Effect of Nanoparticle Dispersion on Polymer Matrix and their Fiber Nanocomposites

  • Mohammed F. UddinEmail author
  • Chin-Teh Sun


Dispersion of nanoparticles and its effect on mechanical properties were investigated by fabricating nanocomposites via conventional sonication, sol-gel, and modified sonication method. Silica nanoparticles dispersed in epoxy and MEK produced via sol-gel method were procured as Nanopox F 400 and MEK-ST-MS, respectively, to produce silica/epoxy nanocomposite whereas the conventional son-ication method was followed to produce alumina/epoxy and carbon nanofibers (CNF)/epoxy nanocomposites. The conventional sonication method was modified by combining it with sol-gel method to improve the dispersion quality as well as to increase the particle loading. The as-prepared nanocomposites were morphologically and mechanically characterized to investigate the effect of dispersion of nanoparticles on polymer matrix nanocomposites. The nanocomposites fabricated via sol-gel method revealed the most improved and consistent properties among all nanocomposites which showed almost proportional properties improvement with particle loading in contrast to conventional nanocomposites. Subsequently, the modified matrix (silica/epoxy) was used to make fiber reinforced nanocomposites via the VARTM process. The effect of improved matrix properties was reflected in the properties of fiber composites which showed significant improvements in compressive strength, tensile strength and modulus, fracture toughness and impact resistance.


Compressive Strength Energy Release Rate Fiber Composite Fiber Volume Fraction Double Cantilever Beam 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was supported by ONR through grant N00014–05–1–0552. Dr. Yapa D.S. Rajapakse was the technical monitor.


