You are on page 1of 87

Multi–scale modeling of textile

composites
Thiam Wai Chua
MT 10.19
Master of Science graduation project report
January, 2011
Supervisors:
dr.ir. Varvara Kouznetsova
dr.ir. Wouter Wilson
prof.dr.ir. Marc Geers
Mechanics of Materials
Computational and Experimental Mechanics
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
Abstract
In this project, a coupled multi–scale framework is developed for analysis of fiber–
reinforced composites. The developed framework is a versatile tool to study the mechan-
ical behavior at the macroscopic level and simultaneously the impact of the mechanical
behavior from the microscopic level to macroscopic level. In the framework, the macro-
scopic material constitutive behavior at each integration point is obtained through the
underlying microscopic composite structure. Abaqus subroutines are used to link the
microscopic level to the macroscopic level structural analyses and vice versa. The fo-
cus of this project is to document and present the development and added value of the
framework to the analysis of the textile composites. Thus, the quantitative comparison
between the analysis results and experimental data has not been attempted. However,
the qualitative comparison has been made successfully to verify the correctness of the
framework functionality. Multi–scale analyses on the tensile test of a cross–ply laminate
and compression test on a notched quasi–isotropic laminate are performed in order to
illustrate and demonstrate the power and utility of the framework. This framework can
be seen as a powerful and useful tool for future engineering analysis and design of com-
posite structure due to its flexibility to apply on many textile composites which hardly
to be achieved using other analytical approaches. Thus, engineers enable to utilize this
framework at the beginning stage of the composite structures design and development
for the savings of cost and time.
Keywords: coupled multi–scale analysis, composites, Abaqus.
i
Contents
Abstract i
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Composite aerospace landing gear structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Textile composites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Modeling approaches for textile composites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5 Scope and outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Multi–scale modeling framework description 6
2.1 Basic hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Microscopic level boundary value problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Macro–micro levels coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.1 Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.2 Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.3 Internal work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4 Numerical implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.1 Micro–structure boundary value problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.2 Macroscopic stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.3 Macroscopic tangent stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5 Modeling framework implementation using Abaqus . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6 Modeling framework verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3 Micro–structural modeling 19
3.1 Textile and non–crimp composite models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2 Material properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.3 Finite element model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.4 Microscopic level analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4.1 Tension test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4.1.1 Uniaxial tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4.1.2 Biaxial tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4.2 Compression test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.4.3 Shear test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4 Application of the multi–scale modeling framework 31
4.1 Tensile test on a cross–ply laminate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2 Compression test on a notched quasi–isotropic laminate . . . . . . . . . . 36
ii
Contents iii
5 Conclusions and recommendations 47
5.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.2 Recommendations for future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.2.1 Multi–scale modeling framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.2.2 Micro–structural modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.2.3 Application of the multi–scale modeling framework . . . . . . . . 50
Bibliography 51
Appendices 58
A Literature survey 59
B Macro–micro levels coupling 64
C Microscopic level boundary value problem 67
D Macroscopic stress calculation 70
E Condensation of the microscopic stiffness 74
F Consistent tangent stiffness for the Kirchhoff stress tensor 75
G Total matrix of the reduced stiffness matrix 78
H Incremental–iterative multi–scale modeling approach 80
I Multi–scale analyses of unidirectional fiber reinforced composite 82
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Composite aerospace landing gear structures
Composite materials are very attractive to engineers because of their advantages com-
pared with many conventional engineering materials (e.g. steel, aluminum, metallic al-
loys, etc.), such as high strength–to–weight ratio, dimensional stability, superior corrosion
resistance and relatively high impact resistance [62]. Besides that, the multi–phase and
multi–layer composites can be tailored through different fiber directions, lamina thick-
nesses and stacking sequences for specific design requirements.
In the near future, the aerospace landing gear or undercarriage (Figure 1.1(a)) compo-
nents currently made of conventional engineering materials such as steel will be replaced
by the composite materials due to aforementioned advantages. Figure 1.1(b) shows a
trailing arm from a landing gear structure (at macro–level) made of textile composite
material (at micro–level). The macroscopic trailing arm structure can be assumed as ho-
mogeneous anisotropic composite materials, however, at micro–level, the structure has to
be treated as heterogeneous anisotropic due to the distinguishable constituents of fibers
and resin.
(a)
macro–scale
micro–scale
(b)
Figure 1.1: (a) A landing gear (or undercarriage) layout for an aircraft, and (b) a homogeneous
anisotropic composite trailing arm structure after assembly of the steel wheel axle
and the wheel at the macro–level [76] with its heterogeneous anisotropic plain
weave pattern composite at the micro–level [4].
1
2 Chapter 1
1.2 Textile composites
Textile composites (also know as fabric composites) are a relatively new class of advanced
composites [89]. They offer advantages and opportunities for designing and tailoring
the textile structures for aerospace structures in order to meet the strict design and
functional requirements. For instance, they provide an excellent impact resistance due
to the bidirectional fiber configuration compared with the conventional unidirectional
fiber configuration in a lamina [83]. In addition, the production of geometrically complex
textile composites becomes relatively efficient and cost–effective due to the significant
development of the weaving manufacturing technology based on the loom technique [89].
Kamiya et al. [32] reviewed some of the recent advanced techniques in the fabrication and
the design of textile preforms. Some of the applications of the advanced textile composites
in aircraft, marine, automobiles, civil infrastructures as well as medical prosthesis were
reviewed by Mouritz et al. [53].
An enormous number of weave topologies for the textile composites. They can be
obtained by changing the interlacing style, repetitive pattern and the proportion of yarns
(also know as tows, consisting of fibers bundle aligned in warp and weft (or fill) directions)
embedded within matrix. Two of the textile composite types are shown in Figure 1.2.
In order to reduce the relatively expensive experimental time and costs on these newly
developed composites, the development of analytical and numerical models for predicting
the mechanical performance of these composites is indispensable.
x (warp)
y
z (weft)
(a)
x (warp)
y
z (weft)
(b)
Figure 1.2: Schematics of the common weaves used in the aerospace landing gear structures.
(a) Plain weave and (b) twill weave (The yarns, indicated in green color, are embedded
in the rectangular-cuboid-shape matrix; generated by TexGen [75]).
1.3 Modeling approaches for textile composites
Various analytical and numerical models has been developed for predicting overall prop-
erties of the plain weave textile composites in the past two decades. The simplest method
to determine the overall properties for a textile composite is based on rule of mixture and
classical laminate theory (CLT). King et al. [36] modeled the woven fabrics in macroscopic
continuum constitutive model to determine the macroscopic stresses based on both rela-
tively simple modeling approaches. A macroscopic landing gear structure finite element
(FE) model, documented in National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR) report written by
Thuis [76], the composite layered shell element type was used in the model for simplifica-
tion. The applicability of these conventional analytical methods to a macroscopic textile
composite structure becomes questionable due to the complexity of yarn geometry in
Introduction 3
three–dimensional (3D) space at microscopic level and unable to describe the mechanical
behavior of a composite microscopically.
A relatively sophisticated one–dimensional (1D) mosaic model developed by Ishikawa
and Chou [27] for the plain weave textile composite. The major drawback of this model
is that the yarns continuity is not taken into account. To improve on this, Ishikawa
and Chou [29] proposed the crimp model as an extension of their mosaic model. This
model has taken into account the continuity and the undulation of yarns, however, only
along the loading direction were considered. The transverse yarn undulation and the
actual cross–sectional geometry should also be taken into account because they are the
important factors of the homogenized properties of textile composite.
Next, two two–dimensional (2D) slice array model (SAM) and element array model
(EAM) models proposed by Naik and Ganesh [54], for the plain weave textile composites.
In these models, the continuity and the undulation of yarns in warp and weft directions
as well as the presence of the gap between adjacent yarns were considered. The different
materials and geometrical properties of warp and weft yarns can be modeled.
In order to extend to the 3D analysis and to include the detailed geometrical descrip-
tions of the yarns, the method of cell partition has been developed by many researchers
( [31, 70, 71, 79]). Through this method, the representative cell is discritized into subcells,
where the effective properties of each subcell are obtained.
The limitation of the aforementioned analytical methods were developed specifically
applied on one type of the textile composite. Thus, they do not offer flexibility to be
applied on other textile composite types, i.e. the analytical methods need to be re–
modeled for each textile composite. Due to this consequence, a relatively flexible analysis
approach is needed to analyze on any textile composite without the necessity of re–
modeling on the analysis approach.
In recent years, due to the advancement of structural and material modeling tech-
nology, a relatively accurate geometrical textile composites models have been developed
through computer–aided engineering (CAE) and textile geometric modeling software,
such as WiseTex [82], TechText CAD [24] and TexGen [63]. As a result, the analytical
textile model can be circumvented. Enormous number of research papers are available
regarding the geometric modeling using this approach and numerical analysis thereof
( [3, 34, 40, 59, 64, 65, 84, 87, 88, 93]).
By taking the advantage of FE method and the advancement of CAE and textile
geometric modeling software, an analysis approach for performing the analysis which link
the macroscopic and microscopic structures can be developed. The FE analysis approach
is known as global/local method, it was developed by Whitcomb [85]. This approach has
been further implemented by Srirengan et al. [66] and Xu et al. [90] for the 3D stress anal-
ysis of the textile composite structures and further improved by Whitcomb et al. [86], who
used homogenized engineering material properties to accelerate the global stress analysis
for the textile composites. Generally, a global FE analysis was performed on a global
region with the global coarse finite elements, followed by a detailed local FE analysis
performed in a local region with the independent 3D local fine finite elements. However,
the main drawback of this approach is that the local level mechanical mechanisms can
only be studied on the region of interest (ROI) on global level.
To address this problem, multi–scale computational homogenization for heterogenous
materials is proposed by Kouznetsova et al. [38,39], Miehe et al. [50], Miehe [48], Moulinec
and Suquet [52], Miehe and Koch [49], Michel et al. [46], Feyel and Chaboche [13], Ter-
ada et al. [74]. This approach can be used to study the microscopic mechanical phe-
4 Chapter 1
nomenon within a macroscopic structure collectively and it provides a promising multi–
scale solution to many engineering materials with heterogeneous microscopic structures,
such as metal alloy systems, porous media, polycrystalline materials [16, 37]. Hence, it
is reasonable to expect that the multi–scale computational homogenization approach has
the capability to solve the relatively complex textile composites problems by bridging the
macroscopic and microscopic scales.
The multi–scale computational homogenization method as well as the global/local
method in the textile composites analysis have their own pros and cons. The selection
between both methods should be based on the descriptions of a specific engineering prob-
lem. The global/local method is essentially a FE analysis through the mesh refinement
technique on a region of interest (ROI), e.g. crack tips or specific regions with high stresses
or strains. Whereas, the multi–scale computational homogenization approach is used op-
timally for predicting the macroscopic structure mechanical response with the underlying
microscopic structure phenomenon collectively, i.e. the micro–structural phenomenon at
each macroscopic region can be studied in detail. The comprehensive literature survey of
various modeling approaches for textile composites can be found in Appendix A.
1.4 Motivation
A numerical analysis framework for predicting the mechanical and physical responses of
composite landing gear materials macroscopically and microscopically is indispensable
for improving the structural design and integrity.
Therefore, based on the literature survey on various textile composite analysis ap-
proaches as discussed in Section 1.3, the multi–scale computational homogenization ap-
proach is utilized in this project, because the micro–structural phenomenon in various
macroscopic regions can be studied simultaneously for predicting the failure modes at the
microscopic level.
Besides that, another advantage of this approach is its flexibility for adaptation. For
instance, the overall elastic properties for variation of geometrical parameters (volume
fraction, shape, orientations, etc.) of the constituents can be easily performed without
the necessity of re–implementing the analysis framework.
Furthermore, this framework has an additional advantage that the material properties
are defined on the constituent scale, thereby the macroscopic constitutive equation is
unnecessary. Thus, the framework can be incorporated into the design and analysis
process at early stage.
1.5 Scope and outline
The aim of this project is to investigate the applicability of the coupled macro–micro
computational homogenization approach to the analysis of textile composite structures.
Hence, the approach is implemented within the FE framework and its power, utility and
limitation are demonstrated.
In chapter 2, the multi–scale computational homogenization approach is introduced
in brief. The concise descriptions of the microscopic boundary value problem and micro–
macro coupling framework are given. Then, the implementation of the computational
homogenization within FE framework is briefly discussed. The quantitative compari-
son between numerical results with the analytical solutions and experimental data for
Introduction 5
unidirectional fiber–reinforced composite is performed to verify the correctness of the
framework.
Next, in chapter 3, the geometric modeling and material properties for the textile and
non–crimp composite representative volume elements (RVE) are presented. The textile
and non–crimp RVEs are modeled for the comparison purposes. Then, the analyses on
the RVEs are performed to exemplify the utility of the computational homogenization
approach at the microscopic level.
In order to illustrate the power and utility of the framework on textile composite,
chapter 4 presents the application of the framework on two types of macroscopic structures
coupled with textile RVEs. Firstly, the multi–scale framework is used to analyze the
macroscopic laminate [45
o
/−45
o
/45
o
/−45
o
]
S
with two different material and geometrical
properties within RVEs to illustrates the flexibility of the framework. Secondly, the
analysis on notched quasi–isotropic laminate [45

/0

/ − 45

/90

]
S
to demonstrate the
capabilities of the framework to analyze a relatively complex macroscopic structure.
Finally, in chapter 5, the limitation of the framework is discussed. Thus, several
solutions are recommended in order to reduce the computational time and cost of the
framework. Then, the future development of the framework for the benefits of engineers
will be discussed.
Chapter 2
Multi–scale modeling framework
description
In the context of solving macroscopic composite structure problems, computational ho-
mogenization is used to obtain the overall macroscopic constitutive response from the un-
derlying microscopic heterogenous representative volume element (RVE). The advantage
of this approach is that the macroscopic constitutive description can be circumvented,
where the constitutive behavior at macroscopic level is determined through the micro-
scopic constitutive behavior. In this chapter, the crucial components of the multi–scale
computational homogenization scheme and its FE implementation within Abaqus are
treated in brief.
2.1 Basic hypotheses
A composite material is assumed to be macroscopically sufficiently homogeneous but
microscopically inhomogeneous (consist of matrix and bundles of fibers), as schematically
shown in Figure 2.1. Based on the principle of scale separation, the characteristic wave
length of RVE,
m
should be considerably smaller than the wave length of the macroscopic
loading or the characteristic size of the macroscopic structure counterpart,
M
, as follows

m

M
, (2.1)
where the subscript “M” and “m” refer to macroscopic and microscopic quantities, re-
spectively. Due to the morphology of composite materials in a landing gear structure, the
global periodicity can be assumed, where the fibers bundle (yarns) pattern is repeated in
every macroscopic point, as shown in Figure 2.2
1
.
In the computational homogenization scheme [38], the macroscopic deformation gra-
dient tensor, F
M
is calculated at every macroscopic point, i.e. integration points of a
finite element (FE) meshed macrostructure. The F
M
of a particular macroscopic point
is imposed upon RVE (which is assigned to that macroscopic point) to prescribe its total
deformation. Upon the solution of the RVE boundary value problem, the macroscopic
stress tensor (e.g. macroscopic Cauchy stress tensor, σ
M
) is obtained through the micro-
scopic stress tensor (e.g. microscopic Cauchy stress tensor, σ
m
) using the RVE volume
1
Note that the selected periodic plain weave textile composite as shown in Figure 2.2 is only for
illustration and schematic purposes. Several possibilities of the periodic RVE for plain weave textile
composite exist.
6
Multi–scale modeling framework description 7
M
Figure 2.1: Continuum macrostructure of a drag brace component and heterogeneous RVE of
a composite at a macroscopic point, M.
weft yarn
warp yarn matrix (resin)
Figure 2.2: Schematic representative of a global periodic plain weave textile composite
macrostructure in two dimensional view.
averaging technique. Additionally, the local macroscopic consistent tangent (e.g. consis-
tent tangent defined from Kirchhoff stress tensor,
4
C
τ
M
) can be derived from the RVE
total stiffness. The explained computational homogenization framework is schematically
illustrated in Figure 2.3.
boundary value problem
MICRO
MACRO
F
M
σ
M
4
C
τ
M
Figure 2.3: Computational homogenization scheme.
2.2 Microscopic level boundary value problem
A RVE contains the geometrical and material properties of a composite micro–structure.
Figure 2.4 shows the corner nodes numbering of a RVE in three dimensional (3D) view
8 Chapter 2
and the Cartesian coordinate system with the position vector of node 1, x
1
from the
origin. The two dimensional (2D) views of a plain weave textile composite RVE from
yz-plane and xz-plane are depicted in Figure 2.5.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
x
y
z
x
1
Figure 2.4: Schematic picture of the corner nodes numbering for a RVE in 3D view.
+
+


4 1
5 8
Γ
top
Γ
bottom
Γ
front
Γ
back
n

n
+
(a) yz-plane view
+
+


1 2
5 6
Γ
top
Γ
bottom
Γ
left
Γ
right
n

n
+
(b) xz-plane view
Figure 2.5: The schematic picture of a plain weave textile composite RVE in (a) yz-plane view
and (b) xz-plane view.
In the RVE deformation field, a point with the initial position vector, x
0
in the initial
configuration, V
0
and the current position vector, x in the current configuration, V can
be described by microscopic deformation gradient tensor, F
m
=
_


0
m
x
_
T
, where the
gradient operator
2
,


0
m
is taken with respect to the V
0
and the superscript “T” indicates
transposition.
In the state of equilibrium, the equilibrium equation (in absence of the body forces)
for the RVE in terms of the microscopic Cauchy stress tensor σ
m
can be formulated as


m
· σ
m
=

0 in V, (2.2)
Within Abaqus FE package, the constitutive law of linear elastic material behavior
for yarn and resin is defined as
σ = D
el
:
el
, (2.3)
where D
el
is the fourth–order elasticity tensor, and
el
is the logarithm of strain tensor
in finite–strain problems.
Based on the assumption of global periodicity of a composite structure (Figure 2.2),
the BCs of its RVE should reflect periodicity characteristic. Terada et al. [74] and van
2
The gradient operator in Cartesian coordinate system is defined as

∇ = e
1

∂x
1
+e
2

∂x
2
+e
3

∂x
3
Multi–scale modeling framework description 9
der Sluis et al. [77] verified that for a given microstructural cell size, the periodic BCs
provide the better estimation for the overall properties, than the prescribed displacement
and prescribed traction BCs. An arbitrary periodic deformation of a textile composite is
illustrated in Figure 2.6.
Figure 2.6: Typical periodic deformation of the RVEs for a textile composite.
The general form of the periodicity conditions for a RVE are written as
x
+
−x

= F
M
·
_
x
+
0
−x

0
_
, (2.4a)
p
+
= − p

, (2.4b)
to represent the periodic deformation (2.4a) and antiperiodic tractions (2.4b) on the
RVE surfaces. The x
+
and x

are the current position vectors, x
+
0
and x

0
are the
initial position vectors at the corresponding nodes on the right, Γ
right
and left, Γ
left
(top,
Γ
top
and bottom, Γ
bottom
; front, Γ
front
and back, Γ
back
) surfaces, respectively. The unit
normal, n
+
and n

(n

= −n
+
) are defined at the corresponding nodes on the opposite
surfaces, Γ
+
0
and Γ

0
, respectively (see Figure 2.5). Next, based on explained n
+
and n

definition, p
+
and p

are the tractions defined at the corresponding opposite nodes.
The periodicity condition (2.4a) is prescribed on an initial periodic RVE surfaces in order
to preserve its periodicity at deformed state.
2.3 Macro–micro levels coupling
The macro–micro coupling is based on averaging theorems. In this section, the macro–
micro coupling of the deformation tensor and stress tensor based on volume averaging
theorem are discussed briefly. The importance of the energy averaging theorem, known
as Hill–Mandel condition or macrohomogeneity condition is discussed in brief as well.
2.3.1 Deformation
The volume averaging theorem regarding to the macro–micro coupling of the kinematic
quantities state that the F
M
is the volume average of the F
m
as follow
F
M
=
1
V
0
_
V
0
F
m
dV
0
. (2.5)
where V
0
is the initial RVE volume.
10 Chapter 2
According to the divergence (Gauss) theorem
_
V

∇· a(x) dV =
_
Γ
n(x) · a(x) dΓ, (2.6)
where a(x) is a vector function on domain V and n(x) is the outward pointing unit normal
to the surface Γ of the domain V . The application of the divergence theorem (2.6) and
F
m
=
_


0
m
x
_
T
lead to the transformation of (2.5) from volume integral into surface
integral
F
M
=
1
V
0
_
V
0
F
m
dV
0
=
1
V
0
_
Γ
0
xn
0

0
. (2.7)
The utilization of the periodic BCs on a RVE leads to the satisfaction of (2.7), as shown
in Appendix B.
2.3.2 Stress
The averaging theorem for the first Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor, P is given as
P
M
=
1
V
0
_
V
0
P
m
dV
0
. (2.8)
Next, through applying the relation (with account for microscopic equilibrium equation)
of,


0m
·
_
P
T
m
x
0
_
= P
m
, the divergence theorem (2.6), and the definition of the micro-
scopic first Piola–Kirchhoff stress vector, p = n
0
· P
T
m
. The P
M
can be defined on the
RVE surface as follow
P
M
=
1
V
0
_
Γ
0
px
0

0
. (2.9)
Similarly, the application of the averaging theorem on the σ
m
over current RVE vol-
ume, V and the transformation from volume integral to surface integral can be elaborated
as follow
σ

M
=
1
V
_
Γ

tx dΓ. (2.10)
where

t is the definition of the Cauchy stress vector (

t = n · σ
m
).
In the case for kinematic quantities, the nonlinearity between stress measures should
be taken with cautiousness, i.e. not all macroscopic stress quantities obtained from the
volume averaging theorem is valid. Therefore, the σ
M
should be defined as
σ
M
=
1
det (F
M
)
P
M
· F
T
M
. (2.11)
However, in the case of periodic BCs, it can be shown that σ

M
and σ
M
are equivalent, as
shown in Appendix D. The complete derivation of (2.9), (2.10) are shown in Appendix B,
and the derivation of (2.11) can be found in [45].
Multi–scale modeling framework description 11
2.3.3 Internal work
The averaging theorem for the micro-macro energy transition, known as Hill–Mandel or
macrohomogeneity condition [25, 26, 68] has to be satisfied for the conservation of specific
energy through the scale transition. This condition states that the microscopic volume
average for the variation of work performed upon RVE is equal to the local variation of
work at macro–level.The condition is given as
1
V
0
_
V
0
P
m
: δF
T
m
dV
0
= P
M
: δF
T
M
, ∀δx, (2.12)
which is formulated in terms of the work conjugated pair of (P and F). The left–hand
side of (2.12) can be defined in terms of RVE quantities as follow
δW
0M
=
1
V
0
_
V
0
P
m
: δF
T
m
dV
0
=
1
V
0
_
Γ
0
p · δx dΓ
0
, (2.13)
where the divergence theorem (2.6), microscopic equilibrium (2.2), the definition of the
microscopic first Piola–Kirchhoff stress vector, p = n
0
· P
T
m
have been used.
Next, the surface integral of the macroscopic first Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor (2.9),
the periodic BCs (2.4a) and antiperiodic tractions (2.4b) have been used to prove the
satisfaction of Hill–Mandel condition (2.12), as shown in Appendix B.
2.4 Numerical implementation
2.4.1 Micro–structure boundary value problem
The RVE boundary value problem imposed with the periodic BCs can be solved nu-
merically using FE method. It is assumed that the FE discritization is performed upon
RVE, such that the corresponding opposite surfaces of the RVE are discretized into an
equivalent distribution of nodes due to the initial periodicity characteristic of compos-
ite (Figure 2.2). Thus, in order to perserve the periodicity in the deformed state, the
respective pair of nodes on the corresponding opposite surfaces can be written as
x
top
= x
bottom
+x
5
−x
1
, (2.14a)
x
right
= x
left
+x
2
−x
1
, (2.14b)
x
front
= x
back
+x
1
−x
4
, (2.14c)
where x
p
is the current position vector of the four prescribed corner nodes (also known
as control nodes, master nodes [11] or control vertices [78]), p (p = 1, 2, 4, 5), as shown in
Figure 2.4. The x
right
and x
left
, x
front
and x
back
, x
top
and x
bottom
are the current position
vectors for the respective pair of nodes on the right and left, front and back, top and
bottom surfaces of the RVE, respectively. The applied constraint equations (2.14) implies
that the total deformation of the RVE can be imposed by the displacement of the four
corner nodes.
Besides prescribing the position vectors for every respective pair of nodes, they can
be formulated in terms of displacements, u, as
u
top
= u
bottom
+u
5
−u
1
, (2.15a)
u
right
= u
left
+ u
2
−u
1
, (2.15b)
u
front
= u
back
+ u
1
−u
4
. (2.15c)
12 Chapter 2
The relation of u
p
with x
0
p
can be expressed as
u
p
= (F
M
−I ) · x
0
p
, p = 1, 2, 4, 5, (2.16)
where I is the identity tensor. Further details can be found in Appendix C.
2.4.2 Macroscopic stress
Next, The RVE volume averaged stress has to be extracted after analyzing the RVE. Of
course, the P
M
can be computed numerically through the volume integral (2.8). However,
it is computationally inefficient because the RVE volume for a textile composite can be
typically several orders of magnitude larger than the unidirectional (UD) RVE volume,
i.e. the number of finite elements for the textile RVE can be considerably higher than
unidirectional RVE [33]. Therefore, it is computationally more efficient to compute the
P
M
through the surface integral [37], from (2.9), the P
M
can be further simplified for
the case of the periodic BCs as
P
M
=
1
V
0
_

f
e
1
x
0
1
+

f
e
2
x
0
2
+

f
e
4
x
0
4
+

f
e
5
x
0
5
_
=
1
V
0

p=1,2,4,5

f
e
p
x
0
p
, (2.17)
where

f
e
p
is the reaction (resulting) external forces acted on four corner nodes, p (p =
1, 2, 4, 5), the derivation of (2.17) is shown in Appendix D. The (2.17) shows that only
the external forces at the four corner nodes (p = 1, 2, 4, 5) contribute to P
M
. As stated in
section 2.2, the stress measures for Abaqus is defined in Cauchy stress tensor, therefore,
the computed P
M
(2.17) has to be transformed into σ
M
according to (2.11). In addition,
following the derivation steps for P
M
(as shown in Appendix D), the σ
M
can be computed
for the case of periodic BCs as
σ
M
=
1
V
_

f
e
1
x
1
+

f
e
2
x
2
+

f
e
4
x
4
+

f
e
5
x
5
_
=
1
V

p=1,2,4,5

f
e
p
x
p
, (2.18)
where V is the current RVE volume.
2.4.3 Macroscopic tangent stiffness
For the non–linear FE analysis framework, beside macroscopic stress, the stiffness matrix
at every macroscopic integration point is required. The stiffness matrix is determined
numerically from the relation between variation of the macroscopic stress and variation
of the macroscopic deformation at every macroscopic integration point. The method of
condense the microscopic stiffness to the local macroscopic stiffness [37, 38, 49] is dicussed
in Appendix E.
Within Abaqus FE scheme, the consistent tangent stiffness is defined as
δτ
M
=
4
C
τ
M
: D
δM
, (2.19)
which related to the macroscopic Kirchhoff stress tensor, τ
M
= det(F
M

M
and variation
in virtual rate of deformation, D
δM
=
1
2
_
L
δM
+L
T
δM
_
, where L
δM
is the symmetric rate
of deformation tensor. Then, the departure point of obtaining the
4
C
τ
M
is by varying the
Multi–scale modeling framework description 13
definition of the macroscopic Kirchhoff stress tensor, τ
M
= det (F
M
) σ
M
= P
M
· F
T
M
from
(2.11), as shown in Appendix F. Next, the (2.19) is written as
δτ
M
=
_
1
V
0

i

j
_
x
(i)
K
(ij)
M
x
(j)
_
LT
:
4
I
S
+
4
I · τ
M
_
: D
δM
. (2.20)
where K
(ij)
M
is the component of RVE reduced stiffness matrix, K
M
(Appendix G), with
x
(i)
and x
(j)
are the current position vectors for the corner nodes i and j (i, j = 1, 2, 4, 5).
The
4
I
S
and
4
I are the symmetric fourth–order unit tensor and fourth–order unit tensor,
respectively. The superscript “LT” denotes left transposition
3
.
After that, by comparing the (2.20) with (2.19), the tangent stiffness tensor,
4
C
τ
M
is
identified as
4
C
τ
M
=
1
V
0

i

j
_
x
(i)
K
(ij)
M
x
(j)
_
LT
:
4
I
S
+
4
I · τ
M
(2.21)
The detailed derivation of
4
C
τ
M
is shown in Appendix F.
2.5 Modeling framework implementation using Abaqus
The numerical framework of the multi–scale modeling approach as explained in Section 2.4
has been implemented within Abaqus. The analyses of the macroscopic structure and
RVEs are executed in the Abaqus simultaneously in the nested manner. At the macro-
scopic level, the subroutine UMAT is used to define the material mechanical constitutive
behavior at integration points through coupling to their underlying RVEs.
Firstly, the deformation gradient tensor, F
M
will be computed by Abaqus at every
macroscopic integration point (IP) at each macroscopic incremental load and at each
macroscopic iteration. After that, the computed F
M
at a particular macroscopic IP will
be transferred to the RVE which is assigned to that macroscopic IP for prescribing the
RVE total deformation using subroutine DISP. Next, after the completion of the RVE
analysis at microscopic level, the σ
M
is computed within subroutine URDFIL and the
reduced stiffness matrix, K
M
is obtained through substructure generation [1]. Finally,
the computed σ
M
and K
M
have to be returned to UMAT where the macroscopic tangent
stiffness,
4
C
τ
M
will be calculated.
Figure 2.7 and Figure 2.8 show the utilization of subroutines UMAT, DISP and URD-
FIL working with the macroscopic structure and RVE models within Abaqus, as explained
briefly above. The incremental–iterative approach for the macro–micro computational ho-
mogenization method is schematically illustrated in Appendix H. The complete coding
of the subroutines is documented in the technical report [7].
2.6 Modeling framework verification
In this section, the verification of the correctness of the developed coupled multi–scale
framework implementation is performed using unidirectional (UD) fiber–reinforced metal
matrix composite. This composite is selected for verification purposes due to the avail-
ability of the experimental data and analytical solutions.
3
The left transposition for a fourth–order tensor,
4
T is defined as T
LT
ijkl
= T
jikl
.
14 Chapter 2
MACRO
STEP 1: At the beginning of each increment and each iteration, Abaqus calculates the deforma-
tion gradient tensor F
M
at every macroscopic IP which is passed into UMAT. Then,
UMAT is programmed to write the received F
M
in FM.txt.
STEP 2: A new Abaqus job is initialized for the RVE analysis job.
MICRO
STEP 3: The written F
M
is read by the DISP for prescribing the RVE total deformation through
the displacements of the four corner nodes with the RVE imposed by the periodic bound-
ary conditions.
STEP 4: Solve the RVE boundary value problem.
STEP 5: At the RVE analysis level, the reduced stiffness matrix, K
M
of the RVE is generated
(through substructure generation) and written into KM.mtx.
STEP 6: The P
M
is calculated using (2.17), then, the σ
M
is calculated through the computed P
M
using (2.11) within subroutine URDFIL. The computed σ
M
is written into stressM.txt.
STEP 7: Besides K
M
, additional information needed for the computation of
4
C
τ
M
(2.21) within
UMAT has to be written in various text files, such as RVE initial volume, V
0
(written to
RVEvolume.txt), current coordinates of the four corner nodes, x
p
(written to Coords.txt)
and the Kirchhoff stress tensor, τ
M
(written to KirchhoffstressM.txt).
MACRO
STEP 8: The σ
M
in stressM.txt and K
M
in KM.mtx (together with RVEvolume.txt, Coords.txt
and KirchhoffstressM.txt) are read by UMAT for updating the Cauchy stress tensor and
computing the macroscopic tangent stiffness, respectively.
Figure 2.7: Work flow steps of the multi–scale modeling implementation within Abaqus using
subroutine UMAT, DISP and URDFIL.
Multi–scale modeling framework description 15
Abaqus
Macro-structure
Abaqus
Micro-structure
macro_structure.inp
UMAT.for
micro_structure.inp
user_subroutine.for
FM.txt
*Heading
...
*Boundary, user
*Substructure
Generate
*Substructure matrix
output, stiffness=YES
KM.mtx
subroutine DISP
subroutine URDFIL
*Heading
...
*user material
subroutine UMAT
execute Abaqus micro-
structure analysis job
STRESS(NTENS)
DFGRD1(I,J)
DDSDDE(NTENS,
NTENS)
CauchystressM.txt
KirchhoffstressM.txt
RVEvolume.txt
Coords.txt
Figure 2.8: Schematic view of the multi–scale numerical framework implemented within
Abaqus.
The UD RVE is shown in Figure 2.9 with the geometrical parameters given in Ta-
ble 2.2. The matrix and the fiber are aluminum and boron, respectively, with both
materials considered isotropic. The material properties of both constituents are given
in Table 2.3, which is taken from [35]. The fiber material with volume fraction of 0.47
is embedded centrally in the matrix material. Next, the matrix and fiber volumes are
meshed with the element type of C3D8 (8–node 3D linear brick element) with the equiv-
alent distribution of the nodes on the corresponding opposite surfaces for the application
of the periodic boundary conditions (Figure 2.10). The damage modeling with the co-
hesive behavior at the contacting interface is not included in the UD RVE because the
detailed study of this damage mode is out of scope for the framework verification pur-
poses. Therefore, the contacting interface between matrix and fiber is tied together using
mesh tied constraints.
Table 2.2: Geometrical parameters for unidirectional RVE displayed in Figure 2.9 (all param-
eter values are shown in unit of millimeter).
Parameter Value Description
w
matrix
0.2 matrix width
t
matrix
0.1 matrix thickness
h
matrix
0.2 matrix height
d
fiber
0.1547 fiber diameter
16 Chapter 2
y
x
z
h
matrix
t
matrix
w
matrix
(a) matrix
y
x z
d
fiber
(b) fiber
Figure 2.9: The unidirectional RVE composed of (a) matrix and (b) fiber materials modeled
using Abaqus [1], with the geometrical parameters are given in Table 2.2.
Table 2.3: Material properties of constituent materials for the UD RVE model [35](the elastic
modulus, E is shown in unit of GPa).
Property E v
Boron 379.3 0.1
Aluminum 68.3 0.3
(a) matrix (b) fiber
Figure 2.10: The unidirectional RVE composed of (a) matrix and (b) fiber materials model
meshed with element type of C3D8 (8–node 3D linear brick element).
Multi–scale modeling framework description 17
The macroscopic structure (meshed with 8 elements) used to couple with the UD
RVE is shown in Figure 2.11, with the dimensions shown in Table 2.4. The x-, y- and
z-axis on the global coordinate system of the UD RVE and macroscopic structure are
oriented in parallel. The macroscopic longitudinal modulus, E
z
and Poisson’s ratio, v
xz
are obtained through tensile loading in z-direction. The macroscopic transverse modulus,
E
x
and Poisson’s ratio, v
xy
are obtained through tensile loading in x-direction. The
longitudinal shear modulus, G
xz
and the transverse shear modulus, G
xy
are obtained
through the longitudinal shear loading and transverse shear loading, respectively. The
detailed description of the boundary conditions to these loading cases are given in [67].
Table 2.4: Geometrical parameters for the macroscopic structure displayed in Figure 2.11 (all
parameter values are shown in unit of millimeter).
Parameter Value Description
W 20.0 width
L 40.0 length
H 0.4 height
X
Y
Z
y
x z
W
L
H
Figure 2.11: Macroscopic structure for the coupled multi–scale analyses meshed with 8 ele-
ments of type C3D8 with the dimensions shown in Table 2.4.
Sun et al. [67] used the UD RVE to predict its mechanical properties based on principle
of strain energy with applying the periodic BCs. Chamis [5] presented solutions based
on unified set of composite micromechanics equations. The analytical solution of Hashin
and Rosen [23] is based on energy variational principles which provides the bounds for
the elastic moduli. The analytical solutions and experimental data shown in Table 2.5
are obtained from [67].
The elastic moduli at micro–level and macro–level shown in Table 2.5, are computed
with the developed framework through prescribing the aforementioned BCs on UD RVE
individually and the macroscopic structure, respectively. Regarding to the analysis results
under longitudinal and transverse shear loadings at macro–level, the G
xz
and G
xy
are
computed from the maximum longitudinal and transverse shear stresses, respectively. In
general, good agreement is observed between the micro– and macro–scale computational
homogenization solutions, FE prediction [67], analytical solutions [5,23] and experimental
data [35].
In the case of elastic moduli solutions at the microscopic and macroscopic levels, a
small deviation is observed. This is due to a small numerical difference of the user-defined
18 Chapter 2
F
M
for prescribing the BCs on UD RVE at micro–level and the F
M
computed by Abaqus
internally to impose its underlying UD RVE BCs in the multi–scale analyses. The stress
contour of the analyzed UD RVE and macroscopic structure are shown in Appendix I.
Lastly, through the comparison between analysis results, experimental data and the
analytical solutions, good agreement has been achieved. Thus, it can be concluded that
the correctness for the implementation of the framework has been verified.
Table 2.5: Elastic constants comparison for unidirectional RVE (the elastic modulus, E and
shear modulus, G are shown in unit of GPa)
Elastic UD RVE UD FE model strain energy Energy variation Experiment
constants (micro) (macro) [67] method [5] principle [23] [35]
E
z
214.5 214.9 215.0 214 215 216
E
x
142.9 143.4 144.0 156 131.4 - 139.1 140
G
xz
54.2 54.15 57.2 62.6 53.9 52
G
xy
45.6 45.8 45.9 43.6 50.0 - 54.6 -
v
xz
0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.195 0.29
v
xy
0.26 0.25 0.29 0.31 0.28 - 0.31 -
Chapter 3
Micro–structural modeling
3.1 Textile and non–crimp composite models
The geometrical plain weave textile composite and a 0
o
/90
o
non–crimp RVEs are mod-
eled using TexGen [75], as shown in Figure 3.1. The textile composite is characterized
by the interlacement of the warp and weft yarns orthogonal to each other, resulting in
crimp (undulation or waviness) in both directions. Both models are an open–packing
and unbalanced RVEs, i.e. spacings exist between two adjacent yarns in the same di-
rection and the geometrical dimensions are different in both warp and weft yarns but
the material properties of the yarns are identical (Figure 3.1(a)). The 0
o
/90
o
non–crimp
RVE (Figure 3.1(b)) is modeled for the comparison purposes with the textile RVE in the
mechanical analyses.
x (warp)
y
z (weft)
(a)
x (warp)
y
z (weft)
(b)
Figure 3.1: (a) Plain weave textile composite RVE model and (b) 0
o
/90
o
non–crimp composite
RVE created by using TexGen [75].
In practice, the volume of a yarn is not entirely occupied by fibers due to the flow
of epoxy through the fibrous preform (porous medium) during fabrication process such
as Resin Transfer Moulding (RTM). However, for the RVEs modeled in this project,
the fibers within a yarn are not modeled individually, instead the yarns are represented
as a solid volume consisting of fiber bundle and matrix, because this representation is
considerably more practical for the computational effort (in terms of the CPU processor
speed and memory) [63]. Therefore, the number of fibers is represented by the volume
of a yarn, i.e. a higher yarn volume represents higher number of fibers and vice versa.
In general, the cross-sections of yarns are not circular or perfect elliptical due to the
interlacing of the yarns and the processing of the composite, which can lead to yarn
flattening [79]. Therefore, a lenticular shape is selected to describe the cross-section
of the yarns on the basis of microscopic observations by Vandeurzen et al. [79]. An
19
20 Chapter 3
accurate geometrical modeling of the textile RVE is beyond the scope of this project and
is not discussed in detail. The geometrical variables for the textile RVE are depicted in
Figure 3.2 and their values are tabulated in Table 3.1. The non–crimp composite RVE has
the identical geometrical parameters as textile one, except undulation. The constructed
RVEs have the yarn volume fraction of 0.2478 and 0.0348 in warp and weft directions,
respectively.
Both RVEs consisting of yarns and solid domain (matrix) volumes are imported into
Abaqus/Standard version 6.9 [1]. The matrix pocket is generated through cutting out
the solid matrix volume occupied by the yarns. After that, the individual parts of yarns
and matrix are assembled to produce a RVE model.
W
RVE
L
RVE
H
RVE
h
gap warp
W
warp
H
warp
V
gap
W
weft
h
gap weft
H
weft
Figure 3.2: The textile RVE with the geometrical parameters as given in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Geometrical parameters for the plain weave textile composite RVE displayed in
Figure 3.2 (all parameter values are shown in unit of millimeter).
Parameter Value Description Parameter Value Description
W
warp
0.3 warp yarn width W
weft
0.3 weft yarn width
H
warp
0.1514 warp yarn thickness H
weft
0.0757 weft yarn thickness
h
gap warp
0.09 warp yarn gap h
gap weft
1.2 weft yarn gap
L
RVE
3.0 RVE length V
gap
0.012 gap between yarns
W
RVE
0.8 RVE width
H
RVE
0.3 RVE thickness
3.2 Material properties
The matrix is considered as an isotropic elastic material and the yarns are considered as
transversely isotropic elastic material. The matrix material is described by two elastic
constants (elastic modulus E and Poisson’s ratio v). Whereas, the yarn material model
requires six elastic constants, i.e. E
1
, E
3
, G
12
, G
13
, v
12
, v
13
. These six elastic constants are
defined with respect to the assigned material (or local) coordinate system in the yarns,
as shown in Figure 3.3. The longitudinal direction is defined by 3-axis, which follows the
Micro–structural modeling 21
yarn path tangentially, the transverse plane is described by the 1-axis and 2-axis, which
are represent by the plane of isotropy (Note that the x-, y- and z-axis are used for the
global coordinate system, whereas, the local coordinate system is denoted by 1-, 2- and
3-axis.). Since the yarn is considered as transversely isotropic, hence,
E
1
= E
2
, G
13
= G
23
, v
13
= v
23
.
(a) weft yarns (b) warp yarns
Figure 3.3: The assigned material (or local) coordinate system for (a) weft yarns and (b)
warp yarns (1–2 plane is the plane of isotropy and 3–axis follows the yarn path
tangentially).
The material properties of the yarns (combination of carbon fibers and epoxy resin)
and the matrix (epoxy resin) are tabulated in Table 3.2. These values are taken from [73],
where they are measured experimentally on a unidirectional carbon fiber–reinforced poly-
mer (CFRP) and pure epoxy resin, respectively.
Table 3.2: Material properties of constituent materials for the textile and non–crimp RVE
models with the carbon fiber–reinforced plastic (CFRP) on warp and weft yarns
and the epoxy on matrix [73] (the elastic modulus, E and shear modulus, G are
shown in unit of GPa).
Property E
1
E
2
E
3
G
12
G
13
G
23
v
12
v
13
v
23
Yarn (CFRP) 40.0 40.0 230.0 14.3 24.0 24.0 0.26 0.26 0.26
Property E v
Matrix (epoxy) 3.5 0.35
3.3 Finite element model
The warp and weft yarns are meshed using the swept meshing technique with the element
of type C3D8 (8-node 3D linear brick element). Whereas, the element of type C3D4 (4-
node linear tetrahedron element) is used to mesh the matrix volume due to its geometrical
complexity. According to the periodicity characteristic of the composite (Section 2.4.1),
the RVEs are meshed such that the corresponding opposite surfaces (left and right; front
and back; top and bottom) are discretized into equivalent distribution of nodes. Due to
22 Chapter 3
the incompatible element types of both volumes, the contacting interfaces between the
yarns and matrix are tied together with the mesh tie constraint.
In practice, the interfacial debonding between the fiber and matrix can occur during
the fabrication process (due to the mismatch of their thermal expansion coefficients) [81].
However, the interfacial debonding between the fiber and matrix is not considered in this
project because the micro–structure constituted of the fibers and the matrix within the
yarn is not modeled, as explained earlier. Therefore, the mesh tie constraint between the
yarns and matrix interfaces is used to simulate the perfect bonding between both volumes.
Moreover, the perfect bonding is justified to reduce the computational cost and time, since
the interface formulation can increase the cost and time dramatically [14, 92, 95].
Four levels of meshes are created for the textile RVE, from level 1 (coarse) to level 4
(fine), for obtaining the optimum meshed RVE in terms of the accuracy of analysis results
and CPU time. Figure 3.4 shows the different mesh densities of the matrix volume and
yarns volume and Table 3.3 shows the number of nodes, number of elements, total number
of degrees of freedom (DOF), and the relative CPU time for the analysis (tensile in x-axis)
in each mesh density level. The deformation gradient tensor, F of
F =
_
_
1 +
xx
γ
xy
γ
xz
γ
yx
1 +
yy
γ
yz
γ
zx
γ
zy
1 +
zz
_
_
=
_
_
1.02 0 0
0 1.0 0
0 0 1.0
_
_
is applied on the textile RVE for prescribing the RVE total deformation through the
displacement of the four corner nodes and imposed by the periodic boundary conditions
(BCs), where and γ are the normal strain and shear strain, respectively. The subscripts
“x”, “y” and “z” are denoted for the directions of the axes on the global coordinate
system (see Figure 3.1). The material properties of yarns and matrix are considered
as transversely isotropic elastic (CFRP) defined on the local coordinate systems and
isotropic elastic (epoxy), respectively, as described in Section 3.2.
Figure 3.5 shows the analysis results (RVE volume averaged engineering stress in x-
direction) for varying mesh density levels and Table 3.3 tabulates the relative CPU time
for each mesh level. There is a clear difference between the coarse mesh (level 1) and
other three meshes, however the mesh density level 3 and level 4 (fine) show very similar
results. The mesh density level 3 gives a relatively low relative CPU time compared
with the fine meshed RVE. Thus, it can be concluded from the Figure 3.4 and Table 3.3
that the mesh density level 3 is sufficient to provide the accurate results. Moreover, the
maximum mises equivalent stress of each mesh density level is shown in Figure 3.6, it
shows that the maximum stress becomes constant through mesh refinement and mesh
density level 3 is sufficient to provide the maximum mises equivalent stress proximity to
mesh density level 4. Hence, further simulations are performed using mesh density level
3. The non–crimp composite RVE is meshed with the identical mesh density level 3 due
to the same conclusion.
3.4 Microscopic level analyses
The mechanical behavior of the RVEs under uniaxial tensile strain in warp and weft
directions, different prescribed biaxial tensile strains, compression strain and in–plane
shear strain are analyzed in this section. The material of yarns and matrix are considered
as CFRP and epoxy, respectively (Section 3.2).
Micro–structural modeling 23
(a) level 1 (coarse mesh) (b) level 2
(c) level 3 (d) level 4 (fine mesh)
Figure 3.4: Textile composite RVE meshes with different mesh density levels (matrix on the
left and yarns on the right).
Table 3.3: Textile RVE mesh statistics
Mesh density level Number of nodes Number of elements DOF Relative CPU time
1 (coarse) 2155 5429 6465 1.00
2 4662 13009 13986 3.93
3 18191 32905 54573 13.17
4 (fine) 28901 61380 86703 41.67
24 Chapter 3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
ε
x
(%)
P
M
x
(
M
P
a
)
Engineering stress in x−direction averaged over RVE volume for textile RVE


1 (coarse)
2
3
4 (fine)
Figure 3.5: Engineering stress in x-direction averaged over RVE volume versus strain in the
same direction for different mesh densities of the textile RVE.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
x 10
4
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Degrees of freedom of the microscopic model
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

m
i
s
e
s

e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
The maximum mises equivalent stress versus degrees of freedom for the mesh refinement


level 1 (coarse)
level 2
level 3
level 4 (fine)
Figure 3.6: The maximum mises equivalent stress for different mesh densities of the textile
RVE.
Micro–structural modeling 25
3.4.1 Tension test
The characteristic of crimp of the yarns has a significant influence on the mechanical
behavior of a composite structure. In the case of uniaxial tensile strain on a textile RVE,
yarns under tensile strain tend to straighten, whereas, the crimp of yarns in transverse
direction tend to increase. This phenomenon is called crimp interchange and it occurs in
the case of biaxial tensile strain as well, i.e. the yarns in one direction has an influence on
the behavior of the yarns in transverse direction. The nature of crimp interchange can be
influenced by the geometrical properties of the yarns and it has a significant influence on
the strength of a composite structure [59]. The mechanical response of the RVEs under
uniaxial tension tests is studied first, followed by the biaxial tension tests.
3.4.1.1 Uniaxial tension
The prescribed deformation applied on the RVEs for the uniaxial tension in warp and
weft directions are
F
uniaxial warp
=
_
_
1 +
xx
γ
xy
γ
xz
γ
yx
1 +
yy
γ
yz
γ
zx
γ
zy
1 +
zz
_
_
=
_
_
1 +
xx
0 0
0 unprescribed 0
0 0 unprescribed
_
_
,
and
F
uniaxial weft
=
_
_
1 +
xx
γ
xy
γ
xz
γ
yx
1 +
yy
γ
yz
γ
zx
γ
zy
1 +
zz
_
_
=
_
_
unprescribed 0 0
0 unprescribed 0
0 0 1 +
zz
_
_
,
respectively, where the “unprescribed” in the deformation gradient implied that the RVE
is free to contract or expand in the corresponding direction. The RVE is imposed by the
periodic boundary conditions.
Through the comparison between Figure 3.7(a) and Figure 3.7(b), the stress value in
warp direction is higher than the weft direction in the textile RVE because of the higher
volume fraction in warp yarns compared to weft yarns which characterizes the number of
fibers. Moreover, the effective longitudinal modulus for warp yarns is higher compared
with weft yarns due to the lower maximum undulation angle of warp yarns at the initial
state, i.e. the waviness of the weft yarns are higher than warp yarns [54]. Note that the
stress value for the non–crimp RVE is slightly higher than the textile RVE under uniaxial
tensile strain in warp and weft directions because of the aforementioned explanation.
Although the non-crimp RVE enables to sustain slightly higher stress compared with
textile RVE, the development and application of textile composites in aerospace structures
is tremendous successfully due to the cost efficient and ease to produce a low-cost and
reliable composite structural components with complex shapes [2, 89].
3.4.1.2 Biaxial tension
The biaxial tensile strain can be achieved by applying the strain in the longitudinal
direction of warp and weft yarns in various biaxial strain ratios, k
k =

2

1
, (3.1)
where
1
is the primary textile strain direction and
2
is the secondary textile strain
direction. The primary and secondary textile strain directions correspond either to the
warp or weft yarn strain depending on whether warp or weft strain is plotted. The RVE
26 Chapter 3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
ε
x
(%)
σ
x
x

(
M
P
a
)
Cauchy stress of xx−component averaged over RVE volume for uniaxial tensile in x−direction


textile RVE
non−crimp RVE
(a) uniaxial strain: warp
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
ε
z
(%)
σ
z
z

(
M
P
a
)
Cauchy stress of zz−component averaged over RVE volume for uniaxial tensile in z−direction


textile RVE
non−crimp RVE
(b) uniaxial strain: weft
Figure 3.7: The Cauchy stress averaged over RVE volume for uniaxial tensile strain of (a)
warp or (b) weft direction.
is free to contract in y-axis (thickness direction). The deformation gradient tensor for
the biaxial tension is
F =
_
_
1 +
xx
γ
xy
γ
xz
γ
yx
1 +
yy
γ
yz
γ
zx
γ
zy
1 +
zz
_
_
=
_
_
1 +
xx
0 0
0 unprescribed 0
0 0 1 +
zz
_
_
,
where either
xx
or
zz
is the primary strain for the particular k value. The RVE is
imposed by the periodic boundary conditions.
The mechanical behavior under biaxial strain tension with the primary strain direction
(
1
) either warp or weft is studied separately due to the unbalanced yarn nature in the
textile RVE. Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 show the computed volume averaged Cauchy stress
of xx- and zz-component for different k values of weft and warp as primary direction,
respectively. By comparing both figures, the strain ratio has smaller influence on the
response of the warp yarns because the weft yarns are not able to impede the straitening
of warp yarns due to the higher crimp (i.e. higher waviness) of the weft yarns (Figure 3.8).
On the contrary, the behavior in the weft yarns is strongly influenced by the strain ratio,
i.e. the mechanical behavior of weft yarns is strongly depended on the mechanical behavior
of the warp yarns (Figure 3.9). Note that the stress value in warp direction (Figure 3.8(a)
and Figure 3.9(a)) is higher than the stress value in weft direction (Figure 3.8(b) and
Figure 3.9(b)) due to the aforementioned explanation (yarns waviness and yarn volume
fraction in warp and weft directions) in Section 3.4.1.1.
3.4.2 Compression test
The mechanical response of the RVEs under in–plane uniaxial compressive strain applied
in warp or weft direction is studied in this section. The applied uniaxial compression
deformation in warp and weft directions are
F
compression warp
=
_
_
1 +
xx
γ
xy
γ
xz
γ
yx
1 +
yy
γ
yz
γ
zx
γ
zy
1 +
zz
_
_
=
_
_
0.99 0 0
0 unprescribed 0
0 0 unprescribed
_
_
,
and
Micro–structural modeling 27
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
ε
x
(%)
σ
x
x

(
M
P
a
)
Cauchy stress of xx−component averaged over RVE volume for k=ε
warp

weft


k = 0
k = 0.5
k = 1
k = 2
(a)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
ε
z
(%)
σ
z
z

(
M
P
a
)
Cauchy stress of zz−component averaged over RVE volume for k=ε
warp

weft


k = 0
k = 0.5
k = 1
k = 2
(b)
Figure 3.8: The Cauchy stress of (a) xx- and (b) zz-component averaged over RVE volume
for different biaxial strain ratio, k =

warp
/

weft
(primary strain in weft direction).
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
ε
x
(%)
σ
x
x

(
M
P
a
)
Cauchy stress of xx−component averaged over RVE volume for k=ε
weft

warp


k = 0
k = 0.5
k = 1
k = 2
(a)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
ε
z
(%)
σ
z
z

(
M
P
a
)
Cauchy stress of zz−component averaged over RVE volume for k=ε
weft

warp



k = 0
k = 0.5
k = 1
k = 2
(b)
Figure 3.9: The Cauchy stress of (a) xx- and (b) zz-component averaged over RVE volume
for different biaxial strain ratio, k =

weft
/

warp
(primary strain in warp direction).
28 Chapter 3
F
compression weft
=
_
_
1 +
xx
γ
xy
γ
xz
γ
yx
1 +
yy
γ
yz
γ
zx
γ
zy
1 +
zz
_
_
=
_
_
unprescribed 0 0
0 unprescribed 0
0 0 0.99
_
_
,
respectively. The RVE is imposed by the periodic boundary conditions.
Figure 3.10 shows the Cauchy stress-strain response in compression. The compressive
stress value in the warp direction is higher than that in the weft direction. This is
attributed by the warp yarns are relatively straighter compared with the weft yarns at
the deformed geometrical state, as shown in Figure 3.11, and the difference of the yarn
volume fraction in the warp and weft directions in the RVE for sustaining the compression
loading in the corresponding direction.
Besides that, the results in Figure 3.10 indicate that the non–crimp RVE has higher
compression stress as compared to the textile one, as a result of the yarns waviness in the
textile RVE. This study only shows qualitatively that the compressive stress decreases
with increasing the yarn waviness. However, the study of the influence of waviness pa-
rameters, such as wavelength and amplitude, on the compressive mechanical response is
out of scope of this project.
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0
−1200
−1000
−800
−600
−400
−200
0
ε
x
(%)
σ
x
x

(
M
P
a
)
Cauchy stress of xx−component averaged over RVE volume for uniaxial compression in warp


textile RVE
non−crimp RVE
(a)
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0
−1200
−1000
−800
−600
−400
−200
0
ε
z
(%)
σ
z
z

(
M
P
a
)
Cauchy stress of zz−component averaged over RVE volume for uniaxial compression in weft


textile RVE
non−crimp RVE
(b)
Figure 3.10: The Cauchy stress averaged over textile and non–crimp RVEs under compressive
in (a) warp or (b) weft direction.
3.4.3 Shear test
In this section, the RVEs are analyzed to the in–plane shear strain (γ
xz
= 0.01 and
γ
zx
= 0.01) with the following applied deformation,
F =
_
_
1 +
xx
γ
xy
γ
xz
γ
yx
1 +
yy
γ
yz
γ
zx
γ
zy
1 +
zz
_
_
=
_
_
0 0 0.01
0 unprescribed 0
0.01 0 0
_
_
.
The RVE is imposed by the periodic boundary conditions.
The mechanical behavior of the RVE under tensile strain is yarn dominated (i.e. fiber
dominated). However, the mechanical behavior of the RVE is matrix dominated under
shear loading, which has less influenced by the yarns architecture [10]. It can be ob-
served that the stress-strain curves for textile and non-crimp RVEs are nearly coincide
(with the difference of 2.56% compared with 7.52% and 7.44% for unixial tension (Fig-
ure 3.7(a)) and compression (Figure 3.10(a)) in warp direction, respectively), as shown
Micro–structural modeling 29
(a) (b)
Figure 3.11: The von Mises equivalent stress of the yarns under uniaxial compressive strain
in (a) warp and (b) weft direction. (Stress contour plot values from 40 to 2950 MPa,
deformation scaled up ×15)
in Figure 3.12. Besides that, the stress contour of the textile (Figure 3.13(a)) and non–
crimp (Figure 3.13(b)) RVEs are comparable. This may indicate that the crimp effect
plays a minor role in the mechanical response of the textile RVE under in–plane shear
loading. From Figure 3.14, it can be observed that the mechanical response of the RVE
is dominated by matrix where the maximum principal logarithmic strain in the matrix is
higher compared with yarn.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
γ
xz
(%)
σ
x
z

(
M
P
a
)
Cauchy stress of xz−component averaged over RVE volume for in−plane shear ( γ
xz
& γ
zx
)


textile RVE
non−crimp RVE
Figure 3.12: The Cauchy stress averaged over RVE volume for the in–plane shear strain (
xz
and
zx
)
30 Chapter 3
(a) (b)
Figure 3.13: The von Mises equivalent stress of the (a) textile and (b) non–crimp yarns in the
RVE under in–plane shear strain (
xz
= 0.01 and
zx
= 0.01) (Deformation scaled
up ×15).
(a) (b)
Figure 3.14: The maximum principal logarithmic strain field of the (a) matrix and (b) yarns
in the RVE under in–plane shear strain (
xz
= 0.01 and
zx
= 0.01) (Deformation
scaled up ×15).
Chapter 4
Application of the multi–scale
modeling framework
In this chapter, the applicability of the multi–scale framework to the analysis on the
macroscopic textile structures will be illustrated. It will be shown that this is a valuable
and powerful tool to redesign and improve the structural integrity of the textile structures
without costly prototyping and testing.
4.1 Tensile test on a cross–ply laminate
The applicability of the multi–scale framework to predict the initiation of failure modes
in the [45
o
/−45
o
/45
o
/−45
o
]
s
laminated composite under tensile load is evaluated. The
±45
o
tensile test is typically performed for the mechanical analysis of textile composites
to shear [60].
Figure 4.1 shows the twill weave laminated composite sample with stacking sequence of
[45
o
/−45
o
/45
o
/−45
o
]
s
under tensile test performed at the National Aerospace Laboratory
(NLR). It has been noted that the failure of the sample occurs near to the edge of gage
region. For the sake of simplification, only the gage region of the composite sample is
modeled for the multi–scale analysis, as shown in Figure 4.2. Due to the symmetrical
ply lay–up sequence, only half of the thickness is modeled. The dimensions of the model
are shown in Table 4.1 which correspond to the dimensions of a standard tension testing
sample of textile composite [43]. The model is meshed with (Width)3 × (Length)5 ×
(Height)4 elements. The model is subjected to longitudinal extension loading (in x-
direction), where the nodes on surface at x=0 and x=L are restricted to the movement
in y- and z-directions to represent the clamping effect, i.e. to restrict the composite
sample from rotation as in the actual composite testing sample. Symmetrical BCs are
applied at the bottom of xz-plane to represent the symmetrical ply lay–up sequence
of the macroscopic model. The BCs applied on the macroscopic model are shown in
Figure 4.3. Every integration point is assign to the textile representative volume element
(RVE) (Figure 3.4(c)). The textile RVEs are rotated to +45
o
or −45
o
with respect to
y–axis at the global coordinate system, corresponding to the +45
o
or −45
o
layer of the
macroscopic model, respectively. The material of yarns and matrix are considered as
carbon fiber–reinforced plastic (CFRP) and epoxy, respectively (see Table 3.2).
The Figure 4.4 shows the result of the simulation, where the high strain concentration
regions in the macroscopic model. By qualitatively comparing this high strain concen-
tration region with the region of failure of the tested composite sample (Figure 4.1), the
31
32 Chapter 4
tensile loading direction
Figure 4.1: The tested composite tension test sample with shear failure mode. (The marked
region represents shear failure mode dominated by matrix material (insert) of the
sample.) (Photo courtesy of Fokker Landing Gear B.V.)
X
Y
Z
y
x
L
W
H
z
layer 45
o
layer -45
o
layer 45
o
layer -45
o
Figure 4.2: The macroscopic structure model (with the dimensions shown in Table 4.1) for
the tensile test is meshed with (Width)3 × (Length)5 × (Height)4 elements. The
zoom in view shows the model is meshed with four elements through thickness
and the stacking sequence of the model.
Table 4.1: The dimensions of the tension test on a cross–ply composite laminate
[45
o
/−45
o
/45
o
/−45
o
]
s
(Figure 4.2).
width (W) length (L) height (H)
2.5mm 130.0mm 1.2mm
Application of the multi–scale modeling framework 33
y
x
z
boundary conditions of the side clamp
and tension
D
x
= 0.13
D
D
y
z
= 0
= 0
boundary conditions of the side clamp
D
x
= 0
D
D
y
z
= 0
= 0
boundary conditions of
the symmetrical plane
R
x
= 0
D
R
y
z
= 0
= 0
Figure 4.3: The applied boundary conditions of the [45
o
/−45
o
/45
o
/−45
o
]
s
composite model.
(The D and R indicate the displacement (in millimeter) and rotation (in radian), respec-
tively. The subscript “x”, “y” and “z” are the directions in x, y and z-axis at the global
coordinate system, respectively.)
high strain concentration region in the macroscopic structure correctly indicate the failure
initiation region, this illustrate the multi–scale framework in principle enables to predict
the regions of failure quantitatively, provided that the RVEs are adequate to represent
the actual textile microscopic structure. From Figure 4.4, the maximum principal loga-
rithmic strain of the RVE corresponding to macroscopic high strain region is shown. It is
shown that the local strain in the matrix is approximately 6 times higher than the macro-
scopic strain. Thus, the prediction of the mechanical response at the microscopic level
which may contribute to the macroscopic failure is considerably important and should be
investigated in order to improve the structural integrity.
Since the deformation of the sample is shear dominated within all layers for the ±45

composite tensile test and mainly dominated by matrix [10,60]. This can also be observed
from Figure 4.1, where the sample failed mainly due to the shearing of matrix material.
Therefore, the initiation of this principal failure mode in the matrix by shearing should
be predicted first, followed by the failure modes of yarns.
Figure 4.5(a) and 4.5(b) show the maximum principal logarithmic strain of the matrix
and yarns, respectively. It can be observed that the strain in the matrix is higher than in
the yarns, as matrix material has lower stiffness compared with yarns. The high strains
tend to concentrate in the matrix between the warp and weft yarns region (interlacing
region), as shown in Figure 4.6, because that region has relatively few matrix material to
bear the stress. This finding is consistent with Ref. [33] where it has been concluded the
high strains tend to occur between the yarns. Therefore, this may indicate the earliest
fracture initiation of the matrix in the interlacing region.
Recall that the yarn, in reality, is composed of matrix and fibers, although both
constituents are not modeled distinguishably in the yarns (see Section 3.1). However,
the failure of matrix within yarn should be expected in actual textile composite sample.
Figure 4.5(b) shows the local high strain regions in the warp yarns. Note that the strain
value in the warp yarns is higher compared to the weft yarns, this is due to the difference
of the effective shear stiffness, G of the warp and weft yarns. The effective shear stiffness
is higher for the yarns with lower maximum undulation angle [54]. Hence, the effective
shear stiffness is higher for the warp yarns due to the lower maximum undulation angle
(i.e. lower waviness) of the yarns. This is consistent with the studies of failure behavior
34 Chapter 4
macroscopic high strain region
macroscopic
structure
textile RVE matrix
textile RVE yarns
Figure 4.4: The maximum principal logarithmic strain contour for the macroscopic composite
model under tension test with the orientation of [45
o
/−45
o
/45
o
/−45
o
]
s
, coupled
with ±45
o
textile RVEs; inserts: the deformed +45

textile RVE (matrix and
yarns), corresponding to the high strain region in the macroscopic structure. The
maximum principal logarithmic strain contour bar for the macroscopic structure
and RVE are shown at the position of lower left and upper right, respectively.
(The deformation scaled up ×400 and ×300 for the macroscopic structure and the RVE,
respectively.)
of the plain weave textile laminates under in–plane shear loading by Ganesh et al. [15].
As a result, in reality, micro–cracking of matrix within the yarns will exist in a ±45
o
composite tensile testing sample, the warp yarn may fail prior to weft yarn due to the
higher strain borne by the warp yarn [57, 58] (also known as intra–yarn micro–cracking).
The intra–yarn micro–cracking from the warp yarns may spread within the yarns results
in interfacial delamination between the matrix and the fibers and spread into the matrix
rich part results in fracture of matrix.
Finally, with the prediction of the combination failures of the matrix (in the interlacing
region) and the yarns, the final macroscopic catastrophic shear failure mode of the sample
(Figure 4.1) can be predicted through the multi–scale analysis.
In order to improve the structural integrity, the matrix with high strain in the in-
terlacing region (Figure 4.6) has to be reduced. According to the architecture of the
modeled plain weave textile RVE (Figure 3.1(a)), the warp yarns are considerably more
important than the weft yarns, because the warp yarns are able to sustain higher tensile
and compression stresses compared to the weft yarns. To achieve this, the weft yarn
volume fraction can be reduced, i.e. increase the matrix volume fraction, particularly
at the interlacing region. Thus, more matrix material in the interlacing region will be
available to bear the stress. Thus, the modified RVE has warp and weft yarn volume
fractions of 0.2478 and 0.0175, respectively (compared with the yarn volume fraction of
0.2478 and 0.0348 in warp and weft directions, respectively, before the reduction of the
weft yarn volume fraction). The modified RVE is coupled to the macroscopic composite
model (Figure 4.2) and the same boundary conditions (Figure 4.3) are applied on the
macroscopic structure model.
Figure 4.7 shows the maximum principal logarithmic strain in the matrix of which
Application of the multi–scale modeling framework 35
(a)
local high strain regions
in the warp yarns
(b)
Figure 4.5: The maximum principal logarithmic strain contour in (a) the matrix and (b) yarn
materials for the +45

textile RVE in the macroscopic high strain region of the
±45

composite model. (The region marked in (b) indicates the local high strain region
of warp yarns. The deformation scaled up ×300)
local high strain
region in the matrix
cross section plane
view side
Figure 4.6: The maximum principal logarithmic strain contour in a cross section view of the
+45

textile RVE matrix material in the macroscopic high strain region of the
±45

composite model. (The region marked in the figure indicate the local high strain
region; the deformation is scaled up ×300.)
36 Chapter 4
the volume fraction has been increased, the strain color bar has been re–set equivalent
to the color bar in Figure 4.6 for comparison purposes. As can be seen in Figure 4.7, the
high strain concentration in the interlacing region has been reduced due to the increase
of the matrix material in that region.
Next, as explained previously, since the warp yarns are considerably more important
than the weft yarns, the high strain concentration region within the yarns has to be shifted
from the warp to weft directions, such that the weft yarns preferably fail prior to warp
yarns. Therefore, glass fibers–reinforced plastic (GFRP) is selected for the weft yarns to
substitute the carbon fibers–reinforced plastic (CFRP) due to the lower shear stiffness
of the GFRP compared with CDFP, i.e. the strain in weft yarns is higher compared
with warp yarns. This may result the failure initiation in the weft yarns, as shown in
Figure 4.8. The material properties of the GFRP, CFRP and the matrix are shown in
Table 4.2.
By comparing the Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.4, as a result of improving the microscopic
structural integrity through the modification of the RVEs, the structural integrity of the
macroscopic composite model has been improved. It can be seen that the maximum strain
of the composite model has been reduced with approximately 1.5%. This indicates that
the macroscopic composite model with the microscopic structural integrity improvement
will be able to fail later than the macroscopic composite model without the microscopic
structural integrity improvement.
Table 4.2: Material properties of constituent materials for the textile RVE models of carbon
fibers–reinforced plastic (CFRP) on warp yarns [73] and glass fiber–reinforced plas-
tic (GFRP) on weft yarns [20](the elastic modulus, E and shear modulus, G are
shown in unit of GPa).
Property E
1
E
2
E
3
G
12
G
13
G
23
v
12
v
13
v
23
Warp yarn (CFRP) 40.0 40.0 230.0 14.3 24.0 24.0 0.26 0.26 0.26
Weft yarn (GFRP) 9.9 9.9 36.6 3.8 4.1 4.1 0.30 0.27 0.27
Property E v
Matrix (epoxy) 3.5 0.35
As a concluding remark to this section, it has been demonstrated that the modification
of the RVE properties, e.g. material and geometrical properties in order to improve the
structural integrity can easily be done in the developed multi–scale framework. This
demonstrates the power, added value and the flexibility of the framework. Next, the
multi–scale analysis will be performed on the notched laminate composite, to illustrate
the capabilities of the framework on a relatively complex composite structure.
4.2 Compression test on a notched quasi–isotropic
laminate
In this section, the multi-scale analysis is performed on a notched textile composite. In
many engineering structures, holes are required to be drilled or moulded–in into laminates
to facilitate bolting or riveting to the main load–bearing structures [18]. As a valuable
reference, Figure 4.10 and Figure 4.11 show the failure modes of the four–harness satin
Application of the multi–scale modeling framework 37
cross section plane
view side
Figure 4.7: The maximum principal logarithmic strain contour in a cross section view of the
+45

textile RVE matrix material (after the increase of the matrix volume frac-
tion) in the macroscopic high strain region of the ±45

composite model. (The
logarithmic strain contour bar is re–set equivalent to Figure 4.6 for comparison purposes;
the deformation is scaled up ×300.)
local high strain regions
in the weft yarns
Figure 4.8: The maximum principal logarithmic strain contour of the +45

textile RVE yarn
material where warp yarns are the carbon fibers-reinforced and weft yarns are
the glass fibers-reinforced (from the macroscopic high strain region) for the ±45

composite. (The region marked in the figure indicats the local high strain region of the
weft yarns; the deformation is scaled up ×300.)
38 Chapter 4
macroscopic high strain region
macroscopic
structure
Figure 4.9: The maximum principal logarithmic strain contour for the macroscopic compos-
ite model under tension test with the orientation of [45
o
/−45
o
/45
o
/−45
o
]
s
, cou-
pled with ±45
o
textile RVEs which the matrix volume fraction has been increase
and the weft yarns has been substituted from the carbon fiber–reinforced plastic
(CFRP) to glass fiber–reinforced plastic (GFRP). The properties of these materi-
als are shown in Table 4.2.
textile composite [41] and the quasi–isotropic eight–shaft satin cloth woven composite [18]
under compressive load. Notice that the macroscopic failure modes for a notched textile
composite are relatively complex. Therefore, it is interesting to understand the com-
pressive behavior of the textile composite materials microscopically and investigate the
applicability of the developed multi–scale framework on this structure under compression
loading.
Figure 4.12 shows the finite element (FE) model of a notched macroscopic laminated
structure with the lay–up sequence of [45
o
/0
o
/−45
o
/90
o
]
S
. Due to the symmetrical ply
lay–up sequence, only half of the thickness is modeled. The dimensions of the model
are shown in Table 4.3 which correspond to standard dimensions for a notched textile
composite testing sample [43]. A circular hole of 6.0mm in diameter is centrally positioned
in the model. A symmetrical quarter of the model cannot be modeled due to the existence
of ±45
o
lay–ups. The model is meshed with 64 elements of type C3D8 (8-node 3D
linear brick element). The model is subjected to longitudinal compression loading (in
x-direction), where the nodes on surface at x=0 and x=L are restricted in the movement
to y- and z-direction to represent the clamping effect preventing the rotation of the
sample, as is the case in a standard testing of the composite. Due to the symmetrical
ply lay–up sequence, the symmetrical BCs are applied on the bottom of xz-plane (see
Figure 4.13). Every integration point of the notched quasi–isotropic composite is assigned
with the textile RVE (Figure 3.4(c)). the textile RVE is rotated to +45
o
, 0

, −45
o
or 90
o
with respect to y-axis on the global coordinate system, to represent the +45
o
, 0

, −45
o
or 90
o
–ply on the macroscopic model, respectively. The material of yarns and matrix
are considered as carbon fiber–reinforced plastic (CFRP) and epoxy, respectively (see
Table 3.2).
Figure 4.14 shows the stress contour of the model at each layer. At each layer, high
stress region near to the hole edge on the model may represent the initiation of the local
Application of the multi–scale modeling framework 39
localized
failure region
c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

l
o
a
d
i
n
g
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
(a)
delamination
(b)
compression loading
direction
(c)
compression loading
direction
(d)
Figure 4.10: The failure modes of the notched four–harness satin weave textile composite
sample under compression load, which are (a) localized damage in the vicinity to
the hole edge, (b) delamination inside the edge of hole, and the final catastrophic
failure of the sample from (c) in–plane view and (d) thickness view [41].
compression loading
direction
(a)
c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

l
o
a
d
i
n
g
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
(b)
Figure 4.11: The failure modes near to the drilled hole for a quasi–isotropic eight–shaft satin
textile composite under compression loading, (a) thickness view and (b) in–plane
view [18].
40 Chapter 4
y
W
L
H
layer 45
o
layer -45
o
layer 0
o
layer 90
o
x
z
Figure 4.12: The meshed notched macroscopic structure for compression testing with dimen-
sions of (Width)36.0mm × (Length)36.0mm × (Height)1.2mm and the circular
hole of 6.0mm in diameter is located centrally in the model through the thickness.
Table 4.3: The dimensions of the compression test on a notched composite laminate
[45
o
/0
o
/−45
o
/90
o
]
S
(Figure 4.12).
width (W) length (L) height (H)
36.0mm 36.0mm 1.2mm
y
x
z
boundary conditions of the side clamp
and compression
D
x
= -0.036
D
D
y
z
= 0
= 0
boundary conditions of the side clamp
D
x
= 0
D
D
y
z
= 0
= 0
boundary conditions of
the symmetrical plane
R
x
= 0
D
R
y
z
= 0
= 0
Figure 4.13: The applied boundary conditions of the notched composite model with stacking
sequence of [45
o
/0
o
/−45
o
/90
o
]
S
. (The D and R indicate the displacement (in mil-
limeter) and rotation (in radian), respectively. The subscript “x”, “y” and “z” are the
directions in x, y and z-axis at the global coordinate system, respectively.)
Application of the multi–scale modeling framework 41
failure, as shown in Figure 4.10(a). Note, that the high stress regions on layer 45

and
−45

differ due to different ply direction, i.e. the high stress region contour for layer
45
o
and −45
o
have opposite directions (see Figure 4.14(a) and 4.14(c)). However, the
high stress region contour for layer 0

and 90

are comparable, except the stress value is
higher for layer 0

compared to layer 90

because the compressive stress in warp direction
is higher than weft direction due to the higher yarn volume fraction of the warp yarn. It
has been observed experimentally [41] that the localized failure region at the hole edge
contributed by the microscopic level failure and may lead to catastrophic failure, as shown
in Figure 4.10(c). Therefore, the analysis and prediction of failure modes through the
underlying textile RVE at the hole edge from each layer should be made. Figure 4.15
shows the stress contour for the cross sectional view (half of the model width through yz-
plane view) of the notched composite model with the underlying deformed textile RVEs
from the high stress region in every layer.
x
z
(a)
x
z
(b)
x
z
(c)
x
z
(d)
Figure 4.14: The von Mises stress contours of the notched macroscopic model of layer (a)
45
o
, (b) 0
o
, (c) −45
o
and (d) 90
o
from xz-plane view. The compression load is
applied in x-direction.
Figure 4.16 and Figure 4.17 show the displacement magnitude components for the 45

,
0

, −45

and 90

textile RVEs from the macroscopic high strain region. The displacement
magnitude components are computed through the displacements of the four corner nodes
(see Figure 2.4) and they are defined on the global coordinate system (Figure 3.1(a))
for comparison purposes between textile RVEs. It can be seen that the displacement in
x-direction for the textile RVEs is higher than y- and z-directions due to the applied com-
42 Chapter 4
textile RVE of layer 45
o
textile RVE of layer 0
o
textile RVE of layer -45
o
textile RVE of layer 90
o
x
z
y
cross section plane
view side
Figure 4.15: The von Mises stress contour for the cross section view of the macroscopic
notched composite model under compression load with the orientation of
[+45
o
/0
o
/−45
o
/90
o
]
S
, coupled with ±45
o
, 0
o
and 90
o
textile RVEs. The de-
formed RVEs (matrix and yarn) from each layer, corresponding to the high stress
region vicinity to the hole edge on the macroscopic structure are shown. (The
von Mises stress contour bar for the macroscopic structure and RVE are shown at the
position of upper left and lower right, respectively. The deformation is scaled up ×15
for the textile RVEs)
pressive displacement in x-axis on the macroscopic model. Next, the magnitude of the
displacement of y-component for both textile RVEs is higher than the z-component, i.e.
the displacement in thickness direction is higher than the width direction. The displace-
ment magnitudes in the width direction (z-component) for the ±45

, 0

and 90

RVEs are
not equivalent. Furthermore, the displacements in y-direction of the corner node 2 (see
Figure 2.4) for the 45

, −45

, 0

and 90

textile RVEs from the width view are shown in
Figure 4.18 (note: the displacement of the corner node 1 for all RVEs is zero because this
node is located at the origin of the coordinate system, (0, 0, 0)). It can be seen that the
displacement in y-direction of the corner node 2 for all RVEs are different. Thus, these
may attribute to the inter–ply delamination around the hole at the macroscopic failure
(see Figure 4.10(b)). However, the prediction of delamination between layers due to the
aforementioned explanations has to be interpreted with caution, since the interaction of
the RVEs between layers has not been modeled and the characteristic thickness size of
the RVE is comparable to the macroscopic structure ply thickness.
In the actual textile composite sample, the buckling of the fibers along the compression
loading direction may also be expected [9]. Due to the higher volume fraction of the warp
yarn for the 0

textile RVE, it may be anticipated that the fibers within warp yarn for the
0
o
textile RVE tend to buckle at the higher stress than the weft yarn in the 90
o
textile
RVE at the interlacing region (it is assumed that the undulation of the warp and weft
yarns at the interlacing region are considerably comparable), as shown in Figure 4.19(a)
and Figure 4.19(b). On the other hand, it is anticipated that the fibers within weft yarn
for 90

are buckled in higher strain due to the support provided by the fibers in warp
yarn (with higher volume fraction). Besides that, the matrix material (surrounding the
fibers) restrictes the buckling of the fibers. Thus, the buckling strain for the fibers within
Application of the multi–scale modeling framework 43
−0.4 −0.35 −0.3 −0.25 −0.2 −0.15 −0.1 −0.05 0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
Displacement in compression direction for macro−structure (mm)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

R
V
E

+
4
5

(
m
m
)
Displacement magnitude directions for RVE +45 vs macro−structure compression displacement


x−component (length)
y−component (thickness)
z−component (width)
(a)
−0.4 −0.35 −0.3 −0.25 −0.2 −0.15 −0.1 −0.05 0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
Displacement in compression direction for macro−structure (mm)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

R
V
E


4
5

(
m
m
)
Displacement magnitude directions for RVE −45 vs macro−structure compression displacement


x−component (length)
y−component (thickness)
z−component (width)
(b)
Figure 4.16: The displacements magnitude of x-, y-, and z-components for the (a) +45

and
(b) −45

textile RVE from the macroscopic high stress region of the notched
composite model. The displacement components are plotted against the applied
compressive displacement (x-direction) for the notched composite model.
44 Chapter 4
−0.4 −0.35 −0.3 −0.25 −0.2 −0.15 −0.1 −0.05 0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
Displacement in compression direction for macro−structure (mm)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

R
V
E

0

(
m
m
)
Displacement magnitude directions for RVE 0 vs macro−structure compression displacement


x−component (length)
y−component (thickness)
z−component (width)
(a)
−0.4 −0.35 −0.3 −0.25 −0.2 −0.15 −0.1 −0.05 0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
Displacement in compression direction for macro−structure (mm)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

R
V
E

9
0

(
m
m
)
Displacement magnitude directions for RVE 90 vs macro−structure compression displacement


x−component (length)
y−component (thickness)
z−component (width)
(b)
Figure 4.17: The displacement magnitude of x-, y- and z-component for the (a) 0

and (b) 90

textile RVEs from the macroscopic high stress region of the notched composite
model. The displacement component is plotted against the applied compressive
displacement (x-direction) for the notched composite model.
Application of the multi–scale modeling framework 45
X
Y
Z
0.0007279 mm
deformed
configuration
initial
configuration
(a)
0.0001425 mm
(b)
0.00015597 mm
(c)
0.0000275 mm
(d)
Figure 4.18: The displacement magnitude of the (a) +45

, (b) 0

, (c) −45

and (d) 90

textile
RVEs from the width view. The initial configuration is shown in element line
plot, whereas, the deformed configuration is shown without the element line plot.
The displacement in y-direction for the corner node 2 (see Figure 2.4) between
initial and deformed configurations is shown in every RVE. (Deformation scaled
up ×20)
46 Chapter 4
weft yarn and buckling stress for the fibers within warp yarn will be increased, when the
stiffness of the matrix increases.
Next, the modifications of the textile RVE are possible in order to improve the micro-
scopic structural integrity, e.g. through usage of different material for warp and weft yarns,
different textile geometries, or different textile composite type (such as three–dimensional
textile composite). However, it is out of the scope of the current analysis. The objective
of this section was to demonstrate the capability and applicability of the framework to the
analysis of notched textile composite. Besides that, the re–implementation of the frame-
work is unnecessary for various macroscopic (e.g. standard tensile test composite model,
notched composite, etc.) and microscopic models (textile RVEs with varying material
and geometrical properties), this demonstrates the flexibility of the framework.
y
x
z
warp yarn
weft yarn
(a)
y
x
z
warp yarn
weft yarn
(b)
Figure 4.19: The von Mises stress of the matrix material for the (a) 0
o
and (b) 90
o
textile
RVEs from the high stress region of the notched macroscopic structure. (Stress
contour plot values from 96 to 3150 MPa, deformation scaled up ×15)
Chapter 5
Conclusions and recommendations
5.1 Conclusions
A framework for the multi–scale analysis of composite structures has been developed
and performed. The advanced micro–mechanics modeling approach has been combined
through the computational homogenization with the structural analysis capabilities of
Abaqus with its subroutines. The Abaqus subroutines enable to link the macro– and
micro–scale composites structure analysis down to the level of the fiber (for unidirectional
composite materials), yarn (for textile composite materials) and matrix constituents at
each integration point for each macroscopic loading and iteration. As a result, the mecha-
nisms of the microscopic composite materials in the macroscopic structure can be studied
in great detail collectively. Furthermore, the developed multi–scale computational ho-
mogenization framework circumvents the need for complex and anisotropic constitutive
models for composite materials analyses at the macroscopic and microscopic levels.
The correctness of the multi–scale framework for a heterogeneous material is demon-
strated and tested by performing the analysis on the unidirectional fiber–reinforced mi-
croscopic structure at the microscopic level analysis, as well as the macroscopic structure
(coupled with the unidirectional fiber–reinforced microscopic structure) for the multi–
scale analysis. The analysis results at both the microscopic level and the macroscopic
level (from multi–scale analysis) are considerably good in agreement with the analytical
solutions and the experimental data. Thus, the further multi–scale analyses on a rela-
tively complex microscopic composite structure (e.g. textile composite) can be performed
with a great level of confidence.
Due to the unrealistic for the modeled microscopic plain weave textile composite, no
comparisons between the analysis results and experimental data are made. However, the
simulation results are compared with the tested textile composite sample qualitatively.
In general, the prediction of the failure regions in the macroscopic composite model have
been predicted correctly. Moreover, in the microscopic textile composite, the predictions
of the failure initiation in the matrix and the yarns which may contribute to the macro-
scopic failure are made based on the local high stress or strain in the matrix or the yarns.
The predictions are shown to be consistent with the simulation results and tested textile
composite samples qualitatively from various research papers.
The multi–scale analysis example problems successfully demonstrated the applicabil-
ity, power, added value and the flexibility of the developed multi–scale analysis framework
to the analysis of textile composite structures. This development provides the opportu-
nities for the engineer to re–design and improve the structural integrity of the composite
47
48 Chapter 5
structures, macroscopically and microscopically, without costly prototyping and testing.
Therefore, this is one of the powerful and useful engineering tools for the future structural
analysis and design.
5.2 Recommendations for future work
While the conclusions of the current work were presented in the previous section, several
recommendations for further work will be discussed, as follow.
5.2.1 Multi–scale modeling framework
(i) The developed multi–scale framework only separates the structural length scale
into macroscopic (comparable to composite test sample) and microscopic (compa-
rable to the composite structure where the matrix constituent and yarn constituent
composed of fibers and matrix, are distinguishable). However, the framework has
potential to be developed for the separation of macroscopic (comparable to com-
posite test sample), microscopic (comparable to the composite structure where the
matrix constituent and the yarn constituent composed of fibers and matrix are dis-
tinguishable) and fiber–matrix level (comparable to the composite structure where
the matrix and fibers are distinguishable) length scales, as shown in Figure 5.1.
This separation of length scales is interesting to an engineer because in this way
the mechanical and material mechanisms of the structure can be predicted through
the combination of different matrix and fiber materials from various suppliers be-
fore placing the order of those materials. This should save the cost and time of
purchasing, shipping, fabrication, testing and experimental post–processing.
(ii) The developed multi–scale modeling framework enables the study of the local macro-
scopic mechanical and material behavior collectively. However, this approach is
considerably computationally expensive in terms of time and computer memory
and hard–disk space because the multi–scale analysis at every integration point in
the macroscopic structure has to be performed at each macroscopic loading incre-
ment and iteration. The advancement of the computer technologies, particularly
the speed of computing with the multi–core processor, has been improved signifi-
cantly in the past decades, thus, the computational time of multi–scale analysis is
expected to reduce significantly in the future and it will become a worthy tool for
the engineers and scientists. However, several solutions can be proposed in order to
improve the computational efficiency even further.
(a) The selective method [19] can be performed using the failure criterion, while on
the non–critical regions (e.g. elastic region), the stiffness tangent obtained from
the underlying RVEs can be kept constant throughout the analysis without per-
forming the multi–scale analysis. In the critical region (e.g. the failure criterion
is approaching the unity), the multi–scale analysis can be performed in order
to update the stiffness tangent. However, this method is unapplicable to the
analysis which interfacial delamination between the fibers and matrix is mod-
eled (if the length scale separation shown in Figure 5.1 is simulated) because
the macroscopic critical region where the interfacial delamination occurs is rel-
Conclusions and recommendations 49
atively difficult to predict. Therefore, the stiffness tangent has to be updated
at every macroscopic integration point.
(b) Parallel computing of the multi–scale analysis [13, 44] can be performed. In the
parallel computing of the multi–scale analysis, every RVE is analyzed simulta-
neously in multi–core processor.
(c) The subroutine UMAT is called for twice at the first iteration of each increment.
The deformation gradient tensor, F
M
is equivalent to identity tensor, I for every
RVE at the first iteration of first increment in order to obtain the initial stiffness
tangent. By utilizing this advantage, the multi–scale analysis can be performed
upon one RVE once at the first iteration of first increment in order to obtain
the identical stiffness tangent to represent other equivalent RVEs.
(iii) The developed framework can be applied to the static loading problems without
the necessity of re-implementation because the assumption of the principle of scale
separation is valid. In addition, the principle holds and the re–implementation of the
framework is unnecessary for the dynamic loading problems where the characteristic
wave length is much larger than the length scale of the RVE, i.e. at the RVE length
scale, this dynamic loading can be treated as a quasi–static loading. However, for
the case of the macroscopic dynamic loading wave length comparable to the length
scale of the RVE, the principle of separation is no longer valid. As a result, the
framework should be re-implemented for this loading problem.
yarn
matrix fiber
macroscopic microscopic
fiber-matrix
Figure 5.1: The length scales separation of macroscopic, microscopic and fiber–matrix levels.
5.2.2 Micro–structural modeling
(i) In this work, the plain weave textile RVE has been generated using TexGen [75],
then, it is imported into Abaqus [1] for the meshing and analysis. It is worth
to mention that the modeled RVE is considerably idealized (i.e. the fibers and the
matrix within the yarns are modeled as a single material and free of defects) and the
yarn volume fraction is lower than the actual textile composite (i.e. low fiber volume
fraction). These factors may cause the analysis results quantitatively incomparable
to the experimental data. In the actual fabricated textile composite, which has
higher fiber volume fraction (higher than 0.50 [76]), defects (may appear during
fabrication process) and delamination between the fiber and matrix interface exist.
However, such realistic RVE (especially the RVE with high yarn volume fraction) is
considerably time consuming and difficult to mesh due to the decreasing of matrix
volume within RVE.
50 Chapter 5
(ii) The modeled RVE is assumed to be used for the structural analysis during in–
service period. However, if the framework is to be used to analyze the textile
composite during fabrication process with high temperature (more than 100

[76])
is being applied to the fiber and matrix materials within composite. The thermo–
mechanical analysis should be performed on the RVE due to the difference of the
thermal expansion coefficient for both materials.
(iii) The modification of the RVE, such as geometrical and material properties, do not
require the re–implementation of the multi–scale framework, except time–dependent
material properties (e.g. visco–elastic) where the rate of the deformation gradient
tensor,
˙
F
M
has to be provided from the macroscopic structure to the RVE.
5.2.3 Application of the multi–scale modeling framework
The modeled macroscopic models coupled with the textile RVE are considerably ideal,
i.e. the stacking misalignment does not exist (Figure 5.2(a)). However, in reality, the
imperfection and the misalignment of the multi–layer composites exist during fabrication
process [93] (Figure 5.2(b) and Figure 5.2(c)). It is thought that the imperfection and the
misalignment may affect the macroscopic structural mechanisms. The developed multi–
scale framework provides the opportunity to analyze the structure with the imperfection
and misalignment of the yarns. Then, the investigation of their effects on the macroscopic
structure mechanisms can be made. The microscopic models for the yarn imperfection
and misalignment can be modeled for the multi–scale analysis as follow.
(i) From Figure 5.2(b), the RVEs with different thicknesses can be modeled to represent
the imperfection type of different layer thickness.
(ii) From Figure 5.2(c), the misalignment of the yarns is shown. the two layers with
the misalignment of yarns in a single RVE can be modeled. Then, the RVE can be
assigned to a single layer of the macroscopic structure.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 5.2: The typical yarn imperfections and misalignments, (a) ideal stacking, (b) different
layer heights, (c) layers shifted by the half of the width of RVE (
W
RVE
2
) (see
Figure 3.2) [93].
Bibliography
[1] Abaqus/standard version 6.9. Analysis user’s manuals. developed by HKS Inc. of
Rhone Island, USA and marketed under SIMULIA brand of Dassault Systemes S.A.,
2009.
[2] M. Bannister. Development and application of advanced textile composites. Pro-
ceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials:
Design and Applications, 218:253–260, 2004.
[3] D. Bigaud and P. Hamelin. Stiffness and failure modeling of 2D and 3D textile–
reinforced composites by means of imbricates–type elements approaches. Computers
and Structures, 80:2253–2264, 2002.
[4] P. Boisse, A. Gasser, and G. Hivet. Analyses of fabric tensile behaviour: determi-
nation of the biaxial tension strain surfaces and their use in forming simulations.
Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 32:1395–1414, 2001.
[5] C. Chamis. Simplified composite micromechanics equations for hygral, thermal and
mechanical properties. Society for the Advancement of Material and Process Engi-
neering, April:14–23, 1984.
[6] R. Christensen. A critical evaluation for a class of micromechanics models. Journal
of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 38:379–404, 1990.
[7] T. Chua. A framework for performing multi–scale analysis on composite using
abaqus. Technical report, Fokker Landing Gear B.V., Helmond, The Netherlands,
October 2010.
[8] P. Chung, K. Tamma, and R. Namburu. Asymptotic expansion homogenization for
heterogeneous media: computational issues and applications. Composite: Part A,
32:1291–1301, 2001.
[9] B. Cox, M. DadKhah, W. Morris, and J. Flintoff. Failure mechanisms of 3D woven
composites in tension, compression and bending. Acta Metallurgica et Materialia,
12:3967–3984, 1994.
[10] B. N. Cox and G. Flanagan. Handbook of Analytical Methods for Textile Com-
posites. Contractor Report 4750, National Aeronautical and Space Administration
(NASA), March 1997. Prepared for Langley Research Center under Contract NAS1-
19243.
[11] S. Demiray, W. Becker, and J. Hohe. Analysis of two– and three–dimensional hy-
perelastic model foams under complex loading conditons. Mechanics of Materials,
38:985–1000, 2006.
51
52 Bibliography
[12] J. Eshelby. The determination of the field of an ellipsoidal inclusion and related
problems. Proceeding of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical & Engineering
Sciences, 241:376–396, 1957.
[13] F. Feyel and J. Chaboche. FE
2
multiscale approach for modelling the elastovis-
coplastic behaviour of long fiber SiC/Ti composite materials. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 183:309–330, 2000.
[14] E. Fredrik, M. David, A. Leif E., and J. Varna. Formation of damage and its effects
on non-crimp fabric reinforced composites loaded in tension. Composite Science and
Technology, 64:675–692, 2004.
[15] V. Ganesh and N. Naik. Failure behaviour of plain weave fabric laminates under
in–plane shear loading: effect of fabric geometry. Composite Structures, 30:179–192,
1995.
[16] M. Geers, E. Coenen, and V. Kouznetsova. Multi–scale computational homogeniza-
tion of structural thin sheets. Modeling and Simulation in Materials Science and
Engineering, 15:S393–S404, 2007.
[17] M. Geers, V. Kouznetsova, and W. Brekelmans. Multi–scale computational homoge-
nization: trends and challenges. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics,
2009.
[18] M. Ghasemi Nejhad and T. Chou. Compresssion behavior of woven carbon fibre–
reinforced epoxy composites with moulded–in and drilled holes. Composites, 21:33–
40, 1990.
[19] S. Ghosh, K. Lee, and P. Raghavan. A multi–level computational model for multi–
scale damage analysis in composite and porous materials. International Journal of
Solids and Structures, 38:2335–2385, 2001.
[20] E. Glaessgen, C. Pastore, O. Griffin, and A. Birger. Geometrical and finite element
modelling of textile composites. Composites: Part B, 27:43–50, 1996.
[21] B. Gommers, I. Verpoest, and P. van Houtte. The Mori–Tanaka method applied to
textile composite materials. Acta Materiallia, 46:2223–2235, 1998.
[22] Z. Hashin. The elastic moduli of heterogeneous materials. Journal of Applied Me-
chanics, 50:481–505, 1962.
[23] Z. Hashin and B. Rosen. The elastic moduli of fiber–reinforced materials. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, 31:223–232, 1964.
[24] J. Hearle. Engineering design of textiles. Indian Journal of Fibres and Textile,
31:142–149, 2006.
[25] R. Hill. Elastic properties of reinforced solids some theoretical principles. Journal
of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 11:357–372, 1963.
[26] R. Hill. On constitutive macro-variables for heterogeneous solids at finite strain.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical,
326(1565):131–147, 1972.
Bibliography 53
[27] T. Ishikawa and T. Chou. Elastic behavior of woven hybrid composite. Journal of
Materials Science, 16:2–19, 1982.
[28] T. Ishikawa and T. Chou. Nonlinear behavior of woven fabric composites. Computers
& Structures, 17:399–413, 1983.
[29] T. Ishikawa and T. Chou. One–dimensional micromechanical analysis of woven fabric
composites. AIAA, 21:1714–1721, 1983.
[30] M. Ito and T. Chou. Elastic moduli and stress field of plain–weave composites under
tensile loading. Composites Science and Technology, 57:787–800, 1997.
[31] I. Ivanov and A. Tabiei. Three–dimensional computational micro–mechanical model
for woven fabric composites. Composites Structures, 54:489–496, 2001.
[32] R. Kamiya, R. Cheeseman, P. Popper, and T. Chou. Some recent advances in the
fabrication and design of three–dimensional textile preforms: a review. Composites
Science and Technology, 60:33–47, 2000.
[33] R. Karkkainen and B. Sankar. A direct micromechanics method for analysis of failure
initiation of plain weave textile composites. Composites Science and Technology,
66:137–150, 2006.
[34] R. L. Karkkainen, B. V. Sankar, and T. T. Jerome. Strength prediction of multi–layer
plain weave textile composites using the direct micromechanics method. Composites:
Part B, 38:924–932, 2007.
[35] D. Kenaga, J. Doyle, and C. Sun. The characterization of boron/aluminum in the
nonlinear range as an orthotropic elastic plastic material. Journal of Composite
Materials, 27:516–531, 1987.
[36] M. King, P. Jearanaisilawong, and S. Socrate. A continuum constitutive model
for the mechanical behavior of woven fabrics. International Journal of Solids and
Structures, 42:3867–3896, 2005.
[37] V. Kouznetsova. Computational homogenization for the multi–scale of multi–phase
materials. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands, 2002.
[38] V. Kouznetsova, W. Brekelmens, and F. Baaijens. An approach to micro–macro
modeling of heterogeneous materials. Computational Mechanics, 27:37–48, 2001.
[39] V. Kouznetsova, M. Geers, and W. Brekelmans. Multi–scale second–order compu-
tational homogenization of heterogeneous materials. ICTAM, XXI:15–21, 2004.
[40] S. Lomov, I. Verpoest, T. Peeters, D. Roose, and M. Zako. Nesting in textile lam-
inates: geometrical modeling of the laminate. Composites Science and Technology,
63:993–1007, 2003.
[41] S. Mall, D. Katwyk, R. Bolick, A. Kelkar, and D. Davis. Tension–compression fa-
tigue behavior of a H–VARTM manufactured unnotched and notched carbon/epoxy
composite. Composite Structures, 90:201–207, 2009.
54 Bibliography
[42] R. Marrey and B. Sankar. Micromechanical models for textile structural composites.
Technical Report 198229, National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA),
Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, 1995.
[43] J. E. Masters and M. A. Portanova. Standard test methods for textile composites.
Lockheed Martin Engineering and Science Company, Hampton, Virginia, US, Con-
tract NASI-19000 edition, September 1996. NASA Contractors Report 4751.
[44] K. Matsui, K. Terada, and K. Yuge. Parallelized two–scale analysis with a PC clus-
ter for elastic–plastic heterogeneous media. Japan Society Mechanical Engineering
International Journal Series A, 44:584–593, 2001.
[45] W. Micheal Lai, D. Rubin, and E. Krempl. Introduction to Continuum Mechanics.
Butterworth Heinemann, 3rd edition, 1993.
[46] J. Michel, H. Moulinec, and P. Suquet. Effective properties of composite materials
with periodic microstructure: a computational approach. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 172:109–143, 1999.
[47] C. Miehe. Strain–driven homogenization of inelastic microstructures and composites
based on an incremental variational formulation. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, 55:1285–1322, 2002.
[48] C. Miehe. Computational micro–to–macro transitions for discretized micro–
structures of heterogeneous materials at finite strains based on the minimization
of averaged incremental energy. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and En-
gineering, 192:559–591, 2003.
[49] C. Miehe and A. Koch. Computational micro–to–macro transition of discretized
microstructures undergoing small strain. Archive of Applied Mechanics, 72:300–317,
2002.
[50] C. Miehe, J. Schroder, and M. Becker. Computational homogenization analysis
in finite elasticity: material and structural instabilities on the micro– and macro–
scales of periodic composites and their interaction. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, 191:4971–5005, 2002.
[51] T. Mori and K. Tanaka. Average stress in the matrix and average elastic energy of
materials with misfitting inclusions. Acta Metallurgica, 21:571–574, 1973.
[52] H. Moulinec and P. Suquet. Numerical method for computing the overall response
of nonlinear composites with complex microstructure. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, 157:69–94, 1998.
[53] A. Mouritz, M. Bannister, P. Falzon, and K. Leong. Review of applications for
advanced three–dimensional fibre textile composites. Composites: Part A, 30:1445–
1461, 1999.
[54] K. Naik and V. Ganesh. Prediction of on–axes elastic properties of plain weave fabric
composites. Composites Science and Technology, 45:135–152, 1992.
[55] N. Naik and P. Shembekar. Elastic behavior of woven fabric composites: I–lamina
analysis. Journal of Composite Materials, 26:2197–2225, 1992.
Bibliography 55
[56] N. Naik and P. Shembekar. Elastic behavior of woven fabric composites: III–laminate
design. Journal of Composite Materials, 26:2523–2541, 1992.
[57] G. Nicoletto and R. Enrica. Failure mechanicsms in twill–weave laminates: FEM
predictions vs. experiments. Composites: Part A, 35:787–795, 2004.
[58] S. D. Pandita, G. Huysmans, M. Wevers, and Verpoest. Tensile fatigue behaviour
of glass plain–weave fabric composites in on– and off–axis directions. Composites:
Part A, 32:1533–1539, 2001.
[59] P. Potluri and V. Thammandra. Influence of uniaxial and biaxial tension on meso-
scale geometry and strain fields in a woven composite. Composites Structures,
77:405–418, 2007.
[60] P. Rupnowski, M. Gentz, J. Sutter, and M. Kumosa. Mechanical response of a
woven graphite/polyimide composite to in-plane shear dominated loads at room and
elevated temperatures. Acta Materialia, 74:5603–5613, 2004.
[61] P. Shembekar and N. Naik. Elastic behavior of woven fabric composites: II–laminate
analysis. Journal of Composite Materials, 26:2226–2246, 1992.
[62] P. Shembekar and N. Naik. Notched strength of fabric laminates. II: Effect of stacking
sequence. Composites Science and Technology, 44:13–20, 1992.
[63] M. Sherburn. Geometric and mechanical modelling of textiles. PhD thesis, The
University of Nottingham, England, 2007.
[64] S. Sihn, E. V. Iarve, and A. K. Roy. Three–dimensional stress analysis of textile com-
posites: Part I. Numerical analysis. International Journal of Solids and Structures,
41:1377–1393, 2004.
[65] S. Sihn and A. Roy. Development of a three–dimensional mixed variational model
for woven composites. II numerical solution and validation. International Journal of
Solids and Structures, 38:5949–5962, 2001.
[66] K. Srirengan, J. Whitcomb, and C. Chapman. Modal technique for three–
dimensional global/local stress analysis of plain weave composites. Composite Struc-
tures, 39:145–156, 1997.
[67] C. Sun and R. Vaidya. Prediction of composite properties from a representative
volume element. Composites Science and Technology, 56:171–179, 1996.
[68] P. Suquet. Local and global aspects in the mathematical theory of plasticity. Plas-
ticity Today: Modelling, Methods and Applications, pages 279–310, 1985.
[69] P. Suquet. Overall potentials and extremal surfaces of power law or ideally plastic
composites. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 41:981–1002, 1993.
[70] A. Tabiei and Y. Jiang. Woven fabric composite material model with material non-
linearity for nonlinear finite element simulation. International Journal of Solids and
Structures, 36:2757–2771, 1999.
56 Bibliography
[71] A. Tabiei and W. Yi. Comparative study of predictive methods for woven fabric
composite elastic properties. Composite Structures, 58:149–164, 2002.
[72] N. Takano, Y. Uetsuji, Y. Kashiwagi, and M. Zako. Hierarchical modelling of textile
composite materials and structures by the homogenization method. Modelling and
Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering, 7:207–231, 1999.
[73] P. Tan, L. Tong, and G. Steven. A three–dimensional modelling technique for predict-
ing the linear elastic property of opened–packing woven fabric unit cells. Composite
Structures, 38:261–271, 1997.
[74] K. Terada, M. Hori, T. Kyoya, and N. Kikuchi. Simulation of the multi–scale conver-
gence in computational homogenization approaches. International Journal of Solids
and Structures, 37:2285–2311, 2000.
[75] TexGen version 3.3.0. TexGen textile composites modeling preprocessor user’s guide
manuals. developed at the University of Nottingham, UK and licensed under the
General Public License, 2008.
[76] B. Thuis. The development of composite landing gear components for aerospace
applications. unclassified NLR–TP–2004–141, Nationaal Lucht–en Ruimtevaartlab-
oratorium (NLR), The Netherlands, April 2004.
[77] O. van der Sluis, P. B. W. Schreurs, and H. Meijer. Overall behaviour of heteroge-
neous elastoviscoplastic materials: effect of microstructural modelling. Mechanics of
Materials, 32:449–462, 2000.
[78] M. van Gils, O. van der Sluis, G. Zhang, J. Janssen, and R. Voncken. Analysis of
Cu/low–k bond pad delamination by using a novel failure index. Microelectronics
Reliability, 47:179–186, 2007.
[79] P. Vandeurzen, J. Ivens, and I. Verpoest. A three–dimensional micromechanical
analysis of woven–fabric composites: I. Geometric analysis. Composites Science and
Technology, 56:1303–1315, 1996.
[80] P. Vandeurzen, J. Ivens, and I. Verpoest. A three–dimensional micromechanical
analysis of woven–fabric composites: II. Elastic analysis. Composites Science and
Technology, 56:1317–1327, 1996.
[81] M. Venkat Rao, P. Mahajan, and R. Mittal. Effect of architecture on mechanical
properties of carbon–carbon composites. Composite Structures, 83:131–142, 2008.
[82] I. Verpoest and S. Lomov. Virtual textile composites software wisetex: Integration
with micro–mechanical, permeability and structural analysis. Composites Science
and Technology, 65:2563–2574, 2005.
[83] X. Wang, B. Hu, Y. Feng, F. Liang, J. Mo, J. Xiong, and Y. Qiu. Low velocity impact
properties of 3D woven basalt/aramid hybrid composites. Composites Science and
Technology, 68:444–450, 2008.
[84] X. Wang, X. Wang, G. Zhou, and C. Zhou. Multi–scale analyses of 3D woven com-
posite based on periodicity boundary conditions. Journal of Composite Materials,
41:1773–1788, 2007.
Bibliography 57
[85] J. Whitcomb. Iterative global/local finite element analysis. Computers & Structures,
40:1027–1032, 1991.
[86] J. Whitcomb, K. Srirengan, and C. Chapman. Evaluation of homogenization for
global/local stress analysis of textile composites. Composite Structures, 31:137–149,
1995.
[87] C. Wong, A. Long, M. Sherburn, F. Robitaille, P. Harrison, and C. Rudd. Compari-
son of novel and efficient approaches for permeability prediction based on the fabric
architecture. Composites: Part A, 37:847–857, 2006.
[88] K. Woo and J. D. Whitcomb. A post–processsor approach for stress analysis of
woven textile composites. Composites Science and Technology, 60:693–704, 2000.
[89] Z. Wu. Three–dimensional exact modeling of geometric and mechanical properties
of woven composites. Acta Mechanica Solids Sinica, 22:479–486, 2009.
[90] Y. Xu, W. Zhang, and D. Bassir. Stress analysis of multi–phase and multi–layer plain
weave composite structure using global/local approach. Composites Structures, 2009.
[91] Y. Yeong Moo, P. Sang Hoon, and Y. Sung Kie. Asymptotic homogenization of
viscoelastic composites with periodic microstructures. International Journal of Solids
and Structures, 35(17):2039–2055, 1998.
[92] M. Zako, T. Uetsuji, and T. Kurashiki. Finite element analysis of damaged woven
fabric composite materials. Composite Science and Technology, 63:507–516, 2003.
[93] J. Zeman and M. Sejnoha. Homogenization of balanced plain weave composites with
imperfect microstructure: Part I – Theoretical formulation. International Journal
of Solids and Structures, 41:6549–6571, 2004.
[94] Y. Zhang and J. Harding. A numerical micromechanics analysis of the mechanical
properties of a plain weave composite. Computers & Structures, 36:839–844, 1990.
[95] L. Zhao, N. Warrior, and A. Long. Finite element modelling of damage progression in
non-crimp fabric reinforced composites. Composite Science and Technology, 66:36–
50, 2006.
Appendices
58
Appendix A
Literature survey
Heterogeneous materials analytical modeling
Most of the available research works to determine the overall properties for heterogeneous
materials and structures were based on the particulate (spherical) inclusions embedded
in the matrix which both constituents were assumed to be isotropic. For example, Es-
helby [12] derived a method for determining the stress and strain fields induced by an
elastic ellipsoidal inclusion embedded in an infinite elastic medium in two–dimensional
(2D) problem. It was further developed by Hashin [22], Mori and Tanaka [51]. The critical
evaluation and overview of various conventional analytical methods (Differential method,
Composite Spheres model, Self Consistent method, Generalized Self method and Mori–
Tanaka method) for predicting the effective properties of particulate composites was done
by Christensen [6]. King et al. [36] modeled the woven fabrics in macroscopic continuum
constitutive model to determine the macroscopic stresses based on the rule of mixture
and classical laminate theory (CLT). However, the application of these conventional ana-
lytical modelings on the textile composites becomes difficult and questionable due to the
complexity of yarns geometry evolves in three–dimensional (3D) space.
One–dimensional model
Ishikawa and Chou [27] developed a mosaic model for analyzing the elastic behavior of
woven hybrid composites. This model treats the composite as an assemblage of multiple
pieces of asymmetrical cross–ply laminates. And, the 2D lamina was simplified to two
one–dimensional (1D) models which were either parallel or series model depending on
the arrangement of the cross–ply laminate. Two major drawbacks of this model are the
yarns continuity and non–uniform stresses and strains were not taking into account. As
a result, 1D fiber undulation model (or crimp model) was proposed by Ishikawa and
Chou [29] which took into account the continuity and the undulation of yarns.
Next, the crimp model and bridging model were applied to analyze the nonlinear
elastic behavior of woven composites by Ishikawa et al. [28]. However, only the undulation
and the continuity of yarns along the loading direction were considered in these models.
The yarn undulation in transverse direction and the actual cross–sectional geometry are
not taken into account, which may be the important factors in a textile analytical model.
Zhang and Harding [94] utilized the strain energy equivalence principle with the aid of FE
method for the micromechanical analysis on a one–ply plain weave composite material
with an assumption of 1D yarn undulation only. They claimed that both crimp and
59
60 Appendix A
bridging models and this energy–based method should be extended to the case of 2D
undulation model after the comparison between numerical prediction and experimental
results.
Two–dimensional model
The 1D crimp model was extended to 2D crimp model for an elastic analysis of a 2D plain
weave composite by Naik and Shembekar [55, 56, 61]. This model is incorporated with
the yarn undulation and continuity in both warp and weft directions. The presence of
gap between adjacent yarns and the actual cross–sectional geometry of yarns is modeled
in this model as well.
Next, Naik and Ganesh [54] proposed two 2D refined models, which are slice array
model (SAM) and element array model (EAM) for the plain weave textile composites.
The SAM and EAM are 2D models with the continuity and the undulation of yarns in
warp and weft directions as well as the presence of the gap between adjacent yarns were
considered. The different materials and geometrical properties of warp and weft yarns
can be modeled.
Ito and Chou [30] developed the 2D iso–strain and flexural analytical models for inves-
tigating the elastic properties and stress distribution of a plain weave textile composite
under in–plane tensile loading. Four 2D unit cells with different yarn configurations
were developed which are single lamina, iso–phase laminate, out–of–phase laminate and
random–phase laminate. It was reported that the Young’s moduli and stress distribu-
tion for both single lamina and random–phase laminate configurations are adequately
predicted by iso–strain model.
Three–dimensional model
In order to extend the analysis on a plain weave composite into 3D problem, Tan et
al. [73] introduced the 3D analytical model for predicting the linear elastic property
of an open–balanced plain weave composite. It was claimed that this technique is an
effective and efficient method for reducing the effort and time of FE meshing for the
complex textile composites. However, the yarns geometry are greatly simplified, i.e. the
undulated segment of both warp and weft yarns are idealized to be inclined straight yarns.
Next, in order to include the full and detail geometrical descriptions of a woven
textile composite which is important to predict the textile composite mechanical behavior.
Vandeurzen et al. published two research papers regarding to the geometrical analysis [79]
and the elastic analysis [80] on a woven textile composite. In geometrical analysis, an
extensive mathematical description of geometric parameters are used to describe a non–
traditional textile composite unit cell with various yarn sizes or special yarns such as
optical fibers yarn and shape–memory alloy fibers yarn. In elastic analysis, the textile
composite unit cell composed of four yarn systems developed in geometrical analysis was
analyzed analytically. The unit cell is partitioned into macro–cells (macro–partition)
and further each macro–cell is partitioned into micro–cells (micro–partition). However,
in micro–cells, the yarn geometry is greatly simplified into combi–cell model (CMM)
which composed of yarn layer and matrix layer although a relatively detailed geometrical
information for yarns in unit cell level is taken into account.
Sankar and Marrey [42] proposed a micromechanical analysis method on a unit cell
model for predicting the stiffness and strength properties of textile composites materials.
Literature survey 61
The unit cell is discretized with 3D finite elements, and the periodic boundary conditions
(BCs) are imposed on the opposite end–faces of the unit cell. Three linearly independent
deformations, namely, pure extension, pure bending and pure shear were applied to the
unit cell. The developed analytical method was then used to evaluate the stiffness coeffi-
cients of a plain weave composite which was modeled as a beam. However, this model is
not verified by experimental results. In addition, the application of this method to other
textile composite structures needs to be further investigated.
For computing the mechanical properties for the plain weave textile composite by
utilizing the micromechanical approach and the homogenization technique within FE
framework, Tabiei and Jiang [70] developed the micromechanical model for the compos-
ite by using the method of cells. The representative cell is then discretized into many
subcells. An averaging is then performed again by assuming the stress distribution is
uniform in each subcell to obtain the effective properties of each subcell. Then, these
effective properties are summed together to get the overall effective properties in the
representative cell. Next, Ivanov and Tabiei [31] developed a micromechanical model
consists of four subcells. But, only two subcells were analyzed for the prediction of
elastic properties due to an anti–symmetry boundary. However, the method of cells is
relatively complicated and computational expensive. Later, Tabiei and Yi [71] developed
a simplified version for the method of cells which uses the same theory as the method
of cells but the methodology is much simpler. It was reported that the method of cells
becomes computational ineffective if the explicit finite element is used.
Besides the proposed plain weave composite model, Gommer et al. [21] developed
the 3D analytical model for calculating the elastic properties of woven, braided and
knitted textile composites by applying Mori–Tanaka method. The complex orientation
distribution of the yarn is simplified by utilizing the orientation tensors. This Mori–
Takana method is only verified experimentally of the in–plane elastic constants for textile
composites, therefore, the prediction of out–of–plane elastic constants needs to be verified.
Textile composite global/local analysis modeling
A brief description of the macroscopic landing gear structure FE modeling is available
in the National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR) report written by Thuis [76]. For the sake
of the simplification, the model was not modeled in detail and the four nodes Stanley-
type shell elements were used in the model. Therefore, the model unable to describe the
mechanical behavior of the composite materials microscopically.
It is known that the properties of a composite can be characterized by its repre-
sentation volume element (RVE). But it is almost practically difficult to incorporate all
geometrical and material parameters in a simple RVE due to the complexity of a textile
composite microstructure. Hence, in order to obtain the highly accurate predicted me-
chanical properties with minimum analysis effort, a more computational efficient method
for performing the analysis is essential.
Therefore, a FE analysis approach known as global/local method based on modal
analysis was developed by Srirengan et al. [66] for the 3D stress analysis of the plain
weave composite structures. Generally, a 3D global FE analysis was performed on a
global region with the 3D global coarse finite elements, followed by a detailed 3D local
FE analysis performs upon a local region of interest (ROI) with the independent 3D local
fine finite elements.
62 Appendix A
Whitcomb [85] developed an iterative global/local FE analysis method. The basic
idea of this method was that the displacements or stresses on a global model with coarse
mesh can be obtained with an appropriate impose of the boundary conditions on the
global/local interfaces in a refined local model. However, it was reported that there was
a potential problem due to the differences in stiffness on the global/local boundaries.
Later, Whitcomb et al. [86] proposed a global/local stress analysis procedure which
used homogenized engineering material properties to accelerate the global stress analysis
for the textile composites. The homogenized engineering properties is used owing to the
relatively large size of a unit cell for the textile composite compared with the unidirec-
tional laminated composites. However, this method was validated only in 2D problem,
thus, an application of this method in 3D problem needs to be further investigated. It
was reported that the accuracy of the calculated stress was poor for exterior unit cells in
a global model due to the free boundary effects.
Takano et al. [72] named the global/local modeling as hierarchical modeling for the
textile composites because four–level hierarchy is considered from both material and
structural point of views. The hierarchy of structure consists of global and local levels,
whereas, the hierarchy of material consists of meso and micro levels. From the viewpoint
of heterogeneous material, a unit cell model of the textile composites consists of yarns
(fiber bundles) and matrix which is considered as a mesoscale model. In microscale
model, the yarns are modeled as a medium composed of mono–filament and matrix. In all
hierarchical levels, the homogenization analysis method is used for obtaining the relatively
good accuracy results. It was claimed that remarkable inexpensive computational effort
in terms of central processing unit (CPU) time and memory especially finite element
generation can be achieved in this hierarchical context.
Multi–scale homogenization approach
For the past decades, vast amount of multi–scale modeling techniques for heteroge-
neous materials were proposed, such as analytical homogenization (Suquet [69]), asymp-
totic homogenization (Yi et al. [91], Chung et al. [8]), variational multi–scale methods
(Miehe [47]) and computational homogenization (Kouznetsova et al. [38, 39], Miehe et
al. [50], Miehe [48], Mouline and Suquet [52], Miehe and Koch [49], Michel et al. [46],
Feyel and Chaboche [13], Terada et al. [74]). Among these homogenization techniques,
the computational homogenization (also known as FE
2
method [13]) is probably one of
the most accurate techniques [17]. It depends on the nested solution algorithm for a
macrostructure at the microstructure boundary value problem. Therefore, it provides
an accurate multi–scale solution to many engineering materials with heterogeneous char-
acteristic, such as metal alloy systems, porous media, polycrystalline materials [16, 37].
Hence, it is reasonable to believe that the computational homogenization framework has
the capability to solve the relatively complex textile composites problems by bridging its
macro–scale and micro–scale.
However, the multi–scale computational homogenization method is not better or worse
than the widely used global/local method in the textile composites analysis. The selection
between both methods should base on the descriptions of a specific engineering problem.
The global/local method is no more than a FE analysis through the mesh refinement
technique on a region of interest (ROI), e.g. crack tips or specific regions with high
stresses or strains. Whereas, the multi–scale computational homogenization approach
Literature survey 63
is used optimally for predicting the collective multi–phase response of a microstructure
collectively. Moreover, the multi-scale computational homogenization approach enables
to provide the detailed microstructural phenomenon at each macroscopic region. As a
result, the contribution of the mechanical mechanicsms from micro–level to macro–level
can be studied in detailed.
Appendix B
Macro–micro levels coupling
Deformation
The averaging theorem regarding to the macro–micro coupling of the kinematic quantities
state that the F
M
is the volume average of the F
m
as follow
F
M
=
1
V
0
_
V
0
F
m
dV
0
. (B.1)
According to the divergence (Gauss) theorem
_
V

∇· a(x) dV =
_
Γ
n(x) · a(x) dΓ, (B.2)
where a(x) is a vector function on domain V and n(x) is the outward pointing unit normal
to the surface Γ of the domain V .
Therefore, the application of the divergence theorem and F
m
=
_


0
m
x
_
T
lead to the
transformation of (B.1) from volume integral in undeformed state of the RVE into surface
integral
F
M
=
1
V
0
_
V
0
F
m
dV
0
=
1
V
0
_
Γ
0
xn
0

0
. (B.3)
The utilization of the periodic BCs on a RVE leads to the satisfaction of (B.3). The RVE
boundary is split into two opposite surfaces, Γ
+
0
and Γ

0
, with utlizing the divergence
theorem and


0m
x
0
= I gives
F
M
=
1
V
0
_
¸
_
¸
_
_
Γ
+
0
x
+
n
+
0

0
+
_
Γ

0
x

n

0

0
_
¸
_
¸
_
=
1
V
0
_
Γ
+
0
_
x
+
−x

_
n
+
0

0
=
1
V
0
_
Γ
+
0
_
F
M
·
_
x
+
0
−x

0
__
n
+
0

0
=
1
V
0
F
M
·
_
Γ
0
x
0
n
0

0
=
1
V
0
F
M
·
_
V
0
_


0m
x
0
_
T
dV
0
= F
M
(B.4)
64
Macro–micro levels coupling 65
Stress
The averaging theorem for the first Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor, P is given as
P
M
=
1
V
0
_
V
0
P
m
dV
0
. (B.5)
In order to transform the volume integral of P
M
into surface integral, the microscopic
equilibrium,


0
m
· P
T
m
=

0 and


0m
x
0
= I are used with the following relation


0m
·
_
P
T
m
x
0
_
=
_


0m
· P
T
m
_
x
0
+P
m
·
_


0m
x
0
_
= P
m
. (B.6)
Next, (B.6) is substituted into (B.5), and with the use of divergence theorem and the
definition of the microscopic first Piola–Kirchhoff stress vector, p = n
0
· P
T
m
. The P
M
can be defined on the RVE surface
P
M
=
1
V
0
_
V
0


0m
·
_
P
T
m
x
0
_
dV
0
=
1
V
0
_
Γ
0
n
0
· P
T
m
x
0

0
=
1
V
0
_
Γ
0
px
0

0
. (B.7)
Similarly, the application of the averaging theorem on the σ
m
over current RVE volume,
V and the transformation from volume integral to surface integral is elaborated as follow
σ

M
=
1
V
_
V
σ
m
dV =
1
V
_
Γ
n · (σ
m
x) dΓ =
1
V
_
Γ

tx dΓ, (B.8)
with the used of divergence theorem (2.6), microscopic equilibrium,


m
·σ
m
=

0, equality,


m
x = I , the definition of the Cauchy stress vector,

t = n· σ
m
and the following relation


m
· (σ
m
x) =
_


m
· σ
m
_
x + σ ·
_


m
x
_
= σ
m
. (B.9)
In the general case of large strains, large rotation and relatively complex structural to-
pography, the fact of the nonlinearity of the continuum mechanics relation between stress
measures should be taken with cautiousness, i.e. not all macroscopic stress quantities ob-
tained from the volume averaging theorem is valid. Therefore, the σ
M
should be defined
as
σ
M
=
1
det (F
M
)
P
M
· F
T
M
. (B.10)
Internal work
The averaging theorem for the micro-macro energy transition, known as Hill–Mandel con-
dition or macrohomogeneity condition [25, 26, 68] has to be satisfied for the conservation
of the specific energy between micro–macro transition. This condition states that the
microscopic volume average of the variation of work performed upon RVE is equivalent
to the local variation of the work on the macro–level. The Hill–Mandel condition is given
as
1
V
0
_
V
0
P
m
: δF
T
m
dV
0
= P
M
: δF
T
M
, ∀δx, (B.11)
66 Appendix B
which is formulated in terms of the work conjugated pair (P and F). The left–hand side
of (B.11) can be defined in terms of the RVE surface as follow
δW
0M
=
1
V
0
_
V
0
P
m
: δF
T
m
dV
0
=
1
V
0
_
V
0
P
m
:
_


0m
δx
_
dV
0
=
1
V
0
_
V
0


0m
·
_
P
T
m
· δx
_
dV
0
=
1
V
0
_
Γ
0
n
0
·
_
P
T
m
· δx
_

0
=
1
V
0
_
Γ
0
p · δx dΓ
0
, (B.12)
where the divergence theorem (B.2), microscopic equilibrium (2.2), the definition of the
microscopic first Piola–Kirchhoff stress vector, p = n
0
· P
T
m
, and the following relation
have been used
P
T
m
:
_


0m
δx
_
=


0m
·
_
P
T
m
· δx
_

_


0m
· P
T
m
_
· δx. (B.13)
Next, the surface integral of the macroscopic first Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor (B.7), the
periodic BCs (2.4a) and antiperiodic tractions (2.4b) are used to verify the satisfaction
of Hill–Mandel condition (B.11), as follow
δW
0M
=
1
V
0
_
¸
_
¸
_
_
Γ
+
0
p
+
· δx
+

0
+
_
Γ

0
p

· δx


0
_
¸
_
¸
_
=
1
V
0
_
Γ
+
0
p
+
·
_
δx
+
−δx

_

0
=
1
V
0
_
Γ
+
0
p
+
_
x
+
0
−x

0
_

0
: δF
T
M
=
1
V
0
_
Γ
0
px
0

0
: δF
T
M
= P
M
: δF
T
M
. (B.14)
Appendix C
Microscopic level boundary value
problem
The RVE boundary value problem imposed with the periodic BCs can be solved numer-
ically with FE method. Following the FE method, the weak formulation procedure and
FE discretization are performed on the equilibrium equation (2.2) with account for the
constitutive relation (2.3) lead to a non–linear algebraic equations system
f
¯
internal
_
u
¯
_
= f
¯
external
, (C.1)
expressing the equilibrium in external forces, f
¯
external
and internal forces, f
¯
internal
in terms
of unknown nodal displacements, u
¯
. This system can be solved through imposing the
BCs. Therefore, the periodic BCs (2.4a) have to be rewritten into an appropriate format
for its application in the FE framework. Consider a 3D periodic RVE schematically
depicted in Figure 2.5. It is assumed that the FE discretization is performed such that the
corresponding opposite surfaces of the RVE is discretized into an equivalent distribution
of nodes. And, the surfaces of the RVE can be split into top, bottom, left, right, front
and back surfaces. Due to the initial periodicity of the RVE, the respective pair of nodes
on the top–bottom, right–left, and front–back surfaces in the undeformed state (or initial
configuration) can be written as
x
0
top
−x
0
bottom
= x
0
5
−x
0
1
, (C.2a)
x
0
right
−x
0
left
= x
0
2
−x
0
1
, (C.2b)
x
0
front
−x
0
back
= x
0
1
−x
0
4
, (C.2c)
where x
0
p
is the initial position vector of the prescribed four corner nodes (also known
as control nodes, master nodes [11] or control vertices [78]), p (p = 1, 2, 4, 5), as shown in
Figure 2.4. The x
0
right
and x
0
left
, x
0
front
and x
0
back
, x
0
top
and x
0
bottom
are the initial position
vectors for the respective pair of nodes on the right and left, front and back, top and
bottom surfaces of the RVE, respectively. According to (2.4a), by considering the pairs of
respective nodes on the opposite surfaces, the periodic BCs in deformed state (or current
configuration) can be written as
x
top
−x
bottom
= F
M
· (x
0
5
−x
0
1
) = x
5
−x
1
, (C.3a)
x
right
−x
left
= F
M
· (x
0
2
−x
0
1
) = x
2
−x
1
, (C.3b)
x
front
−x
back
= F
M
· (x
0
1
−x
0
4
) = x
1
−x
4
. (C.3c)
67
68 Appendix C
where the relation of the position vectors for the four corner nodes between deformed
and undeformed states as shown below has been used in (C.3)
x
p
= F
M
· x
0
p
. p = 1, 2, 4, 5 (C.4)
Then, the periodic BCs in deformed state can be rewritten as
x
top
= x
bottom
+x
5
−x
1
, (C.5a)
x
right
= x
left
+x
2
−x
1
, (C.5b)
x
front
= x
back
+x
1
−x
4
. (C.5c)
Besides prescribing the position vectors for every respective pair of nodes, they can be
formulated in terms of displacements, u
u
top
= u
bottom
+u
5
−u
1
, (C.6a)
u
right
= u
left
+ u
2
−u
1
, (C.6b)
u
front
= u
back
+ u
1
−u
4
. (C.6c)
The relation of u with x
0
can be expressed as
u
p
= (F
M
−I ) · x
0
p
, p = 1, 2, 4, 5, (C.7)
where I is the identity tensor.
Next, the (C.6) can be discretized and partitioned into a set of homogeneous con-
straints in matrix format
[C
i
C
d
]
_
u
¯
i
u
¯
d
_
= 0
¯
, (C.8)
where C is the matrix containing the coefficients in the constraint relations and u
¯
is the
column with the degrees of freedom (DOF) involved in the constraints. The subscripts
“i” and “d” are denoted as independent and dependent for the respective parameter,
respectively. In the following, the procedure of eliminating of the dependent DOF from
the system of equations is used, i.e. the u
¯
i
has to be retained in the system and u
¯
d
has to
be eliminated from the system. Due to the equivalent total number of dependent DOF,
u
¯
d
as total number of constraint equations in (C.8). Thus, the matrix, C
d
is square and
non-singular. The solution for u
¯
d
yields
u
¯
d
= C
di
u
¯
i
, with C
di
= −C
−1
d
C
i
. (C.9)
Then, the column u
¯
in (C.8) may be further rewritten into
_
u
¯
i
u
¯
d
_
= T u
¯
i
, with T =
_
I
C
di
_
, (C.10)
where I is a unit matrix of size [N
i
×N
i
], with N
i
is the number of the independent DOF.
The non–linear system of equations (C.1) is linearized to a linear system in the it-
erative corrections, δu
¯
to the current estimation, u
¯
. This linearized system may be
partitioned as
_
K
ii
K
id
K
di
K
dd
_ _
δu
¯
i
δu
¯
d
_
=
_

f
¯
i
external

f
¯
i
internal

f
¯
d
external

f
¯
d
internal
_
=
_
δr
¯
i
δr
¯
d
_
, (C.11)
Microscopic level boundary value problem 69
with the residual nodal forces, δr
¯
at the right–hand side. The constraint equations in
(C.11) are linear. Thus, their linearization is straightforward and the application of the
(C.10) to the system (C.11) gives
_
I C
T
di
¸
_
K
ii
K
id
K
di
K
dd
_ _
I
C
di
_
δu
¯
i
=
_
I C
T
di
¸
_
δr
¯
i
δr
¯
d
_
, (C.12)
after rewritten the (C.12) gives
_
K
ii
+ K
di
C
di
+ C
T
di
K
di
+ C
T
di
K
dd
C
di
¸
δu
¯
i
=
_
δr
¯
i
+ C
T
di
δr
¯
d
¸
. (C.13)
The column u
¯
i
in (C.13) includes the displacement of the prescribed corner nodes, u
¯
p
.
Therefore, the boundary conditions (C.7) can be applied to the system (C.13).
Appendix D
Macroscopic stress calculation
The RVE volume averaged stress has to be extracted after analyzing the RVE. Of course,
the P
M
can be computed numerically through the volume integral (2.8). However, it is
computationally inefficient because the unit cell volume for the textile composites can be
typically several orders of magnitude larger than the unit cell volume of the conventional
unidirectional laminated composites [33]. Therefore, it is computationally more efficient
to compute the P
M
through the surface integral [37] which can be further simplified for
the case of the periodic BCs as discussed in this section.
First, consider that all the forces acting on the the RVE surface are subjected to the
periodic BCs (C.6) and (C.7). The reaction (resulting) external forces,

f
e
p
are acted at
the four prescribed corner nodes, p (p = 1, 2, 4, 5). In addition, there are forces involved
in every constraint (tying) relation C.6. For instance, each constraint relation of the
corresponding pairs of nodes on the top–bottom surfaces, there are tying forces, p
t
top
,
p
t
bottom
, p
t
B
1
, and p
t
B
5
at the nodes on the top surface, bottom surface, corner node 1, and
corner node 5, respectively. Similarly, there are tying forces, p
t
front
, p
t
back
, p
t
F
1
, and p
t
F
4
for
the front–back constraint relations and the tying forces, p
t
right
, p
t
left
, p
t
L
2
and p
t
L
1
for the
right–left constraint relations. All these forces are schematically depicted in Figure D.1.
Each constraint satisfied the condition of zero virtual work according to the principle of
virtual work which implies that tying forces applied to the RVE do no virtual work, thus
p
t
bottom
· δx
bottom
+ p
t
top
· δx
top
+ p
t
B
5
· δx
5
+ p
t
B
1
· δx
1
= 0, (D.1a)
p
t
left
· δx
left
+ p
t
right
· δx
right
+ p
t
L
2
· δx
2
+ p
t
L
1
· δx
1
= 0, (D.1b)
p
t
front
· δx
front
+ p
t
back
· δx
back
+ p
t
F
4
· δx
4
+ p
t
F
1
· δx
1
= 0. (D.1c)
Substitution of the variation of the periodic constraint relations (C.5) into (D.1) gives
_
p
t
bottom
+ p
t
top
_
· δx
bottom
+
_
p
t
B
1
− p
t
top
_
· δx
1
+
_
p
t
top
+ p
t
B
5
_
· δx
5
= 0, (D.2a)
_
p
t
left
+ p
t
right
_
· δx
left
+
_
p
t
L
1
− p
t
right
_
· δx
1
+
_
p
t
right
+ p
t
L
2
_
· δx
2
= 0, (D.2b)
_
p
t
front
+ p
t
back
_
· δx
back
+
_
p
t
F
1
+ p
t
front
_
· δx
1
+
_
p
t
F
4
− p
t
front
_
· δx
4
= 0. (D.2c)
These relations should hold for any δx
bottom
, δx
left
, δx
back
, δx
1
, δx
2
, δx
4
, δx
5
. Thus, the
relation between tying forces are
p
t
bottom
= − p
t
top
= − p
t
B
1
= p
t
B
5
, (D.3a)
p
t
left
= − p
t
right
= − p
t
L
1
= p
t
L
2
, (D.3b)
p
t
front
= − p
t
back
= − p
t
F
1
= p
t
F
4
. (D.3c)
70
Macroscopic stress calculation 71
4
1
5 8

f
e
4

f
e
1

f
e
5
p
t
top
p
t
bottom
p
t
front
p
t
back
p
t
F
1
p
t
F
4
p
t
B
1
p
t
B
5
(a) yz-plane view
1
2
6 5

f
e
1

f
e
2

f
e
5
p
t
top
p
t
bottom
p
t
right
p
t
left
p
t
L
2
p
t
L
1
p
t
B
1
p
t
B
5
(b) xz-plane view
Figure D.1: Schematic picture of the forces acting on the boundaries of a textile composite
RVE subjected to periodic BCs in (a) yz-plane view and (b) xz-plane view.
72 Appendix D
The (D.3) reflects the antiperiodicity of tying forces on the opposite surfaces which
satisfied the antiperiodic condition (2.4b).
By taking account all the forces acting on the RVE surfaces, the surface integral of
P
M
(2.9) from Figure D.1, the surface integral of P
M
can be written as
P
M
=
1
V
0
_

f
e
1
x
0
1
+

f
e
2
x
0
2
+

f
e
4
x
0
4
+

f
e
5
x
0
5
+
_
Γ
0
top
p
t
top
x
0
top

0
+
_
Γ
0
bottom
p
t
bottom
x
0
bottom

0
+
_
Γ
0
front
p
t
front
x
0
front

0
+
_
Γ
0
back
p
t
back
x
0
back

0
+
_
Γ
0
left
p
t
left
x
0
left

0
+
_
Γ
0
right
p
t
right
x
0
right

0
+
_
_
Γ
0
bottom
p
t
B
5

0
_
x
0
5
+
_
_
Γ
0
bottom
p
t
B
1

0
_
x
0
1
+
_
_
Γ
0
front
p
t
F
1

0
_
x
0
1
+
_
_
Γ
0
front
p
t
F
4

0
_
x
0
4
+
_
_
Γ
0
left
p
t
L
1

0
_
x
0
1
+
_
_
Γ
0
left
p
t
L
2

0
_
x
0
2
_
. (D.4)
Making use of the relation between tying forces (D.3) gives
P
M
=
1
V
0
_

f
e
1
x
0
1
+

f
e
2
x
0
2
+

f
e
4
x
0
4
+

f
e
5
x
0
5
+
_
Γ
0
bottom
p
t
bottom
_
x
0
bottom
−x
0
top
_

0
+
_
Γ
0
front
p
t
front
(x
0
front
−x
0
back
) dΓ
0
+
_
Γ
0
left
p
t
left
_
x
0
left
−x
0
right
_

0
+
_
_
Γ
0
bottom
p
t
B
5

0
_
x
0
5
+
_
_
Γ
0
bottom
p
t
B
1

0
_
x
0
1
+
_
_
Γ
0
front
p
t
F
1

0
_
x
0
1
+
_
_
Γ
0
front
p
t
F
4

0
_
x
0
4
+
_
_
Γ
0
left
p
t
L
1

0
_
x
0
1
+
_
_
Γ
0
left
p
t
L
2

0
_
x
0
2
_
. (D.5)
After that, inserting the conditions of the initial periodicity of the RVE (C.2) results
P
M
=
1
V
0
_

f
e
1
x
0
1
+

f
e
2
x
0
2
+

f
e
4
x
0
4
+

f
e
5
x
0
5
+
_
Γ
0
bottom
_
p
t
bottom
+ p
t
B
1
_
x
0
1

0
+
_
Γ
0
front
_
p
t
front
+ p
t
L
1
_
x
0
1

0
+
_
Γ
0
left
_
p
t
left
+ p
t
L
1
_
x
0
1

0
+
_
Γ
0
left
_
p
t
L
2
− p
t
left
_
x
0
2

0
+
_
Γ
0
front
_
p
t
F
4
− p
t
front
_
x
0
4

0
+
_
Γ
0
bottom
_
p
t
B
5
− p
t
bottom
_
x
0
5

0
_
. (D.6)
Macroscopic stress calculation 73
After substituting the remaining relations between tying forces (D.3) gives
P
M
=
1
V
0
_

f
e
1
x
0
1
+

f
e
2
x
0
2
+

f
e
4
x
0
4
+

f
e
5
x
0
5
_
=
1
V
0

p=1,2,4,5

f
e
p
x
0
p
. (D.7)
The (D.7) shows that when the periodic BCs are imposed on a RVE, all the terms with
the constraint forces involved in the periodicity constraint equations have been eliminated
from the surface integral (2.9). And, only the external forces at the four prescribed corner
nodes (p = 1, 2, 4, 5) contribute to the P
M
. As stated at section 2.2, the stress measures
for Abaqus is defined in Cauchy stress tensor, therefore, the computed P
M
(D.7) has to
transform to σ
M
according to (B.10). However, for the case of periodic BCs, by following
the steps of derivation for (D.7), it can be shown that the macroscopic Cauchy stress
tensor can be defined as
σ
M
=
1
V
_

f
e
1
x
1
+

f
e
2
x
2
+

f
e
4
x
4
+

f
e
5
x
5
_
=
1
V

p=1,2,4,5

f
e
p
x
p
. (D.8)
Appendix E
Condensation of the microscopic
stiffness
For the case of the periodic BCs imposed on a RVE, the point of departure is that
the linearized microscopic system of equations which the dependent DOF have been
eliminated
K

δu
¯
i
= δr
¯

, (E.1)
with K

= K
ii
+ K
di
C
di
+ C
T
di
K
di
+ C
T
di
K
dd
C
di
,
δr
¯

= δr
¯
i
+ C
T
di
δr
¯
d
.
Then, the linearized system (E.1) is further partitioned to
_
K

pp
K

pf
K

fp
K

ff
_ _
δu
¯
p
δu
¯
f
_
=
_
δf
¯

p
0
¯
_
, (E.2)
where δu
¯
p
and δf
¯

p
are the columns with iterative prescribed displacement (according
to the (2.16)) and the iterative external forces at the four prescribed corner nodes, re-
spectively. And, δu
¯
f
is the column with iterative displacements of the remaining nodes
(nodes on the surfaces and interior). The K

pp
, K

pf
, K

fp
and K

ff
are the corresponding
partitions of the RVE total stiffness matrix. Then, through the elimination of δu
¯
f
, the
RVE reduced stiffness matrix, K

M
is obtained as
K

M
δu
¯
p
= δf
¯

p
, with K

M
= K

pp
−K

pf
_
K

ff
_
−1
K

fp
, (E.3)
where K

M
is a [12 ×12] matrix for a 3D RVE model (Appendix G).
74
Appendix F
Consistent tangent stiffness for the
Kirchhoff stress tensor
Firstly, the resulting relation between variations of the displacement and force (E.3) needs
to be transformed in an expression relating the variations of the macroscopic stress and
macroscopic deformation tensors
δP
M
=
4
C
P
M
: δF
T
M
, (F.1)
where the fourth order tensor
4
C
P
M
is the required consistent tangent stiffness at a macro-
scopic integration point. In order to obtain
4
C
P
M
from K

M
, the relation in (E.3) is rewritten
in vectorial/tensorial form

j
K
(ij)
M
· δu
(j)
= δ

f
(i)
, (F.2)
where the indices i and j are the prescribed corner nodes (i, j = 1, 2, 4, 5) for the case
of periodic BCs. The components of tensor K
(ij)
M
in (F.2) are constructed from the com-
ponents of matrix K

M
at the rows and column of the DOF in the corner nodes i and j.
The total matrix format of the K

M
is shown in Appendix G.
Next, the variation of nodal forces at the corner nodes in (F.2) is substituted into the
relation for the macroscopic stress variation from (D.7)
δP
M
=
1
V
0

i

j
_
K
(ij)
M
· δu
(j)
_
x
0
(i)
, with i, j = 1, 2, 4, 5. (F.3)
Substitution of the variation of the displacement, δu
(j)
= x
0
(j)
· δF
T
M
derived from (C.7)
into (F.3) gives
δP
M
=
1
V
0

i

j
_
K
(ij)
M
·
_
x
0
(j)
· δF
T
M
__
x
0
(i)
, (F.4a)
=
1
V
0

i

j
_
x
0
(i)
K
(ij)
M
x
0
(j)
_
LT
: δF
T
M
, (F.4b)
where the expressions of (F.4a) and (F.4b) are equivalent and (F.4a) is rewritten into
(F.4b) in order to be comparable to (F.1). The superscript “LT” denotes left transpo-
sition
1
. Finally, by comparing the (F.4b) with δP
M
=
4
C
P
M
: δF
T
M
(F.1), the consistent
1
The left transposition for a fourth–order tensor,
4
T is defined as T
LT
ijkl
= T
jikl
.
75
76 Appendix F
tangent stiffness can be identified as
4
C
P
M
=
1
V
0

i

j
_
x
0
(i)
K
(ij)
M
x
0
(j)
_
LT
. (F.5)
Next, within Abaqus FE scheme, it requires the consistent tangent stiffness with
relating the variation in macroscopic Kirchhoff stress tensor and variation in virtual rate
of deformation according to
δτ
M
=
4
C
τ
M
: D
δM
, (F.6)
then this consistent constitutive tangent can be obtained by varying the definition of the
macroscopic Kirchhoff stress tensor derived from (B.10)
σ
M
=
1
det (F
M
)
P
M
· F
T
M
,

M
= P
M
· F
T
M
,
τ
M
= P
M
· F
T
M
,
δτ
M
= δP
M
· F
T
M
+P
M
· δF
T
M
, (F.7)
where the initial and current volumes of a RVE are related according to volume ratio,
J
M
= det(F
M
) = V/V
0
and the definition of Kirchhoff stress tensor, τ
M
= Jσ
M
have
been used.
Firstly, by using the definition of fourth–order right transpose identity tensor,
4
I
RT
:
A = A :
4
I
RT
= A
T
and relation of δP
T
M
=
4
C
P
LT
M
: δF
T
M
, the (F.7) can be further
rewritten in
δτ
M
=
4
I
RT
:
_
F
M
· δP
T
M
_
+P
M
· δF
T
M
,
=
_
4
I
RT
· F
M
_
: δP
T
M
+P
M
· δF
T
M
,
=
_
4
I
RT
· F
M
_
:
_
4
C
P
LT
M
: δF
T
M
_
+
_
4
I : P
M
_
· δF
T
M
,
=
_
4
I
RT
· F
M
:
4
C
P
LT
M
+
4
I · P
M
_
: δF
T
M
. (F.8)
Next, the variation of the macroscopic velocity gradient tensor, L
δM
has to introduce
into (F.8) in order to introduce its symmetric part tensor, i.e. rate of deformation tensor,
D
δM
. The L
M
is written as
L
δM
= δF
M
· F
−1
M
,
L
T
δM
= F
−T
M
· δF
T
M
,
F
T
M
· L
T
δM
= δF
T
M
. (F.9)
Then, the (F.9) is substituted into (F.8)
δτ
M
=
_
_
4
I
RT
· F
M
_
:
4
C
P
LT
M
+
_
4
I · P
M
_
_
:
_
F
T
M
· L
T
δM
_
,
= {(
4
I
RT
· F
M
_
:
4
C
P
LT
M
· F
T
M
+
_
4
I · P
M
_
· F
T
M
_
: L
T
δM
,
=
_
4
I
RT
:
_
F
M
·
4
C
P
LT
M
· F
T
M
_
+
4
I · τ
M
_
: L
T
δM
, (F.10)
Consistent tangent stiffness for the Kirchhoff stress tensor 77
where the definition of Kirchhoff stress tensor in (F.7) is used. Next, the (F.10) has to
rewrite according to relation δτ
M
=
4
C
τ
M
: D
δM
(F.6) where the condition of symmetric
has to satisfy at both sides
δτ
M
=
_
4
I
RT
:
_
F
M
·
4
C
P
LT
M
· F
T
M
_
+
4
I · τ
M
_
:
_
4
I
S
: D
δM
_
,
=
__
4
I
RT
:
_
F
M
·
4
C
P
LT
M
· F
T
M
_
+
4
I · τ
M
_
:
4
I
S
_
: D
δM
, (F.11)
where the symmetrical part of L
δM
is used, i.e. the symmetric rate of deformation tensor,
D
δM
which defined as
D
δM
=
1
2
_
L
δM
+L
T
δM
_
. (F.12)
Next, the consistent tangent stiffness tensor,
4
C
P
M
(F.5) can be substituted into (F.11) for
the further derivation
δτ
M
=
__
4
I
RT
:
_
F
M
·
_
1
V
0

i

j
_
x
0
(i)
K
(ij)
M
x
0
(j)
_
_
· F
T
M
_
+
4
I · τ
M
_
:
4
I
S
_
: D
δM
,
=
__
4
I
RT
:
1
V
0

i

j
_
F
M
· x
0
(i)
K
(ij)
M
x
0
(j)
· F
T
M
_
+
4
I · τ
M
_
:
4
I
S
_
: D
δM
,
=
__
4
I
RT
:
1
V
0

i

j
_
x
(i)
K
(ij)
M
x
(j)
_
+
4
I · τ
M
_
:
4
I
S
_
: D
δM
,
=
__
1
V
0

i

j
_
x
(i)
K
(ij)
M
x
(j)
_
LT
+
4
I · τ
M
_
:
4
I
S
_
: D
δM
,
=
_
1
V
0

i

j
_
x
(i)
K
(ij)
M
x
(j)
_
LT
:
4
I
S
+
4
I · τ
M
:
4
I
S
_
: D
δM
, (F.13)
where the definition of x = F
M
· x
0
= x
0
· F
T
M
and
4
I
RT
:
4
A =
4
A
LT
are used. Due to
the symmetrical characteristic of the Kirchhoff stress tensor, τ
M
, thus, τ
M
= τ
M
:
4
I
S
.
Then, the (F.13) can be further simplified to
δτ
M
=
_
1
V
0

i

j
_
x
(i)
K
(ij)
M
x
(j)
_
LT
:
4
I
S
+
4
I · τ
M
_
: D
δM
. (F.14)
Finally, by comparing the (F.14) with the δτ
M
=
4
C
τ
M
: D
δM
(F.6), The tangent
stiffness tensor,
4
C
τ
M
is identified as
4
C
τ
M
=
1
V
0

i

j
_
x
(i)
K
(ij)
M
x
(j)
_
LT
:
4
I
S
+
4
I · τ
M
. (F.15)
Appendix G
Total matrix of the reduced stiffness
matrix
The total matrix K

M
for a 3D RVE model has the format as shown in (G.1) where the
superscripts and subscripts in round brackets refer to the nodes and the DOF at those
nodes, respectively. Each submatrix in (G.1) is considered as the representation of a
second–order tensor, K
(ij)
M
, which the indices i and j are the prescribed corner nodes
(i, j = 1, 2, 4, 5) for the case of periodic BCs.
78
T
o
t
a
l
m
a
t
r
i
x
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
s
t
i

n
e
s
s
m
a
t
r
i
x
7
9
K

M
=
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
_
¸
_
K
(11)
11
K
(11)
12
K
(11)
13
K
(11)
21
K
(11)
22
K
(11)
23
K
(11)
31
K
(11)
32
K
(11)
33
_
¸
_
_
¸
_
K
(12)
11
K
(12)
12
K
(12)
13
K
(12)
21
K
(12)
22
K
(12)
23
K
(12)
31
K
(12)
32
K
(12)
33
_
¸
_
_
¸
_
K
(13)
11
K
(13)
12
K
(13)
13
K
(13)
21
K
(13)
22
K
(13)
23
K
(13)
31
K
(13)
32
K
(13)
33
_
¸
_
_
¸
_
K
(14)
11
K
(14)
12
K
(14)
13
K
(14)
21
K
(14)
22
K
(14)
23
K
(14)
31
K
(14)
32
K
(14)
33
_
¸
_
_
¸
_
K
(21)
11
K
(21)
12
K
(21)
13
K
(21)
21
K
(14)
21
K
(21)
23
K
(21)
31
K
(21)
32
K
(21)
33
_
¸
_
_
¸
_
K
(22)
11
K
(22)
12
K
(22)
13
K
(22)
21
K
(22)
22
K
(22)
23
K
(22)
31
K
(22)
32
K
(22)
33
_
¸
_
_
¸
_
K
(23)
11
K
(23)
12
K
(23)
13
K
(23)
21
K
(22)
23
K
(23)
23
K
(23)
31
K
(23)
32
K
(23)
33
_
¸
_
_
¸
_
K
(24)
11
K
(24)
12
K
(24)
13
K
(24)
21
K
(22)
24
K
(24)
23
K
(24)
31
K
(24)
32
K
(24)
33
_
¸
_
_
¸
_
K
(31)
11
K
(31)
12
K
(31)
13
K
(31)
21
K
(22)
31
K
(31)
23
K
(31)
31
K
(31)
32
K
(31)
33
_
¸
_
_
¸
_
K
(32)
11
K
(32)
12
K
(32)
13
K
(32)
21
K
(32)
24
K
(32)
23
K
(32)
31
K
(32)
32
K
(32)
33
_
¸
_
_
¸
_
K
(33)
11
K
(33)
12
K
(33)
13
K
(33)
21
K
(33)
24
K
(33)
23
K
(33)
31
K
(33)
32
K
(33)
33
_
¸
_
_
¸
_
K
(34)
11
K
(34)
12
K
(34)
13
K
(34)
21
K
(34)
24
K
(34)
23
K
(34)
31
K
(34)
32
K
(34)
33
_
¸
_
_
¸
_
K
(41)
11
K
(41)
12
K
(41)
13
K
(41)
21
K
(41)
24
K
(41)
23
K
(41)
31
K
(41)
32
K
(41)
33
_
¸
_
_
¸
_
K
(42)
11
K
(42)
12
K
(42)
13
K
(42)
21
K
(42)
24
K
(42)
23
K
(42)
31
K
(42)
32
K
(42)
33
_
¸
_
_
¸
_
K
(43)
11
K
(43)
12
K
(43)
13
K
(43)
21
K
(43)
24
K
(43)
23
K
(43)
31
K
(43)
32
K
(43)
33
_
¸
_
_
¸
_
K
(44)
11
K
(44)
12
K
(44)
13
K
(44)
21
K
(44)
24
K
(44)
23
K
(44)
31
K
(44)
32
K
(44)
33
_
¸
_
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
(G.1)
Appendix H
Incremental–iterative multi–scale
modeling approach
The Figure H.1 shows the schematic view of the incremental–iteration approach for the
macro–micro coupling computational homogenization method within Abaqus/Standard.
80
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

i
t
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
m
u
l
t
i

s
c
a
l
e
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
8
1
macro–structure micro–structure
1. Initialize
initialize the macrostructure
assign the RVE to every integration point, IP
at each element, EL
2. Current increment
2.1. First iteration
loop over all IPs
only at first increment: F
M
= I
create and open file: write EL number,
IP number and F
M
(UMAT.for) EL, IP, and F
M
Initialize the RVE analysis
close file - open and read file: EL, IP, and F
M
prescribe the RVE deformation through F
M
(DISP.for)
generate the file of K

obtain RVE initial volume, V
0
(URDFIL.for)
obtain current coordinates of the 4 corner nodes, x
(URDFIL.for)
calculate Kirchhoff stress, τ
M
(URDFIL.for)
K

, V
0
, x, and τ
M
open files: write V
0
, x, and τ
M
store K

close files
end IPs loop
2.2. Next iteration
loop over all IPs
create and open file: write EL number,
IP number and F
M
(UMAT.for) EL, IP, and F
M
RVE analysis
close file - open and read file: EL, IP, and F
M
prescribe the RVE deformation through F
M
(DISP.for)
calculate the σ
M
(URDFIL.for)
generate the file of K

obtain RVE initial volume, V
0
(URDFIL.for)
obtain current coordinates of the 4 corner nodes, x
(URDFIL.for)
calculate Kirchhoff stress, τ
M
(URDFIL.for)
σ
M
, K

, V
0
, x and τ
M
open file: write σ
M
, V
0
, x and τ
M
store σ
M
and K

close file
end IPs loop
3. Check for convergence
if divergence, go to step 2.2
if convergence, go to step 2
Figure H.1: The macro– and micro–scale coupling numerical framework for the computational homogenization.
Appendix I
Multi–scale analyses of
unidirectional fiber reinforced
composite
Figure I.1 and Figure I.2 show the von Mises stress contour on the UD RVE and Cauchy
stress contour on the macroscopic structure coupled with the UD RVE, respectively, under
longitudinal tension, transverse tension, longitudinal shear and transverse shear loadings.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure I.1: The von Mises equivalent stress of the UD RVE (micro–scale analyses) under
(a) longitudinal tension, (b) transverse tension, (c) longitudinal shear, and (d)
transverse shear loadings.
82
Multi–scale analyses of unidirectional fiber reinforced composite 83
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure I.2: The Cauchy stress contour of the macroscopic structure coupled with the UD RVE
under (a) longitudinal tension, (b) transverse tension, (c) longitudinal shear, and
(d) transverse shear loadings.