# Mechanical Properties of Sandwich Composites Reinforced by Nanoclas: An Overview
## 4 Synthetic Summary for an Overview of the Benefits Obtained with Nanoclay Reinforcements
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Year** & **Author** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Sandwich** \\ **(Skin/Core)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Type of** \\ **Nanoclay** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Wt\% of** \\ **Nanoclay** \\ \end{tabular} & **Improvements** & **Ref.** \\ \hline
2010 & [PERSON] et al. & Syntactic foam & Closisté® 30B & 2 and 4 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Compared to neat foam, compressive \\ strength in-creases around 73\% and \\ 150\%, tensile strength about 63\% and \\ 94\%; the flexural strength around \\ 55\% and 97\%, when 2\% and 4\% of \\ NC * was ad-ded, respectively. \\ \end{tabular} & [19] \\ \hline
2011 & [PERSON] et al. & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Aluminum/PU \\ foam \\ \end{tabular} & MMT & 0 and 7.5 &
\begin{tabular}{c} When subject to low-velop-city \\ impacts, higher peak loads were \\ observed for sandwicues that \\ incurpo-rate NC *. \\ \end{tabular} & [20] \\ \hline
2011 & [PERSON] et al. & Jute/biopol & MMT K10 & 2 to 4 &
\begin{tabular}{c} The highest mechanical properties \\ (dynamic and flexural properties), as well as the lower moisture \\ absorption, were obtained with 4 wt\% of NC *. \\ \end{tabular} & [21] \\ \hline
2011 & [PERSON] et al. & Syntactic foam & Nanomer® 1.30E & 1 to 5 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Viscoelastic properties of reinforced \\ syntactic foams up to 2 wt\% were \\ enhan-ced when compared to their \\ plain syntactic foam counterparts. \\ \end{tabular} & [22] \\ \hline
2013 & [PERSON] et al. & \begin{tabular}{c} Carbon fiber/PU \\ foam \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Closisté® 10A, \\ Closité® 30B, \\ Nanomer® 12 SE \\ \end{tabular} & 0.5 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Enhancements in peak load values \\ were observed for nanophased cores \\ com-pared to neat cores. \\ \end{tabular} & [23] \\ \hline
2014 & [PERSON] et al. & \begin{tabular}{c} Glass fiber/PU \\ foam \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Organo-modified \\ MMT \\ \end{tabular} & 0 to 10 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Energy absorption increa-ses \\ between 66\% and 92\% for PP \\ sandwicues and around 23\% to 34\% \\ for polyamide ones. The ma-ximum \\ deflection during the impact load \\ was also improved. \\ \end{tabular} & [24] \\ \hline
2014 & [PERSON] et al. & PU foam & MMT & 1 to 15 &
\begin{tabular}{c} The addition of NC * pro-moted \\ foams with greater compressive \\ strength and modulus. \\ \end{tabular} & [25] \\ \hline
2015 & \begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] et \\ al. \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Glass fiber/PU \\ foam \\ \end{tabular} & Closisté® 30B & 0 to 3 &
\begin{tabular}{c} The highest impact prior-mance \\ and energy absorp-tion, as well as \\ lowest projectile residual velocity for \\ the plates that expe-rienced full \\ perforation, was obtained when \\ 0.5 wt\% of NC * was added. \\ \end{tabular} & [26] \\ \hline
2016 & [PERSON] et al. & Wood & NF ** & 0 to 5 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 3 wt\% of NC * promoted the best \\ results, although the storage \\ modulus of all samples was lower \\ than those of the neat resin sandwich \\ at all tempera-tures. \\ \end{tabular} & [27] \\ \hline
2016 & [PERSON] et al. & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Wood \\ strand/pMDI resin \\ \end{tabular} & NF ** & 0 to 5 &
\begin{tabular}{c} The widest impact prior-mance \\ and energy absorp-tion, as well as \\ lowest projectile residual velocity for \\ the plates that expe-rienced full \\ perforation, was obtained when \\ 0.5 wt\% of NC * was added. \\ \end{tabular} & [26] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
* NC—Nanoclay; ** NF—Not mentioned.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Summary of the benefits obtained with nanoclays added to the skins.