Appl. Phys. A 69, 255–260 (1999) / Digital Object Identifier (DOI) 10.
1007/s003399900114
Mechanical properties of carbon nanotubes
J.-P. Salvetat∗ , J.-M. Bonard, N.H. Thomson, A.J. Kulik, L. Forró, W. Benoit, L. Zuppiroli
Département de Physique, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
(E-mail: salvetat@igahpse.epfl.ch)
Received: 17 May 1999/Accepted: 18 May 1999/Published online: 29 July 1999
Abstract. A variety of outstanding experimental results on
the elucidation of the elastic properties of carbon nanotubes
are fast appearing. These are based mainly on the tech-
niques of high-resolution transmission electron microscopy
(HRTEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM) to deter-
mine the Young’s moduli of single-wall nanotube bundles and
multi-walled nanotubes, prepared by a number of methods.
These results are confirming the theoretical predictions that
carbon nanotubes have high strength plus extraordinary flexi-
bility and resilience. As well as summarising the most notable
achievements of theory and experiment in the last few years,
this paper explains the properties of nanotubes in the wider
context of materials science and highlights the contribution of
our research group in this rapidly expanding field. A deeper
understanding of the relationship between the structural order
of the nanotubes and their mechanical properties will be ne-
cessary for the development of carbon-nanotube-based com-
posites. Our research to date illustrates a qualitative relation-
ship between the Young’s modulus of a nanotube and the
amount of disorder in the atomic structure of the walls. Other
exciting results indicate that composites will benefit from the
exceptional mechanical properties of carbon nanotubes, but
that the major outstanding problem of load transfer efficiency
must be overcome before suitable engineering materials can
be produced.
PACS: 62.20.x; 62.20.Dc; 61.48.+c; 61.16.Ch; 61.16.By
Rolling up a graphene sheet on a nanometre scale [1] has
dramatic consequences on the electrical properties [2]. The
small diameter of a carbon nanotube (CNT) also has an im-
portant effect on the mechanical properties, compared with
traditional micron-size graphitic fibres [3]. Perhaps the most
striking effect is the opportunity to associate high flexibility
and high strength with high stiffness, a property that is ab-
sent in graphite fibres. These properties of CNTs open the
way for a new generation of high performance composites.
Theoretical studies on the mechanical properties of CNTs
∗ Corresponding author
Applied Physics A
Materials
Science & Processing
 Springer-Verlag 1999
are more numerous and more advanced than experimental
measurements, mainly due to the technological challenges in-
volved in the production of nanotubes and in the manipulation
of nanometre-sized objects. However, recent developments
in instrumentation (particularly high-resolution transmission
electron microscopy (HRTEM) and atomic force microscopy
(AFM)), production, processing and manipulation techniques
for CNTs, have given remarkable experimental results. In this
review, we cover different aspects of the mechanical prop-
erties of nanotubes and nanotube-based composites referring
to theoretical and experimental work of different groups. We
do not aim to be exhaustive, but prefer to focus on what we
believe to be the most significant results.
The mechanical properties are strongly dependent on the
structure of the nanotubes. This is due to the high anisotropy
of graphite. In our laboratory, three kinds of nanotubes have
been studied: bundles of single-wall nanotubes (SWNTs),
sometimes called ropes; arc-grown multi-walled nanotubes
(MWNTs); and catalytic multi-walled tubes that always con-
tain structural defects. Figure 1 shows HRTEM images of
these three types of CNTs.
1 Elastic behaviour of CNTs
Knowledge of the Young’s modulus (E) of a material is the
first step towards its use as a structural element for vari-
ous applications. In practice, structural engineering is largely
based on the theory of elasticity, and design is concerned with
stresses below the elastic limit, safe loads being half that of
the elastic limit or less [4].
The Young’s modulus is directly related to the cohesion
of the solid and therefore to the chemical bonding of the
constituent atoms. More precisely, in the case of a cova-
lently bonded solid, it is the shape of the potential energy
of a pair of atoms as a function of inter-particle separation
that determines the elastic properties of an ideal crystalline
solid (i.e. a perfect solid free of point defects, dislocations,
and grain boundaries). Taylor expansion of the energy func-
tion U(x) around the equilibrium position, r0 , gives Hooke’s
law for small strains (i.e. force is proportional to displace-
256
Fig. 1a–c. HRTEM images of different types of carbon nanotubes. a SWNT
bundles (the mean diameter of a SWNT in a bundle is ∼ 1.4 nm). b An arc-
discharge MWNT, showing a high degree of order. c Catalytically grown
MWNTs. The catalytic production method has the advantage that the degree
of disorder can be controlled
ment) with the second derivative of the energy at r0 as the
proportionality term. For a thin rod of isotropic material of
length l0 and cross-sectional area A0 , the Young’s modulus
is then E = stress/strain = (F/A0 )/(δl/l0 ). A molecular solid
has a low modulus (usually less than 10 GPa) since van der
Waals bonds are weak (typically 0.1 eV), whereas a cova-
lently bonded one (such as graphite, diamond, SiC, BN...)
has a high modulus (higher than 100 GPa). Moreover, in each
class of solids (defined by the nature of the bonding) ex-
periments show that elastic constants follow a simple inverse
fourth power law with the lattice parameter. Small variations
of the lattice parameter of a crystal may induce important
variations of its elastic constants. For example, C33 of graph-
ite (corresponding to the Young’s modulus parallel to the
hexagonal c-axis) depends strongly on the temperature due
to interlayer thermal expansion [5]. The Young’s modulus of
a CNT is therefore related to the sp2 bond strength and should
equal that of a graphene sheet when the diameter is not too
small to distort the C−C bonds significantly.
1.1 Theoretical predictions
It is interesting to compare the different theoretical results
concerning the Young’s modulus and its dependence on the
nanotube diameter and helicity. The results are found to vary
with the type of method and the potentials used to describe
the interatomic bonding. It is first instructive to use classi-
cal mechanics to identify the key points in the mechanics of
CNTs. (We recommend the paper of Ruoff and Lorents as
a good introduction to this problem. [6]) The Young’s modu-
lus can be written as the second derivative of the strain energy
divided by the equilibrium volume. Continuum elastic theory
predicts a 1/R2 variation of the strain energy, with an elas-
tic constant equal to C11 of graphite (which corresponds to
the Young’s modulus parallel to the basal plane), independent
of the tube diameter [7]. Therefore, in the classical approx-
imation, the Young’s modulus is not expected to vary when
wrapping a graphene sheet into a cylinder. This is not sur-
prising since the atomic structure is not taken into account,
so the elastic constants are the same as in a planar geom-
etry. We expect this classical approximation to be valid for
large-diameter CNTs. The question now is, what happens in
very small diameter tubes for which the atomic structure and
bonding arrangement must be included in a realistic model.
We have in hand a sufficiently large number of theoretical
approaches [8–10] to answer that question at least qualita-
tively. Both ab initio and empirical potential-based methods
have been used to calculate the strain energy as a function
of the tube diameter (and helicity). They all agree that only
small corrections to the 1/R2 behaviour are to be expected.
As a consequence, only small deviations of the elastic con-
stant along the axis (C33 in standard notation) are observed. It
is worth noting that the dependence of the elastic constants on
the nanotube diameter is found to be different for each model.
For example, two different empirical potentials give differ-
ent values for the elastic constant and show a different trend
as a function of diameter. A decrease of C33 when the ra-
dius decreases is sometimes predicted, and in other cases the
inverse behaviour is observed. We hope that high-precision
experiments will give a definite answer to this dilemma. We
agree with Cornwell and Wille that, “Simulations are not to
be taken as a substitute for experiment, but rather can guide
experiment, point out the most promising avenues to explore,
and assist with interpretation”.
1.2 Experimental results
Through the use of conventional extensiometers, the Young’s
modulus of any material can be measured, provided that there
is a large enough quantity of material and one can shape it
into a rod. The precision of such a method is high, and ex-
perimental observations are beyond theoretical predictions.
The opposite situation is true for CNTs for a number of rea-
sons. The nanometre size of CNTs allows molecular dynamic
simulations to be performed and compared directly with ex-
perimental data (present and future). This nanometre size
however, increases the difficulty of experiments and also their
precision, preventing until now any second-order effects to be
observed, such as those due to the curvature and the helicity.
The first measurement of the Young’s modulus of MWNTs
came from Treacy and co-workers [11]. TEM was used to
measure the mean-square vibration amplitudes of arc-grown
MWNTs over a temperature range from RT to 800 ◦ C. The
average value of the Young’s modulus derived from this tech-
nique was for 11 tubes 1.8 TPa, 0.40 TPa being the lowest
and 4.15 TPa the highest. The authors suggest a trend for
higher moduli with smaller tube diameters. The method of
measuring thermal vibration amplitudes by TEM has been
extended to measure SWNTs at room temperature [12]. The
average of 27 tubes yielded a value of E = 1.3+0.6 −0.4 TPa, but
there are two systematic errors in measuring the temperature
and the nanotube length, which lead to an underestimate of E.
Given these uncertainties in the method, it was not possible to
state whether single-walled tubes are stiffer than multi-walled
tubes. All measured values of E for nanotubes indicate that
it may be higher than the currently accepted value of the in-
plane modulus of graphite. The authors point out that either
the cylindrical structure of the tubes imparts greater strength

or that the modulus of graphite has been underestimated. The
latter statement is less likely considering the high precision
of macroscopic methods and the variety of concordant experi-
ments on single-crystal graphite and fibres.
We have developed a method to measure the elastic mod-
ulus of CNTs deposited on a well-polished alumina ultrafil-
tration membrane [13]. On such a substrate, nanotubes occa-
sionally lie over the pores, either with most of the tube in con-
tact with the membrane surface, or with the tube suspended
over a succession of pores (Fig. 2). Attractive interactions be-
tween the nanotubes and the membrane clamps the tubes to
the substrate.
A Si3 N4 AFM tip is then used to apply a force and to
measure the resulting deflection of the CNT. Once a sus-
pended nanotube is located with the AFM, we determine
its diameter, suspended length, and deflection midway along
the suspended length from a series of images taken at dif-
ferent loads. The apparent tube width is a convolution of
the tube diameter and the tip radius, but the height re-
mains a reliable measure of the tube diameter. The deflection,
d, of a beam as a function of the applied load is known
from small-deformation theory to be d = FL 3 /aE I, where
F is the applied force, L is the suspended length, E is the
Young’s modulus, I is the moment of inertia of the beam,
and a = 192 for a clamped beam [14]. For a hollow cylin-
der, I = π(Ro4 − Ri4 )/4; Ro and Ri being the outer and inner
radii, respectively. We assumed that tubes with long lengths in
contact with the membrane are rigidly clamped, i.e. CNTs are
not lifted off the membrane during loading. To minimise the
uncertainty of the applied force, we calibrated the spring con-
stant of each AFM cantilever, usually 0.1 N/m, by measuring
its resonant frequency. The reversibility of the tube deflection
and the linearity of the d − F curve show that the nanotube re-
sponse is linear and elastic, at least at low load and deflection
(Fig. 3).
The slope of the curve gives directly the Young’s mod-
ulus of the CNT once L and Ro are known. The average
value of the Young’s modulus for eleven individual arc-grown
carbon nanotubes was found to be 810 ± 410 GPa, which
should be taken as a minimum value [13]. Our result com-
pares favourably with simulations, and with the calculated
value for the in-plane modulus of graphite, 1.06 TPa [5].
It is also in agreement with the other AFM-based experi-
ment which used lateral forces to bend MWNTs deposited on
a low-friction-coefficient substrate and clamped at one end in
SiO pads. The average value for six MWNTs, diameters be-
tween 26 and 76 nm, was found to be 1.28 ± 0.59 TPa with
Fig. 2. 3D rendering of an AFM contact-mode image showing a SWNT
bundle lying over a pore on the surface of a polished alumina membrane
257
this method [15]. We also measured the bending modulus of
disordered, catalytic nanotubes which have a kind of nested
coffee-cup structure (see Fig. 1c, right image). A strong de-
crease of E was observed, which is attributed to the poorly
graphitized structure [13].
Electromechanical resonances of carbon nanotubes have
been applied by Poncharal and co-workers [16] to measure
the Young’s modulus of MWNTs as a function of the diam-
eter. In this experiment, nanotubes were excited at their res-
onant frequency, which depends on the square root of the
Young’s modulus. A striking decrease of E was observed
when the diameter exceeded about 10 nm, in contrast with
other static bending experiments using AFM. Rippling of the
compressed side of CNTs has been proposed as the cause
of this behaviour. But in that case, why isn’t a crossover
observed between the normal compressive mode at low vibra-
tional amplitude and the rippling mode at higher amplitudes?
Perhaps the anisotropy of MWNTs induces an unusual dy-
namical behaviour that can explain why a strong decrease of
E is observed.
The characterisation of SWNT bundles with our clamped-
beam method is more difficult than for MWNTs. The bundles
are not always symmetric in cross section, and may be cov-
ered with amorphous carbon. We checked that the measured
diameter was the same on both sides of the hole to verify that
the bundle was of uniform size. The regularity of the profile
measured with AFM ensures that the bundle is not covered
by amorphous carbon beads. The nearly cylindrical shape of
the bundles we measured was verified by direct comparison
with multi-wall nanotubes using the same tip. For small bun-
dles, it is probable that we underestimate the number of tubes.
Consequently, the Young’s modulus for small SWNT bundles
may be overestimated. We feel that the problem will be dif-
ferent from nested multi-wall or catalytic nanotubes. The low
intertube cohesion will facilitate bending of SWNT bundles.
To model their deformation, one may be tempted to consider
the SWNTs as being completely independent. The clamped-
beam formula can then be used with the applied force divided
by the number of tubes in a bundle. Analysing our measure-
ments in this way, a Young’s modulus higher than 10 TPa
was calculated for a single tube, which is far higher than the
most optimistic predictions. Clearly, the model must be im-
proved. The deflection of anisotropic beams was considered
by mechanical engineers a long time ago. In fact, the shear
deformation of the beam must be included in addition to the
pure bending effect. The shear deformation, however, can be
neglected for long bundles with a small diameter and thus,
Fig. 3. Typical deflection-force curve on a SWNT bundle
258
we measured directly the Young’s modulus, obtaining about
1 TPa. Using this value, we also extracted the shear modulus
for larger bundles, which amounted to ≈ 1 GPa, one order of
magnitude lower than expected from classical theory [13].
1.3 Irradiation effects on the elastic behaviour of CNTs
Using the clamped-beam method, we recently started to in-
vestigate the effects of electron irradiation on the elastic
parameters of different types of CNTs. We speculate that
creation of vacancies in a single-shell nanotube may have
a strong influence on the elastic modulus (and also the
strength), especially in small-diameter tubes. A critical dens-
ity of vacancies may exist, above which a strong decrease of
the modulus occurs. Our goal is in fact to develop different
methods to tailor the mechanical properties of nanotubular
carbon structures using irradiation and also selective chemical
treatment.
Irradiation effects on mechanical properties of graphite
have been thoroughly studied because of its utilization as
moderator in early thermal nuclear reactors [5]. All elastic
constants of graphite are more or less sensitive to irradiation
damage. C11 and C12 should change due to the creation of
vacancies in the graphene layers. This was not observed in
practice, because the density of vacancies needed to signifi-
cantly modify these constants is too large. During irradiation,
carbon atoms are displaced by knock-on collisions and in-
terstitials are introduced between the layers, which results in
an expansion of the c-axis lattice parameter. A reduction in
the interlayer forces is expected, which should reduce C33
(Young’s modulus parallel to the hexagonal axis) and C44 (the
shear modulus, G, parallel to the basal planes). Experiments
confirm that C33 decreases slightly after irradiation. The most
important and rather unexpected change is, however, an in-
crease of C44 . In fact, the shear modulus is very sensitive to
the presence of structural defects in the crystal and especially
to basal plane dislocations. C44 in pyrolitic graphite can be
as low as 0.18 GPa, whereas it is about 4.5 GPa in perfect
single crystals. After irradiation, the highest value reached is
close to 4 GPa. Different explanations were put forward: one
is based on dislocation pinning by lattice defects; the second
on linking of adjacent planes by interstitial groups [5].
In order to check if similar behaviour can be observed in
CNTs, we have measured the elastic properties of MWNTs
and SWNT bundles irradiated by 2-MeV electrons. For a de-
fect density lower than 1 displaced atom per 1000, no de-
tectable decrease of the Young’s modulus was observed. In
fact, we expected that the shear modulus of ropes would be
modified by irradiation in a similar way to graphite. Our pre-
liminary results show that it may not be the case. It seems that
intertube linking by interstitial atoms is not an efficient way
to increase the shear modulus. Cross-linking with covalent
bonds should be more effective in increasing G. More experi-
ments are needed to confirm this statement. We would like to
point out that because of the limited precision of the present
method only significant modifications can be measured, i.e.
higher than at least 30 percent.
To conclude this section on elastic properties, we think
it is worth emphasising that, when dealing with a two-
dimensional object such as a single-shell nanotube, it is
important to distinguish between the elastic constant and the
modulus, since a geometrical factor is involved in the latter
parameter. The thickness of a curved graphene sheet is not
a well-defined parameter that can be chosen arbitrarily, and
therefore can increase or decrease the Young’s modulus with-
out any variation of the elastic constant. The assumption of
taking 0.34 nm, the thickness of a planar graphene sheet, for
a single-shell tube seems reasonable but is it really the case?
Yakobson et al. obtained a modulus of 5.5 TPa with a tube
thickness of 0.066 nm [8]. According to recent experiments
this value of E is probably overestimated, and the thickness
of a single shell is probably much closer to 0.34 nm. In fact,
this value corresponds to the spatial extent of the π orbitals
and we believe that it should vary only slightly with the envi-
ronment and with the number of layers.
2 CNTs’ strength
The strength of a material is not as well defined as the
Young’s modulus, because it depends not only on the type of
material, but also on its history, the atmosphere, the pressure,
and the temperature, and the measuring system (fluctuations
in load can modify the strength). It is intimately linked to
structural defects and imperfections that can be present in the
solid and only in very few cases do materials have strengths
approaching the theoretical limit. It is usual to distinguish be-
tween two kinds of solids associated with two different types
of stress/strain curves. The first one is typical of brittle con-
ditions and is characterised by the absence of plasticity, i.e.
the rupture occurs in the elastic regime. The strength is meas-
ured by the fracture stress σf . Ceramics and glasses usually
exhibit a brittle breaking mechanism. The second behaviour
is typical of ductile conditions and is encountered in metals
and simple ionic solids. The strength of the material is then
associated with the yield stress σy when the material ceases to
behave elastically. The strength and the breaking mechanisms
of a material depend largely on the mobility of dislocations
and their ability to relax stress concentrations at the flaw
tip [4].
It is frequently observed that the strength of a brittle solid
depends on the size of the sample. Graphite whiskers exhibit
strength as high as 20 GPa, but the typical strength is 1 GPa
for larger fibres [3]. This behaviour is due to the fact that the
number of flaws is considerably reduced in whiskers. Grif-
fith showed that in brittle solids, fracture occurs through local
decohesion at the tip of an extending sharp crack instead of
simultaneous bond breaking across the whole fracture plane.
This is why real strengths are orders of magnitude lower than
theoretical ones. With CNTs, we have in hand model systems
to study the intrinsic strength of a sp2 bonded material and
how it relaxes the mechanical energy at high strain.
We recall that the temperature is an important parameter
in the strength of a material since the motion of dislocations
is thermally activated. Like all covalent materials, CNTs are
brittle at low temperature, whatever their diameter and he-
licity. The flexibility of CNTs at room temperature is not
due to any plastic deformation but to their high strength and
to the unique capability of the hexagonal network to distort
for relaxing stress. This has been demonstrated theoretic-
ally and experimentally. The question that remains is whether
or not plastic flow can occur at high temperature and what
kind of dislocations are involved. The recent development

of many-body inter-atomic potentials by Tersoff and Brenner
has enabled molecular dynamics simulations on a large num-
ber of atoms at high temperature. This provides interesting
results on the mechanism of strain release under tension [17].
Spontaneous formation of double pentagon–heptagon pairs
were observed in strained nanotubes at high temperature.
These defects are nucleation centres for dislocations formed
by a single pentagon–heptagon pair for which the Burgers
vector is a primitive vector of the Bravais lattice [18, 19]. The
orientation of the easy-gliding line depends on the tube he-
licity, therefore, different behaviour should be exhibited at
high temperature when a tensile strain is applied along the
tube axis. Nardelli and co-workers show explicitly that the
behaviour of CNTs under tensile strain at high temperature
depends on their symmetry and diameter, and they established
a map of their ductile-vs.-brittle behaviour [20].
The bending strength of large-diameter MWNTs was
measured by Wong et al. and an average value of 14.2 ±
0.8 GPa was calculated [15]. (In graphite fibres, the typi-
cal value is about 1 GPa [3]). The high bending strength of
CNTs is associated with their high flexibility [21]. We have
performed similar experiments using the lateral force of an
AFM tip to compare qualitatively the bending strength of arc-
grown and catalytic CNTs. As expected, the bending strength
is much lower for catalytic CNTs, which contain many de-
fects. However, one must be aware of identifying the bending
strength with the tensile maximum stress or the fracture stress
in such an anisotropic material. One reason for this, is the
inhomogeneous stress that results from the rippling and buck-
ling of the graphite layer on the compressed side.
In conclusion, although only bending experiments on
CNTs have been performed so far, CNTs seem to behave as
ideal carbon fibres that can be stiff yet flexible, associating
very high modulus with very high strength. Therefore, CNTs
have great potential for applications requiring high-modulus
high-strength materials. However, detailed characterisation of
the strength of CNTs in tension is still lacking. It would be
interesting to investigate the influence of vacancies on the
strength of a CNT. A “traction nanomachine” still remains to
be fabricated with the possibility of in situ characterization
and modification of the CNTs’ structure. Current progress in
nanotechnology is very rapid and no doubt this will be pos-
sible in the future.
3 CNT composites
The high modulus and the low weight of carbon fibres make
them ideal reinforcing agents in a variety of composite ma-
terials used in the aircraft and sports industries. It is worth
recalling that the parameter that should be maximized for
structural applications involving flexural loading is E/ρ2 , ρ
being the density [22]. In effect, the deflection of a beam
is d = Fl 3 /3E I, and the mass of the beam is M = l A0 ρ =
(4l 5 F/d )(ρ2 /E)1/2 . For a given stiffness F/d, we have a min-
imum of mass when E/ρ2 is a maximum. This justifies the
use of carbon or SiC fibres in metal matrix composites. It is
important to be able to predict the mechanical properties of
a composite as a function of the component properties and
their geometric arrangement. However, to take real advan-
tage of the high Young’s modulus and high strength of CNTs,
a number of conditions have to be fulfilled, and among them
259
is the load transfer efficiency. Indeed, load transfer from ma-
trix to CNTs plays a key role in the mechanical properties of
composites. If the adhesion between the matrix and the CNTs
is not strong enough to sustain high loads, the benefits of the
high tensile strength of CNTs are lost. In traditional carbon
fibres, surface treatments are always used to improve interfa-
cial bonding. The two principal ways of improving adhesion
and shear strength are to increase the surface roughness or
the surface reactivity. In the case of single-walled nanotubes,
the question of whether they can be functionalised without
creating too many defects remains open (the effect of chem-
ical functionalisation on the mechanical properties of CNTs
has been studied theoretically by Garg and Sinnott, but with-
out inclusion of defects [23]). It is possible, however, that
interfacial bonding between some matrices and as-prepared
CNTs is enough to ensure good mechanical properties for the
composite.
Let us examine what can be learned from recent experi-
mental works dealing with this problem. Interesting results
were obtained on multi-walled nanotubes dispersed in a poly-
mer matrix by Wagner et al. [24]. TEM observations of
nanotubes after a tensile test, revealed multiple fragmenta-
tion occurred which proved a rather good load-transfer and
interfacial shear strength. Lourie and Wagner also observed
SWNT bundles under tensile stress in the TEM [25]. Frac-
ture of the bundles occurred before shear breaking at the
matrix–nanotube interface. However, during such an experi-
ment, irradiation damage probably induces a decrease of the
nanotube’s strength. Therefore, it is not sure that interfacial
adhesion is high enough to strain the bundles up to the real
breaking strength.
Load transfer in carbon nanotube epoxy composites was
studied in both tension and compression by Schadler and
co-workers [26]. The strain of CNTs was monitored by the
shift of the second-order Raman peak at 2700 cm−1 . A dif-
ference in the Raman shift was observed between tension and
compression because of the poor load transfer behaviour of
nanotubes in tension compared with compression. The con-
clusion of the authors is that, in tension, only the outermost
nanotube is loaded due to weak interlayer bonding. In that
case, we might expect a broadening of the Raman peak since
the inner tubes should give an unshifted peak at 2700 cm−1 .
A question raised by this conclusion: why is the same be-
haviour not seen in highly graphitised macroscopic carbon
fibres? Is the interlayer adhesion very different between two
shells of a MWNT and two graphene layers in a graphitised
carbon fibre? Recent nanotribological experiments suggest
that adhesion forces may depend on the atomic registry be-
tween two graphene layers. In the absence of registry (tur-
bostratic stacking) adhesion and friction are decreased [27].
This could be the reason for the different shearing behavior
between CNTs and bulk graphite. It could also explain the
relatively low shear modulus of SWNT ropes that we meas-
ured [13]. It seems that anisotropy of MWNT and SWNT
ropes is not an advantage for composites. For this reason, it
would be interesting to induce cross-linking between adjacent
shells to increase the strength and the intra-tube load-transfer
efficiency.
Despite the obstacles that face the development of nano-
tube-based composites, the good load transfer measured be-
tween a matrix and CNTs is very encouraging for the future.
The problems of intratube load transfer in MWNTs and shear-
260
Fig. 4. Modulus vs. disorder in MWNTs
ing in SWNT bundles are the central issues for the production
of composites with exceptional mechanical properties. It is
worth noting that the field of nanotube composites is still in
its infancy and that it took about thirty years for carbon fibre
composites to reach maturity. Now that these problems have
been identified, we believe that solutions will be found for
making CNT composites in which the exceptional Young’s
modulus and strength of CNTs will be reflected in the overall
mechanical properties.
4 Conclusion
Theory and experiments show that the Young’s modulus of
CNTs is at least as high as graphite and can be even higher for
small SWNTs. Our experiments show that Young’s moduli
for MWNTs are dependent upon the degree of order within
the tube walls. Figure 4 shows a schematic representation of
these findings, where the Young’s modulus decreases as the
disorder increases. Disorder is difficult to quantify from any
experimental method and therefore is an arbitrary scale in
Fig. 4. The arc-grown MWNTs show a modulus close to that
of graphite (approximately 1 TPa), but this drops by about an
order of magnitude for MWNTs grown by catalytic methods.
In addition, the dispersion of the measured values of E tends
to increase as disorder within the tube walls increases. Cor-
relation of strength with disorder will be essential for the
development of reproducible CNT composites which take full
advantage of the outstanding mechanical properties of CNTs.
The theoretically predicted properties of CNTs – high
strength, extraordinary flexibility and resilience – are now be-
ing observed by experimentalists. Moreover, good load trans-
fer between polymer matrices and the outer surface of CNTs
suggest that these exceptional mechanical properties will be
reflected in composites.
Acknowledgements. The authors wish to thank Klára Hérnádi (Szeged),
Karine Méténier, Sylvie Bonnamy, and François Béguin (CNRS-CRMD
Orléans) for the growth of catalytic nanotubes; Nancy Burnham for dis-
cussions on the AFM techniques; Andrew Briggs (Oxford) for numerous
insights and discussions, Revathi Bacsa (IGA-EPFL), Thierry Stora and
Claus Duschl (LCPM-EPFL) for their help in the development of the pu-
rification procedures; Sándor Pekker (Budapest) for discussions on CNT
functionalisation. The electron microscopy was performed at the Centre In-
terdépartemental de Microscopie Electronique of EPFL. Financial support
was provided by the Swiss National Science Foundation.
References
1. S. Iijima: Nature 354, 56 (1991); S. Iijima, T. Ichihashi: Nature 363,
603 (1993); D.S. Bethune, C.H. Kiang, M.S. Devries, G. Gorman,
R. Savoy, J. Vazquez, A. Beyers: Nature 363, 605 (1993)
2. S.J. Tans, M.H. Devoret, H. Dai, A. Thess, R.E. Smalley, L.J. Geerligs,
C. Dekker: Nature 386, 474 (1997); C.T. White, T.N. Todorov: Nature
393, 240 (1998); A. Bachtold, C. Strunk, J.-P. Salvetat, J.-M. Bonard,
L. Forró, T. Nussbaumer, C. Schönenberger: Nature 397, 673 (1999)
3. M.S. Dresselhaus, G. Dresselhaus, K. Sugihara, I.L. Spain, H.A. Gold-
berg: Graphite Fibers and Filaments (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
1988)
4. B. Harris, A.R. Bunsell: Structure and Properties of Engineering Ma-
terials (Longman, London, New York 1977)
5. B.T. Kelly: Physics of Graphite (Applied Science Publishers, London
1981)
6. R.S. Ruoff, D.C. Lorents: Carbon 33, 925 (1995)
7. G.G. Tibbetts: J. Cryst. Growth 66, 632 (1983)
8. D.H. Robertson, D.W. Brenner, J.W. Mintmire: Phys. Rev. B 45,
12 592 (1992); B.I. Yakobson, C.J. Brabec, J. Bernholc: Phys. Rev.
Lett. 76, 2511 (1996); C.F. Cornwell, L.T. Wille: Solid State Commun.
101, 555 (1997); E. Hernández, C. Goze, P. Bernier, A. Rubio: Phys.
Rev. Lett. 80, 4502 (1998)
9. J.P. Lu: Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1297 (1997)
10. N. Yao, V. Lordi: J. App. Phys. 84, 1939 (1998)
11. M.M.J. Treacy, T.W. Ebbesen, J.M. Gibson: Nature 381, 678 (1996)
12. A. Krishnan, E. Dujardin, T.W. Ebbesen, P.N. Yianilos, M.M.J. Treacy:
Phys. Rev. B 58, 14 013 (1998)
13. J.-P. Salvetat, A.J. Kulik, J.-M. Bonard, G.A.D. Briggs, T. Stöckli,
K. Méténier, S. Bonnamy, F. Béguin, N.A. Burnham, L. Forró: Adv.
Mater. 11, 161 (1999); J.-P. Salvetat, G.A.D. Briggs, J.-M. Bonard,
R.R. Bacsa, A.J. Kulik, T. Stöckli, N.A. Burnham, L. Forró: Phys. Rev.
Lett. 82, 944 (1999).
14. J.M. Gere, S.P. Timoshenko: Mechanics of Materials (PWS-KENT
Publishing, Boston 1990)
15. E.W. Wong, P.E. Sheehan, C.M. Lieber: Science 277, 1971 (1997)
16. P. Poncharal, Z.L. Wang, D. Ugarte, W.A. de Heer: Science 283, 15
(1999)
17. M.B. Nardelli, B.I. Yakobson, J. Bernholc: Phys. Rev. B 57, R4277
(1998)
18. P. Lauginie, J. Conard: J. Phys. Chem. Solids 58, 1949 (1997)
19. B.I. Yakobson: Appl. Phys. Lett. 72, 918 (1998)
20. M.B. Nardelli, B.I. Yakobson, J. Bernholc: Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4656
(1998)
21. J.F. Despres, E. Daguerre, K. Lafdi: Carbon 33, 87 (1995); S. Iijima,
C. Brabec, A. Maiti, J. Bernholc: J. Chem. Phys. 104, 2089 (1996);
M.R. Falvo, G.J. Clary, R.M. Taylor II, V. Chi, F.P. Brooks, Jr.,
S. Washburn, R. Superfine: Nature 389, 582 (1997); O. Lourie,
D.M. Cox, H.D. Wagner: Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1638 (1998)
22. K.K. Chawla: Composite Materials (Springer, New York 1987)
23. A. Garg, S.B. Sinnott: Chem. Phys. Lett. 295, 273 (1998)
24. H.D. Wagner, O. Lourie, Y. Feldman, R. Tenne: Appl. Phys. Lett. 72,
188 (1998)
25. O. Lourie, H.D. Wagner: Appl. Phys. Lett. 73, 3527 (1998)
26. L.S. Schadler, S.C. Giannaris, P.M. Ajayan: Appl. Phys. Lett. 73, 3842
(1998)
27. M.R. Falvo, R.M. Taylor II, A. Helser, V. Chi, F.P. Brooks Jr., S. Wash-
burn, R. Superfine: Nature 397, 236 (1999)