## 2 Composite Laminates Toughened by Polymeric Nanofibers
Therefore, it was shown that only by conducting fracture tests and knowing the mechanical properties of laminates, it is possible to anticipate the behavior of nanomodified laminates by FEM technique. In another study, [PERSON] et al. (2019) used the same numerical method to find the best interleave sequence of nanofibers mats between composite layers. Of course, the application of nanofibrous mats between all layers would be the best way to decrease the damage during impact, but since producing and manufacturing nanofibers is expensive and time consuming, it was suggested to put nanofibrous mats in one half of the composite layers' interfaces. In this situation, various strategies were possible: Putting nanofibers between 1--the upper layers (near impact point), 2--the back layers, 3--the mid-layers and etc. (Figure 6). According to the results, interleaving between the mid-layers (\(\underline{\text{G}}\) or \(\underline{\text{H}}\) configuration) was the best position. Figure 6: Different interleaf sequences used for considering their effect on delaminated area (blue areas belong to reference layer and red areas belong to nano-modified layer) ([PERSON] et al., 2018). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Ref.** & **Polymer** & **Composite Type** & **Impact Energy** & **Stacking Sequence** & **Curing Temperature** \\ \hline
[22,23] & NV66 & Carbon/epoxy & 2.87 J to 13.3 J & (\(-45/90/45/00_{\rm JS}\) & 177 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\  & (0.7 g/m\({}^{2}\)) & (AS4/3501-6 preprg) & 0.46 J to 1.80 J & [0/45/90/\(-45\)]\({}_{\rm JS}\) & 177 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\ \hline
[24,25] & NV66 & Carbon/epoxy & 0.46 J to 0.8 J & [0/45/90/\(-45\)]\({}_{\rm JS}\) & 177 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\  & (1.6-2 g/m\({}^{2}\)) & (AS4/3501-6 and 17001/3000-2 preprg) & 0.46 J to 0.8 J & [0/45/90/\(-45\)]\({}_{\rm JS}\) & 177 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\ \hline
[26] & NV66 & Carbon/epoxy & - & - & 177 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\  & (0.5, 1.5, 2.5 g/m\({}^{2}\)) & (AS4/3501-6) & & & \\ \hline
[27,28] & NV66 & Carbon/epoxy & 3, 6, 12 J & [0]\({}_{\rm ho}\) & 130 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\  & (25 mm) & (Woven) & & & \\ \hline
[29] & NV66 & Class Laminate Aluminum Reinforced & 6, 12, 18 and 32 J & AL+[0/90]\({}_{\rm H}\)+AL & 120 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\  & (40 mm) & Epoxy (GLARE) & 6, 12, 18 and 32 J & AL+[0/90]\({}_{\rm H}\)+AL & 120 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\ \hline
[30] & NV66 & Class/epoxy & 35 J & - & - \\  & (0.1, 0.2, 0.4 g/m\({}^{2}\)) & (Bidirectional) & & & \\ \hline
[32] & NV6, PCL & Class/epoxy & 67 J & [0/90]\({}_{\rm JS}\) & 24 \({}^{\circ}\)C (24 h)+ \\  & (6 g/m\({}^{2}\)) & (Unidirectional) & & & 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C (15 h) \\ \hline
[33] & NV69, NC69, PCL & Class/epoxy & 14, 28, 41, 54, 67, 79 J & [0/90]\({}_{\rm JS}\) & 24 \({}^{\circ}\)C (24 h)+ \\  & (6 and 12 g/m\({}^{2}\)) & (Unidirectional) & & & 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C (15 h) \\ \hline
[34] & NV66 & Carbon/epoxy & 2.1 J & [0\({}^{\circ}\)/90\({}^{\circ}\)/0\({}^{\circ}\)] & - \\ \hline
[18] & NV66 & Class/epoxy & 30 J & [0/90]\({}_{\rm JS}\) & 120 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\ \hline
[19] & NV66 & Carbon/epoxy & 40.5 J & [[0/90]\({}_{\rm JS}\)/(+45/\(-45\))/(0/90)/ & 24 \({}^{\circ}\)C (24 h)+ \\  & (plain woven) & & (+45/\(-45\))/(0/90)/(+45/\(-45\))]\({}_{\rm JS}\) & 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C (5 h) \\ \hline
[35] & PCL & Class/epoxy & 24 and 36 J & [0/90/0/90]\({}_{\rm JS}\) & 150 \({}^{\circ}\)C (1 h) \\  & (Unidirectional) & & & & \\ \hline
[36] & Carbon & biaxial braided carbon fiber/epoxy & - & - & Room Temp. (24 h)+ \\  & (1.2\% vol. and 15\% vol.) & Carbon/epoxy & 2.17, 434, 6.52, 8.69 J & [0/90]\({}_{\rm IS}\) & 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C (4 h) \\  & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Published paper regarding the influence of nanofibers on impact response of composite laminates.