  1. 1.
    Adebhar T, Roscher C, Adam J (2001) Reinforcing nanoparticles in reactive resins. Eur Coats J 4:144–149.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yasmin A, Abot JL, Daniel IM (2003) Processing of clay/epoxy nanocomposites by shear mixing. Scripta Mat 49:81–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kinloch AJ, Lee JH, Taylor AC, Sprenger S, Eger C, Egan D (2003) Toughening structural adhesives via nano- and micro-phase inclusions. J Adhesion 79:867–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haggenmueller R, Du F, Fischer JE, Winey KI (2006) Interfacial in situ polymerization of single wall carbon nanotube/nylon 6,6 nanocomposites. Polymer 47:2381–2388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zilg C, Mulhaupt R, Finter J (1999) Morphology, toughness/stiffness balance of nanocompos-ites based upon anhydride-cured epoxy resins and layered silicates. Macromol Chem Phys 200:661–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zilg C, Thomman T, Finter J, Mulhaupt R (2000) The influence of silicate modification and compatibilizers on mechanical properties and morphology of anhydride-cured epoxy nanocom-posites. Macromol Mater Eng 280:41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shah RK, Paul DR (2004) Nylon 6 nanocomposites prepared by a melt mixing masterbatch process. Polymer 45:2991–3000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rodgers RM, Mahfuz H, Rangari VK, Chisholm N, Jeelani S (2005) Infusion of SIC nanoparti-cles into SC-15 epoxy:an investigation of thermal and mechanical response. Macromol Mater Eng 290:423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Subramaniyan AK, Sun CT (2006) Enhancing compressive strength of unidirectional polymeric composites using nanoclay. Compos Part A –Appl S 37:2257–2268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Choi Y-K, Sugimoto K-I, Song S-M, Gotoh YG, Ohkoshi Y, Endo M (2004) Mechanical and physical properties of epoxy composites reinforced by vapor grown carbon nanofibers. Carbon 43:2199–2208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cho J, Joshi MS, Sun CT (2006) Effect of inclusion size on mechanical properties of polymeric composites with micro and nano particles. Compos Sci Technol 66:1941–1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bergna HE, Roberts WOE (2006) Colloidal silica:fundamentals and applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nanoresins AG, Charlottenburger Str 9 21502 Geesthacht Germany.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kinloch AJ, Mohammed RD, Taylor AC (2005) The effect of silica nano particles and rubber particles on the toughness of multiphase thermosetting epoxy polymers. J Mater Sci Letters 40:5083–5086.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosso P, Ye L, Friedrich K, Sprenger S (2006) A toughened epoxy resin by silica nanoparticle reinforcement. J Appl Polym Sci 100:1849–1855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sprenger S, Kinloch AJ, Taylor AC, Mohamed RD (2007) Rubber-toughened CFRCs optimized by nanoparticles —part III. Eur Coats J 30:54–57.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnsen BB, Kinloch AJ, Mohamed RD, Taylor AC, Sprenger S (2007) Toughening mechanisms of nanoparticle-modified epoxy polymer. Polymer 48:530–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deng S, Ye L, Friedrich K (2007) Fracture behaviors of epoxy nanocomposites with nano-silica at low and elevated temperatures. J Mater Sci 42:2766–2774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang H, Zhang Z, Friedrich K, Eger C (2006) Property improvements of in situ epoxy nanocomposites with reduced interparticle distance at high nanosilica content. Acta Mater 54:1833–1842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang H, Tang L-C, Zhang Z, Friedrich K, Sprenger S (2008) Fracture behaviors of in-situ silica nanoparticle-filled epoxy at different temperatures. Polymer 49:3816–3825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nanosperse LLC, 2000 Composites Drive Kettering Ohio 45420.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zyvex Performance Materials, 1255 Kinnear Road Suite 100 Columbus Ohio 43212.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Young FR (1989) Cavitation. McGraw-Hill, Berkshire, England.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arora M, Ohl C-D, Morch KA (2004) Cavitation inception on microparticles:a self-propelled particle accelerator. Phys Rev Lett 92:174501.1–174501.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Collings AF (2005) Processing for treating a solid-liquid mixture. US Patent 6908 559 B2.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marschall HB, Morch KA, Keller AP, Kjeldsen M (2003) Cavitation inception by almost spherical solid particles in water. Phys Fluids 15:545–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Applied Poleramic Inc 6166 Egert Court Benicia CA 94510 USA.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nissan Chemical America Corporation 10777 Westheimer Houston TX 77042 USA.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Adam J (2004) Silicon dioxide dispersion. US Patent 20040147029 (WO 02083776).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nanostructured &Amorphous Materials Inc 17702 Emerald Garden Lane Houston TX 77084 USA.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Applied Sciences Inc PO Box 579 Cedarville Ohio 45314 USA.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Uddin MF, Sun CT (2006) A new processing method for high particle loading silica/ alumina/epoxy hybrid nanocomposites. Proceedings of the Twelfth US-Japan Conference on Composite Materials:49–62.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dow NF, Gruntfest IJ (1960) Determination of most needed potentially possible improvements in materials for ballistic and space vehicles. GE-TIS 60:389.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rosen BW (1965) Mechanics of composite strengthening fiber composite materials. Amer Soc Met:37–75.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sun CT, Jun AW (1994) Compressive strength of unidirectional fiber composites with matrix non-linearity. Compos Sci Technol 52:577–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Iwahori Y, Ishiwata S, Sumizawa T, Ishikawa T (2005) Mechanical properties improvements in two-phase and three-phase composites using carbon nano-fiber dispersed resin. Compos Part A —Appl S 36:1430–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cho J, Chen JY, Daniel IM (2007) Mechanical enhancement of carbon fiber/epoxy composites by graphite nanoplatelet reinforcement. Scripta Mater 56:685–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tsai JL, Wu MD (2008) Organoclay effect on mechanical responses of glass/epoxy nanocomposites. J Compos Mater 42:553–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tsai JL, Guo C, Sun CT (2001) Dynamic delamination fracture toughness in unidirectional polymeric composites. Compos Sci Technol 61:87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kinloch AJ, Shaw SJ, Todd DA, Hunston DL (1983) Deformation and fracture behaviour of a rubber-toughened epoxy:1 microstructure and fracture studies. Polymer 24:1341–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Maloney AC, Kausch HH, Kaiser T, Beer HR (1984) The fracture of particulate-filled epoxide resins. J Mater Sci 19:1125–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nakamura Y, Yamaguchi M, Iko K, Okubo M, Matsumoto T (1990) Internal stress of epoxy resin modified with acrylic polymers having crosslinks produced by in situ UV radiation polymerization. J Mater Sci 25:2711–2716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kinloch AJ, Mohammed RD, Taylor A, Sprenger S, Egan D (2006) The interlaminar toughness of carbon-fibre reinforced plastic composites using ‘hybrid-toughened’matrices. J Mater Sci Lett 41:5043–5046.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sprenger S, Kinloch AJ, Taylor AC, Mohammed RD, Eger C (2005) Rubber-toughened FRCs optimized by nanoparticles. Eur Coats J 19:73–76.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sprenger S, Kinloch AJ, Taylor AC, Mohammed RD (2005) Rubber-toughened GFRCs optimized by nanoparticles. Eur Coats J 21:66–69.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vectorply Corporation 3500 Lakewood Drive Phoenix City AL 36867 USA.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lee J, Soutis C (2005) Thickness effect on the compressive strength of T800/924C carbon fibre-epoxy laminates. Compos Part A —Appl S 36:213–227.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bing Q, Sun CT (2005) Modeling and testing strain rate dependent compressive strength of carbon/epoxy composite. Compos Sci Technol 65:2481–2491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yurgartis SW (1987) Measurement of small angle fiber misalignment in continuous fiber composites. Compos Sci Technol 30:279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hashemi S, Kinloch AJ, Williams JG (1989) Corrections needed in double cantilever beam tests for assessing the interlaminar fracture of fiber composites. J Mater Sci Lett 8:125–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Compston P, Jar B, 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 9:291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Adams DF, Carlsson LA, Pipes RB (2002) Experimental characterization of advanced composite materials. CRC Press, Florida.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Aeronautics and Astronautics Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations