass fiber composites. J Compos Mater 42:2111–2122Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chaudhry M, Czekanski A, Zhu Z (2017) Characterization of carbon nanotube enhanced interlaminar fracture toughness of woven carbon fiber reinforced polymer composites. Int J Mech Sci 131:480–489Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kamar NT, Hossain MM, Khomenko A, Haq M, Drzal LT, Loos A (2015) Interlaminar reinforcement of glass fiber/epoxy composites with graphene nanoplatelets. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 70:82–92Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Veedu VP, Cao A, Li X, Ma K, Soldano C, Kar S, Ajayan PM, Ghasemi-Nejhad MN (2006) Multifunctional composites using reinforced laminae with carbon-nanotube forests. Nat Mater 5:457–462Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    An Q, Rider AN, Thostenson ET (2013) Hierarchical composite structures prepared by electrophoretic deposition of carbon nanotubes onto glass fibers. ACS Appl Mater Inter 5:2022–2032Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    An Q, Rider AN, Thostenson ET (2012) Electrophoretic deposition of carbon nanotubes onto carbon-fiber fabric for production of carbon/epoxy composites with improved mechanical properties. Carbon 50:4130–4143Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mouritz AP (2007) Review of z-pinned composite laminates. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 12:2383–2397Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mouritz AP, Baini C, Herszberg I (1999) Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness properties of advanced textile fibreglass composites. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 7:859–870Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Beckermann GW, Pickering KL (2015) Mode I and Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness of composite laminates interleaved with electrospun nanofibre veils. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 72:11–21Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Inam F, Wong DW, Kuwata M, Peijs T (2010) Multiscale hybrid micro-nanocomposites based on carbon nanotubes and carbon fibers. J Nanomater. Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sager RJ, Klein PJ, Davis DC, Lagoudas DC, Warren GL, Sue HJ (2011) Interlaminar fracture toughness of woven fabric composite laminates with carbon nanotube/epoxy interleaf films. J Appl Polym Sci 121:2394–2405Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Phonthammachai N, Li X, Wong S, Chia HL, Tjiu WW, He CB (2011) Fabrication of CFRP from high performance clay/epoxy nanocomposite: preparation conditions, thermal–mechanical properties and interlaminar fracture characteristics. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 42:881–887Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Quaresimin M, Varley RJ (2008) Understanding the effect of nano-modifier addition upon the properties of fibre reinforced laminates. Compos Sci Technol 68:718–726Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Domun N, Paton KR, Hadavinia H, Sainsbury T, Zhang T, Mohamud H (2017) Enhancement of fracture toughness of epoxy nanocomposites by combining nanotubes and nanosheets as fillers. Materials 10:1179. Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Deng S, Ye L (1999) Influence of fiber-matrix adhesion on mechanical properties of graphite/epoxy composites: II. Interlaminar fracture and inplane shear behavior. J Reinf Plast Compos 18:1041–1057Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Madhukar MS, Drzal LT (1992) Fiber-matrix adhesion and its effect on composite mechanical properties: IV. Mode I and mode II fracture toughness of graphite/epoxy composites. J Compos Mater 26:936–968Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Chua PS, Piggott MR (1985) The glass fibre—polymer interface: I—theoretical consideration for single fibre pull-out tests. Compos Sci Technol 22:33–42Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Cui HY, Kessler MR (2012) Glass fiber reinforced ROMP-based bio-renewable polymers: enhancement of the interface with silane coupling agents. Compos Sci Technol 72:1264–1272Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Thostenson ET, Li WZ, Wang DZ, Ren ZF, Chou TW (2002) Carbon nanotube/carbon fiber hybrid multiscale composites. J Appl Phys 91:6034–6037Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zhou XF, Wagner HD, Nutt SR (2001) Interfacial properties of polymer composites measured by push-out and fragmentation tests. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 32:1543–1551Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Herrerafranco PJ, Drzal LT (1992) Comparison of methods for the measurement of fibre/matrix adhesion in composites. Composites 23:2–27Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Balaguru PN, Nanni A, Giancaspro J (2009) FRP composites for reinforced and prestressed concrete structures: a guide to fundamentals and design for repair and retrofit. Taylor & Francis, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hyer MW, White SR (1998) Stress analysis of fiber-reinforced composite materials. WCB McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Drzal LT, Madhukar M (1993) Fibre-matrix adhesion and its relationship to composite mechanical properties. J Mater Sci 28:569–610. Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Miller NA, Stirling CD (2001) Effects of ATBN rubber additions on the fracture toughness of unsaturated polyester resin. Polym Polym Compos 9:31–36Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Liu LQ, Li LY, Gao Y, Tang LC, Zhang Z (2013) Single carbon fiber fracture embedded in an epoxy matrix modified by nanoparticles. Compos Sci Technol 77:101–109Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Dorigato A, Morandi S, Pegoretti A (2012) Effect of nanoclay addition on the fiber/matrix adhesion in epoxy/glass composites. J Compos Mater 46:1439–1451Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Peters L (2018) Influence of glass fibre sizing and storage conditions on composite properties. In: Davies P, Rajapakse YD (eds) Durability of composites in a marine environment 2. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 19–31Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Schultheisz CR, McDonough WG, Kondagunta S, Schutte CL, Macturk KS, McAuliffe M, Hunston DL (1997) Effect of moisture on E-glass/epoxy interfacial and fiber strengths. In: Hopper SD (ed) Composite materials: testing and design, vol 13. ASTM International, Philadelphia, pp 257–286Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Jordan WM, Bradley WL, Moulton RJ (1989) Relating resin mechanical properties to composite delamination fracture toughness. J Compos Mater 23:923–943Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Drzal LT (1990) The role of the fiber-matrix interphase on composite properties. Vacuum 41:1615–1618Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Pegoretti A, Accorsi ML, Dibenedetto AT (1996) Fracture toughness of the fibre-matrix interface in glass-epoxy composites. J Mater Sci 31:6145–6153. Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Drzal LT (1990) Fiber-matrix interphase structure and its effect on adhesion and composite mechanical properties. In: Ishida H (ed) Controlled interphases in composite materials. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 309–320Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bennett J, Young R (1998) The effect of fibre-matrix adhesion upon crack bridging in fibre reinforced composites. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 29:1071–1081Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Polaha JJ, Davidson BD, Hudson RC (1996) Effects of mode ratio, ply orientation and precracking on the delamination toughness of a laminated composite. Pieracci A 2:141–173Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials ScienceUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations