An intelligent inverse method for characterization

of textile reinforced thermoplastic composites
using a hyperelastic constitutive model
A.S. Milani, J.A. Nemes
*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, 817 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Que., Canada H3A 2K6
Received 18 June 2003; received in revised form 17 November 2003; accepted 18 November 2003
Available online 27 February 2004
Abstract
Uncontrollable factors such as contact friction, misalignment, slip, variations in local fiber volume due to fiber spreading or
bunching, and tow compaction are a few sources leading to scatter (noise) in the response (signal) of textile composites. Accordingly,
characterization methods often have difficulty due to non-repeatability of test data. If variance of such response within the repli-
cation of tests is neglected, then the identification of model parameters can be far from describing the true material behavior. In
order to confront this shortcoming, the main objective of this paper is to elaborate on characterization of textile composites using a
new inverse method by means of the signal-to-noise ratio. It will also be shown that using an appropriate constitutive model and
statistical framework, the engagement of a larger range of test replications is not only useful but also may be critical for better
characterization of this class of material.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A. Fabrics/textiles; B. Non-linear behavior; B. Modeling; C. Statistics; Inverse method
1. Introduction
The rapid growth of applications of composite ma-
terials for industry has resulted in the establishment of
new requirements for the better understanding of the
response of textile composites.
The mechanical behavior of textile composites, in
general, exhibits non-linearity. Whereas the behavior of
single yarns may be linear [1], non-linear behavior is
caused by a structural change in the fabric geometry
during deformation. To understand the governing
mechanism, two initial sources of flexibility of woven
fabric should be considered [2]. The first source is the
flexibility of the yarn structure itself, in which the rela-
tive movement of the individual fibers is restricted
merely by friction between the fibers, and the other is the
absence of a rigid bond at the yarn interlacing points, by
which the displacement of individual yarns in the textile
structure is controlled. The latter source suggests that
the position of reinforcements within the fabric can be a
practical problem. For instance, it is shown [3] that even
a small amount of fiber misalignment in the picture
frame test configuration can result in excessive load
contribution. Recently, the microscopic investigation of
such problems has also been conducted in [4]. In all
cases, it is concluded that the original material behavior
may not be reliably characterized using solely one mode
of deformation. However, considering different defor-
mation modes can help models to capture the overall
behavior of the material.
Using each test, despite similar conditions, non-
repeatability of results seems to be commonly experienc-
ed for all types of weaves under different deformation
modes [5–7]. For some cases, e.g., picture frame test, me-
chanical conditioning is suggested to improve the repeat-
ability of data, although the loads for the conditioned
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-514-398-6289; fax: +1-514-398-
7365.
E-mail address: james.nemes@mcgill.ca (J.A. Nemes).
0266-3538/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2003.11.010
Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 1565–1576
COMPOSITES
SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
www.elsevier.com/locate/compscitech
fabrics are sometimes as small as half those for the un-
conditioned fabric [5]. On the other hand, for other test
methods, e.g., bias extension test, it is not practical to
mechanically condition the specimens before the actual
data sampling because of the effect of fiber slip. As a
result, in order to select the most consistent set of data,
some experiments have to be repeated several times or, if
not feasible, one may administer a treatment (sometimes
biased) on available data sets, such as averaging or pre-
selecting preferred results. However, as the results of
such non-repeatable tests are to be used within the pa-
rameter identification process, both cases may be unre-
liable due to the following reasons. First, the standard
regression methods basically assume randomly scattered
data [8] and, second, there is no certain basis for im-
posing a predefined regime over the entire range of the
response with no attention to the effect of scatter in the
obtained data (noise). It is to say that, in fact, every
single set of data may indicate different portions of in-
herent behavior of the material and, thus, should not be
neglected. This paper is an attempt to introduce an in-
telligent inverse method to elaborate on characterization
of textile composites by means of the signal-to-noise
ratio (S=N) obtained from replication of tests. It is ex-
pected that the new method, given a proper constitutive
model, will enable one to employ the entire range of test
data, with no subjective attention to any particular set.
In order to accomplish the objective, different sets of
data are first obtained from the bias extension and
uniaxial extension experiments on 2 ×2 twill weave
fabric. A phenomenological invariant-based constitutive
model is then employed in which the interaction between
the fiber and resin materials during deformation is clo-
sely accounted for. Next, the proposed inverse method is
presented and adopted for characterization of the ma-
terial under the aforementioned modes. Finally, by in-
tegrating the constitutive model and the test data in the
(weighted) inverse method, the model constants are
identified. The effectiveness and stability of the method
is verified during the characterization procedure.
2. Proposed deformation modes
2.1. Bias extension
In this mode of deformation, a single layer of woven
fabric is stretched in the direction of the testing machine
while two families of fiber yarns (warps and wefts) are
ideally initially oriented at ±45° from the loading axis.
Nomenclature
A structural tensor in fiber direction a =
¸a
1
; a
2
; a
3
)
B structural tensor in fiber direction b =
¸b
1
; b
2
; b
3
)
C right Cauchy–Green deformation tensor
H initial length of specimen
H
1
penalty function for inequality constraints
H
2
penalty function for equality constraints
I
1;2;3
deformation invariants for isotropic resin
material
I
4;6
deformation invariants in structural direc-
tions
I
÷
4;6
modified strain invariant in structural direc-
tions
L likelihood function
L
eff
effective length of specimen
R
2
coefficient of multiple determination
S
i
second Piola–Kirchhoff principal stress
(i = 1; 2; 3)
S
Exp:
i
average principal stress calculated form ex-
perimental data
S
Model
i
average principal stress predicted
by model
S=N signal-to-noise ratio
W initial width of specimen
W strain energy function
c
1;2
resin material parameters
d displacement
f (X) constitutive model distance in general (X is
vector of model constants)
g
j
(X) inequality constraints
h
j
(X) equality constraints
k
1;2
fiber material parameters
m fiber–resin interaction coefficient
n number of measurements in an
experiment
r penalty magnification factor
u
c
Heaviside step function
C pseudo-objective function
/ fiber angle made with loading axis in
reference configuration
c
1;2
penalty coefficient of inequality and equality
constraints
e
i
normal random error at ith measurement
point
k
a;b
stretch in the two structural directions
k
i
principal stretches (i = 1; 2; 3)
r standard deviation (STD) around target
value
x
2
i
positive weighting factor
1566 A.S. Milani, J.A. Nemes / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 1565–1576
During testing, the central zone of the specimen (effec-
tive zone) is subjected to an intraply shear mode, known
as the ÔtrellisÕ. The trellis behavior of a woven fabric can
be identified by accounting for the change of angle be-
tween fiber yarns and the longitudinal displacement [9].
By recording these two independent variables, the two
independent stretch ratios (longitudinal and transverse)
can then be calculated and employed in the identifica-
tion of parameters in constitutive models. The schematic
of the specimen, experimental setup and corresponding
deformation mechanisms are depicted in Fig. 1. As seen,
in the ideal condition (i.e., the Pin-Jointed-Net), the
initial angle between fiber yarns, 2/
0
, becomes 2/ upon
shear deformation [10]. In practice, however, some flaws
such as fiber slip and misalignment can result in defor-
mation mechanisms beyond the PJN approximation
[10–12].
2.1.1. Kinematics
Because of constraint of the upper and lower edge,
the bias-extension specimen exhibits various deforma-
tion zones. As shown in Fig. 1, these may be divided
into: rigid (A), half shear (B), and pure shear (C) zones,
where the shear angle in zone B is half of that in zone A
[5,7,9]. Accordingly, the effective length of the specimen,
L
eff
, along which homogeneous deformation may be
assumed is given by [7] as:
L
eff
= 2 H ( ÷W) cos /
0
cos /: (1)
If L
eff
0
denotes the initial effective length of the speci-
men, and the (controlled) displacement at the extremity
of the specimen is d, then the longitudinal stretch can be
defined as:
k
1
=
L
eff
0
÷d
L
eff
0
: (2)
In addition, based on the material element shown in
Fig. 2, the transverse stretch, k
2
, can be related to the
fiber angle and k
1
by:
k
2
=
tan /
tan /
0
k
1
: (3)
From Eqs. (2) and (3), the stretch in the structural
direction a, k
a
, may be presented in the canonical form
as k
a
=
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k
2
1
cos
2
/
0
÷k
2
2
sin
2
/
0
_
, or in the parametric
form as k
a
=
cos /
0
cos /
k
1
; where the stretch in the structural
direction is formulated with respect to the reference
configuration. When /
0
÷45°, and the deformation
follows the PJN approximation, the induced fiber stretch
tends to unity in each structural direction k
a
= k
b
~ 1 ( ).
It should be noted that the above kinematics are de-
rived based on a continuum material element in which
the point transformation is assumed to follow the co-
ordinate transformation (Fig. 2). Accordingly, the fiber
stretch mode can be accounted for, whereas the fiber
slippage may not. However, if slip can be considered as
a noise factor reflected in the response of the material,
the proposed S=N weighting method is then expected to
overcome the above drawback.
2.1.2. Experimental data
Three tests were repeated with identical specimens cut
from flat consolidated plaques of one ply of TWINTEX
fabric, having the characteristics given in Table 1. The
initial width and length were selected as W = 88:9 mm
and H = 306:0 mm. The tests were conducted using an
Instron tensile test machine mounted with a 1 kN load
cell and a temperature-conditioning chamber at a
crosshead speed of 162 mm/min, and a temperature of
185 °C. Force-displacement data were obtained and
shown in Fig. 3. Simultaneously, the corresponding
deformation was monitored using a high-speed video
Fig. 2. Material element and employed coordinate system.
Table 1
Characteristics of test material (Twintex)
Weight (% Glass) 60%
Weight (% Polypropylene) 40%
Areal weight 1485 g/m
2
(44 oz./yd.
2
)
Nominal molded fabric thickness 1 mm (0.040 in.)
Fabric construction 10 ends/in. ×5 double ends/in.
Weave type Balanced 2 ×2 Twill
Color Black
Fig. 1. Schematic of bias extension test: specimen, deformation
mechanism, and setup.
A.S. Milani, J.A. Nemes / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 1565–1576 1567
camera. The recording was then used to measure the
fiber angle, /, with a frequency of one measurement per
2 s. The measured fiber angle values showed little ex-
perimental scatter during the three tests, within the ac-
curacy of measurement, and therefore only one set of
data is shown. As seen in Fig. 3, departure of the re-
corded fiber angle from that of the PJN [9] (i.e.,
cos / = k
1
cos /
0
) indicates the presence of slip and
misalignment during the deformation. If the fabric is dry
and friction at crossover points is high enough to reduce
slippage, then some misaligned fibers may undergo
stretch, leading to relatively high load values (see, e.g.,
[5]). In the latter case, the effective deformation mode
can be a combination of trellis, slippage and tension. On
the other hand, for pre-consolidated fabrics, in partic-
ular at elevated testing temperatures, due to lack of such
resistance, it is believed that misalignment will result
mainly in slippage. This is most likely for fibers with free
ends in the middle region of the specimen.
2.2. Uniaxial extension
In this mode of deformation, the setup consists of a
single ply of consolidated fabric (TWINTEX) installed
in the jaws of the same tensile machine used for the bias-
extension test with the warp and weft directions oriented
at 0° and 90° with respect to the loading direction.
During the testing, the angle between the fibers remains
unchanged (i.e., /
0
= / = 0°) and the yarns parallel to
the loading direction mainly undergo longitudinal ex-
tension. The data from such a test can be useful to
identify the mechanical properties of the fabric in the
fiber directions. The three repeats of the tests for spec-
imens with dimensions of 222.5 mm in-length and 88.9
mm in-width are shown in Fig. 4. Note that in this
mode, the effective length covers the entire length of the
specimen, i.e., L
eff
= 222:5 mm.
Comparing the load and stretch values obtained from
such tests to those of the bias extension test, it is im-
mediately understood that, in spite of similar effective
areas, the behavior of the two modes are mechanically
very different. In the trellis mode, the rigidity of the
fabric is related to the resistance to change of the in-
terlacing angle, whereas in the tensile mode the rigidity
of the fabric is mainly related to the resistance in
stretching fibers. This, in turn, prompts us to charac-
terize shear and fiber constants of the material from
separate tests, namely, the bias extension and uniaxial
extension tests, respectively. To do so, a constitutive
model relating the observed response to the independent
variable (stretch) must first be identified.
3. Constitutive model
The complexity of the deformation state within the
fabric structure has been shown to be highly dependent
on the deformation mode. The different loading condi-
tions cause different evolution of the tow architecture
during deformation [4]. This, in turn, has brought re-
searchers to view textile composites in two general ways:
as a geometrically non-linear structure, or as a contin-
uum body. Although models belonging to the second
category (considering the composite sheet as a contin-
uum medium, perhaps with slight extensibility in the di-
rection of fibers) limit themselves to the macroscopic
scale, they can still be useful to capture the global be-
havior of the material, which is required in process
simulations, material selection, tool design and optimi-
zation. A thorough review of constitutive modeling of
composite sheets at a macrolevel is given in [13]. Some
models are restricted to specialized material behavior,
such as the transversely isotropic solid [14], while others
provide a phenomenological framework without incor-
porating interactions between individual fibers and ma-
trix material. As noted previously, one ultimate objective
within many models is for utilization in finite element
simulation, in which the forming process can be simu-
lated. Unfortunately, however, difficulties, such as ele-
ment locking at large elongation ratios associated with
fabric composite forming processes have restricted the
usability of some models. Furthermore, and perhaps
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
d (mm)
F
(
N
)

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
φ

(
D
e
g
.
)
test 1
test 2
test 3
Fiber angle
PJN
Sliding
Fig. 3. Data points from bias extension tests (three repeats).
Fig. 4. Data points from uniaxial extension tests (three repeats).
1568 A.S. Milani, J.A. Nemes / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 1565–1576
more fundamentally, when fitting some models to dif-
ferent modes of deformation, they fail to describe the
response of the material without changing the model
parameters.
Recently, a viscoelastic model has been developed
which uses a particular Helmholtz free-energy function
that allows modeling of composite sheets with two ar-
bitrary families of fibers [15]. In earlier work [3], by
accounting for the effect of fiber alignment, and using a
single set of constants, it was shown that the hyperelastic
portion of this model can be sufficient to capture the
overall S-shape response of a pre-consolidated weave
under the picture frame test configuration at a constant
rate of deformation. In doing so, however, it was real-
ized that the prediction of the response is highly linked
to reliable characterization of the bias extension and
uniaxial extension tests. In addition, it appears that the
original model shows some difficulty in predicting later
stages of deformation in some modes, as will be dis-
cussed further in the following section. Details of the
derivation of the model in principal directions (shown in
Fig. 2) are presented in Appendix A. Herein, we
concentrate on enhancing the hyperelastic model with
fiber–resin interactions, and then identifying the model
constants using the resulting constitutive equation and
the proposed inverse method.
3.1. Including fiber–resin interactions
Recently, from a microscopic investigation of change
of tow geometry with shearing, three different phases of
deformation for a weave have been distinguished [4]:
placing, sliding, and locking. The position of these phases
with respect to the S-shape response of the material is
shown schematically in Fig. 5. Since similar, though not
identical, trends of deformation can be seen for most
types of textile composites [12], it is of utmost importance
for constitutive models to recognize the above phases.
From Eq. (A.6) it can be seen that the postulated energy
function reflects two deformation regimes as follows.
• A low consistency regime aimed at reproducing the
rubber-like behavior of the material (suitable for
early stage of deformation); i.e., a Mooney–Rivlin
model:
c
1
2
(I
1
÷3) ÷
c
2
2
(I
2
÷3)
• A much higher consistency regime aimed at repro-
ducing the glassy-like behavior of the fiber materials:
k
1
2k
2
¦exp[k
2
(I
4
÷1)
2
[ ÷1¦ ÷
k
1
2k
2
¦exp[k
2
(I
6
÷1)
2
[ ÷1¦
As such, intermediate phases of deformation (e.g., the
overlapping zone between the sliding and lock-up pha-
ses, denoted as the Ôtransitional zone,
1
in Fig. 5) may
remain uncharacterized by the model. In fact, through-
out these phases, the material behavior transitions from
one zone to the other, and so the interaction between
fiber and resin materials, is likely to play an important
role. This factor may be a reason why some elastic
models cease to predict fabric response as the transi-
tional zone is approached. Accordingly, the inclusion of
a third regime in the energy function corresponding to
the interaction between fiber and resin materials can be
useful for better prediction of the behavior. The result of
such modification will be evaluated further in Section 5.
To this end, and avoiding any unwise overfitting by in-
creasing the number of model parameters, we include a
single term as:
W
Interaction
=
m
2
(I
1
÷3)
.fflfflfflffl¸¸fflfflfflffl.
Matrix material
(I
4
÷1) ÷ (I
6
÷1) [ [
.fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl¸¸fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl.
Fiber materials
: (4)
Hence, the strain energy function of Eq. (A.6) becomes
W =
c
1
2
(I
1
_
÷3) ÷
c
2
2
(I
2
÷3)
_
Matrix
÷
m
2
(I
1
_
÷3) (I
4
÷I
6
÷2)
_
Interaction
÷
k
1
2k
2
¦exp[k
2
(I
4
_
÷1)
2
[ ÷1¦
÷
k
1
2k
2
¦exp[k
2
(I
6
÷1)
2
[ ÷1¦
_
Fibers
: (5)
Eventually, substituting Eq. (5) in (A.5), and given a
mechanically equivalent reinforcement, we obtain:
S
i
=
1
k
2
i
(k
2
i
÷k
÷2
i
k
÷2
j
)[c
1
÷c
2
k
2
j
÷m(I
4
÷I
6
÷2[
÷2a
2
i
k
1
(I
4
_
÷1) exp[k
2
(I
4
÷1)
2
[ ÷
m
2
(I
1
÷3)
_
÷2b
2
i
k
1
(I
6
_
÷1) exp [k
2
(I
6
÷1)
2
[ ÷
m
2
(I
1
÷3)
_
;
(6)
where cyclic indices refer to i ÷j ÷i = 1 ÷
2 ÷1 (no summation) and c
1
; c
2
; k
1
; k
2
; m are model
constants to be characterized by the inverse method.
Fig. 5. Schematic of different deformation zones in S-shape response of
a fabric.
1
Along where the theoretical lock-up, U
c
, occurs.
A.S. Milani, J.A. Nemes / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 1565–1576 1569
Note that since fibers can buckle under weak com-
pression loads, it is reasonable to reinforce the numeri-
cal process with the following modification of the fiber
invariants by means of the Heaviside step function, u
c
,
as follows.
I
4
÷
= I
4
( ÷1)u
c
(I
4
) ÷1;
u
c
(I
4
) = u(I
4
÷c) =
0; I
4
< c;
1; I
4
Pc;
_
(7)
where c P1 (the same applies for I
6
). This, first, ensures
that fiber compressive stiffness is neglected from load
bearing strength [15] and, second, only the net portion
of fiber stretch (due to initially curvy pattern of fibers,
slip, etc.) participates in the characterization [3]. Ideally,
for perfectly straight fibers in the reference configura-
tion, it can be considered c = 1. Similar modifications
may also be useful to model primary tension in fibers, if
any, or to include a deliberate initial misalignment (e.g.,
see [3] for modification of I
4
when a small initial mis-
alignment dominates the overall response).
3.2. Reduced form of constitutive equation
In this section a reduced form of the constitutive Eq.
(6), corresponding to the bias extension and uniaxial
extension tests, is obtained. This can be achieved by
substituting the corresponding fiber direction for each
deformation mode, applying the appropriate constraints,
and factorizing with respect to the unknown constants
(compatible with the standard regression formulation).
3.2.1. Bias extension mode
In this mode, a =
1
ffiffi
2
_
;
1
ffiffi
2
_
; 0
_ _
, b =
1
ffiffi
2
_
;
÷1
ffiffi
2
_
; 0
_ _
, and
the reduced model considering the free stress boundary
condition (BC) becomes:
S
Model
1
= c
1
(1 ÷k
÷4
1
k
÷2
2
) ÷c
2
(k
2
2
÷k
÷4
1
)
÷m[ (k
2
1
÷k
2
2
÷k
÷2
1
k
÷2
2
÷3)
÷2(1 ÷k
÷4
1
k
÷2
2
)(I
4
÷
÷1)[
÷2k
1
(I
4
÷
÷1) exp[k
2
(I
4
÷
÷1)
2
[;
BC :
S
Model
2
= c
1
(1 ÷k
÷4
2
k
÷2
1
) ÷c
2
(k
2
1
÷k
÷4
2
)
÷m[(k
2
1
÷k
2
2
÷k
÷2
1
k
÷2
2
÷3)
÷2(1 ÷k
÷4
2
k
÷2
1
)(I
4
÷
÷1)[
÷2k
1
(I
4
÷
÷1) exp[k
2
(I
4
÷
÷1)
2
[ = 0;
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
(8)
where I
4
÷
is given in Eq. (7) and k
2
can be related to k
1
via
the independent fiber angle measurement as given by
Eq. (3). Also, it is worth mentioning that although Eq.
(6) is non-linear with respect to k
1
and k
2
, the reduced
model of (8) will be linear with respect to the parameters
c
1
; c
2
; m and k
1
but non-linear with respect to k
2
.
3.2.2. Uniaxial extension mode
In this mode, a = 1; 0; 0 ¸ ), b = 0; 1; 0 ¸ ), and the fi-
bers parallel to the loading direction are the only
family of fibers contributing to the extension. As-
suming that the total load acting on the fabric ap-
proximately goes to stretching the family of fibers, the
following reduced model is sufficient to select the fiber
constants k
1
and k
2
, independently of the other de-
formation modes.
S
Model
1
= 2k
1
(I
4
÷
÷1) exp [k
2
(I
4
÷
÷1)
2
[: (9)
Adding the small range of deformation in this mode
(about 1% stretch), the free state of stress in the trans-
verse direction is automatically satisfied. Note that the
reasoning behind the above approximation is that the
fiber constants are of much higher order of magnitude
than other terms.
4. Inverse method
Inverse methods are important tools for determining
parameters appearing in models, where the goal is to
determine a set of parameters that minimize the differ-
ence between the calculated values of a model using a
functional form (e.g., constitutive equation) and the
corresponding experimental data (e.g., results of a me-
chanical test) [16]. Given a realistic constitutive equation
and unbiased test data, then, the key difference between
different inverse methods is in the use of three main
components: regression estimator, weighting scheme,
and optimization procedure. Herein, we propose the
maximum Likelihood estimator, the S=N weighting
scheme, and the penalty method as the components of
the inverse method.
4.1. Maximum Likelihood estimator
If at each measuring point, e
i
denotes a normal ran-
dom error (i.e., difference between the observed response
and the predicted response), then the likelihood function
L (sometimes called the joint density function) in a
general form can be defined as (see also [17]):
L =
1
2p ( )
n=2
exp
_
÷
1
2

n
i=1
x
2
i
e
2
i
_

n
i=1
x
i
( ); (10)
where n is the number of measurements, and x
2
i
can be
considered as a positive weight (statistically, related to
the error variance) that assigns a relative importance to
each data point. Estimation of such weights will be
discussed in the next section.
Maximizing the likelihood function results in an
intuitively appealing form of estimation of parameters
with outstanding asymptotic properties [18]. Such
likelihood estimators are principally advantageous in
two ways: (a) they identify the probability of the data
1570 A.S. Milani, J.A. Nemes / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 1565–1576
given the parameters as the Likelihood of the pa-
rameters given the data, and (b) they are capable of
accommodating different types of underlying error
distributions [17].
Maximizing the natural logarithm of L in Eq. (10)
yields the weighted least square estimation as: Min.

n
i=1
x
2
i
e
2
i
. Accordingly, for the bias extension defor-
mation mode, the total distance between the observation
and the constitutive model, f (X), is to be minimized as:
Min:f (X);
where f (X) =

n
i=1
x
2
i
S
Exp:
1
÷S
Model
1
_ _
2
i
;
subject to the BC :
H
2
(X) = S
Model
2
= 0;
_
¸
¸
_
¸
¸
_
(11)
where X is the vector of the model constants (regression
parameters). The ‘‘Model’’ superscript refers to Eq. (8),
whereas the ‘‘Exp.’’ superscript corresponds to the av-
erage principal second Piola–Kirchhoff stress calculated
directly from the measured force and initial cross-
sectional area (values are shown in Fig. 6). For the
uniaxial extension mode, the formulation of problem
(11) is still applicable, except it is considered uncon-
strained. In this case, similarly, the ‘‘Model’’ superscript
refers to Eq. (9), and the ‘‘Exp.’’ superscript corresponds
to the calculated stress values (values are shown in
Fig. 7).
Finally, it should be recalled that the above frame-
work cannot account for systematic errors in the mea-
surements. If an experimenter carries a prior knowledge
of this type of error (e.g., initial offset), it is strongly
recommended to subtract it from the obtained data
before any characterization. This, in turn, will keep the
assumption of randomization valid.
Next, for defining proper weighting factors x
2
i
, the
most reliable method should be to utilize the available
replications of tests as follows.
4.2. Definition of weighting factors using S/N
Uncertainty of test data, as described in Section 1,
due to the complex structure of woven fabrics is typi-
cally unavoidable. In this view, a weighting method is
needed as a sensitivity yardstick by which inevitability of
random errors of both material and measurements can
be accounted for. Given replicates of a test, two possi-
bilities for estimating proper weights are seen to be
likely. One classical approach is to use the reciprocal of
sample variance (see, e.g. [17]), and the other as a new
approach is to adopt the S=N ratio concept proposed by
Taguchi [19]. The latter concept is strongly supported by
Taguchi, who urges viewing engineering systems as a
means of an energy transformer whose response char-
acteristics change with input signal [20]. The S=N mea-
sures variability around target performance (response)
by taking into account the stability of performance in
the face of uncontrollable factors. For instance, in the
case of the response of woven fabric materials, a higher
value of data deviation normally funnels out in the later
stage of deformation (see Figs. 3 and 4). However, it
should not be ignored that the change in the material
structure becomes more and more complex as the de-
formation proceeds [4]. A typical magnitude of devia-
tion in an early stage of deformation (e.g., placing
phase) may not be reasonable, whereas the same devi-
ation in a later stage (e.g., lock-up) would be expected.
As such, what is sensible is to maximize the natural ratio
of response due to the signal factor to that due to the
noise factor, and not to merely use the deviation of data
without concern for the magnitude of the signal itself.
Subsequently, we examined the use of S=N ratio for the
characterization under scrutiny in the following manner.
For the ‘‘nominal is best’’ quality characteristic of
response (here force), the S=N ratio in decibels (dB) can
be defined as [20]:
S
N
_ _
i
= ÷10 log
S
Exp:
1
r
_ _
2
i
= x
2
i
; (12)
where r is the standard deviation of the response. Note
that the S=N ratio of the force response remains iden-
tical for the second Piola–Kirchhoff stress, as it is cal-
culated in the reference configuration.
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
1.00 1.05 1.12 1.20 1.27 1.35
1

S
1
E
x
p
.

(
M
P
a
)

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
S
/
N

(
d
B
)
S/N
Stress
Fig. 6. S=N ratios in bias extension test.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.000 1.002 1.004 1.007 1.009 1.011
1
S
1
E
x
p
.

(
M
P
a
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
S
/
N

(
d
B
)
S/N
Stress
Fig. 7. S=N ratios in uniaxial extension test.
A.S. Milani, J.A. Nemes / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 1565–1576 1571
Using this equation, corresponding S=N values for the
bias extension and uniaxial extension tests are given in
Figs. 6 and 7. Clearly, by comparing these figures with
Figs. 3 and 4, it is understood that the higher the value of
the S=N ratio, the more the data points are repeatable.
Also it is convincing to see that lower ratios are attrib-
uted to regions where fiber slip is more likely. Having
shown [21] that contact-friction non-linearities play an
important role for the 2 ×2 twill weave fabric, results
here may demonstrate the ability of such a weighting
scheme to account for sources of uncertainty (slip, etc.)
during deformation. Furthermore, one should notice
that despite large differences in the magnitude of load
measured in the bias extension and uniaxial extension
tests, the S=N values for both tests are of the same order
of magnitude, owing to the scale-free characteristic of the
S=N weights. The method, then, seems to be also con-
sistent in capturing the nature of noise in different de-
formation modes, suitable for a continuum approach
(e.g., the coefficients of contact friction should remain
the same for both modes). Finally, it should be noted
that some analysts prefer to normalize the weights and/or
the error terms before implementing them in the opti-
mization procedure. However, it is argued that the choice
of the normalization norm in optimization models may
cause some deviations from true outcomes [22].
4.3. Minimization procedure: penalty method
At this point, the task is to employ a general numerical
technique to carry out the minimization problem defined
in Eq. (11), given the S=N weights in Figs. 6 and 7. To
this end, a wide range of simple yet efficient techniques
are available for the class of unconstrained problems. On
the other hand, real engineering problems typically in-
volve constraints. A widely used technique to transform
a constrained optimization problem into an uncon-
strained problem is the penalty method. The basic mo-
tivation behind the method is to associate a penalty term
with all equality and inequality constraint violations and
then minimize the resulting pseudo-objective function as:
Min: C(X; c
1
; c
2
) = f (X) ÷c
1
H
1
(X) ÷c
2
H
2
(X); (13)
where C is the pseudo-objective function, H
1
is the
penalty function for the inequality constraints g
j
(X) 60;
j = 1; . . . ; m
1
, and H
2
is the penalty function for the
equality constraints h
j
(X) = 0; j = 1; . . . ; m
2
. Penalty
coefficients c
1
and c
2
control the penalty imposed when
considering points that violate the constraints. A small
value of the penalty coefficients means that less impor-
tance is considered for constraints and, thus, will allow a
wide exploration of the constraint violation space. In
contrast, larger values accommodate a strong restriction
on the constraints.
In order to define the pertinent penalty functions,
there are a number of alternatives ranging from exterior
to interior methods. A possible exterior penalty function
in a general form can be given as:
H
1
(X) =

m
1
j=1
H
1j
(X); (14)
where
H
1j
(X) =
0; g
j
(X) 60;
g
j
(X)
¸
¸
¸
¸
r
; g
j
(X) > 0;
_
(15)
andr is a magnificationfactor which canbe selectedas 0, 1
or 2 depending on the application (normally, r = 2 for the
so-called Courant–Beltrami penalty function [23]). The
magnification factor is useful to superimpose the same
order of magnitude for the objective and the penalized
inequality constraint terms. If the objective is too large
compared with the penalty term, the optimization process
may then drive all the solutions into the infeasible do-
main. In contrast, if the penalty term is much larger than
the objective, the solution pressure will then be so high in
minimizing the main objective, and so a premature
convergence may take place. Similarly, for the equality
constraints, the exterior penalty method which preserves
the continuity of any order derivative, can be defined as:
H
2
(X) =

m
2
j=1
h
j
(X)
_ ¸
2
: (16)
Eventually, for the ensuing unconstrained problem of
Eq. (13), the optimum value of the target vector X
(model constants) can be obtained using the common
algorithms such as Gauss–Newton or Levenberg–Mar-
quardt (see, e.g., [24]). If a predefined interval of some
constants is available, then the modified Levenberg–
Marquardt algorithm [25] can also be used.
In this work, a free stress boundary condition is the
only equality constraint (m
1
= 0; m
2
= 1) that is con-
sidered. Hence, given that both the objective and the
constraint are stress-like functions, and respecting
the fact that a good characterization should satisfy both
the boundary condition and observed response equiva-
lently, the penalty coefficient c
2
is initially set as unity.
5. Results
2
At first, the test data from uniaxial extension in the
direction of reinforcement is used to select the model
constants k
1
and k
2
. As discussed in Section 2.2, the
reasoning is that in this mode the total load acting on
the fabric is mainly sustained by the fibers parallel to the
loading direction. The reduced model of Eq. (9) and the
data of Fig. 7 are incorporated in the inverse method
presented in Section 4, so that the effect of non-repro-
ducibility of the test data is accounted for. Conse-
2
All computations are conducted within a user-defined code,
‘‘MOWR’’, developed at McGill University.
1572 A.S. Milani, J.A. Nemes / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 1565–1576
quently, the constants k
1
and k
2
were found to be as
shown in Table 2. High values of the constants k
1
and k
2
are attributed to the strong resistance of the fiber
materials under tension. The predicted response via the
model is shown in Fig. 8, where the experimental results
are the average of the three tests. Furthermore, in order
to evaluate the effectiveness of the new method, we re-
peated the same process but using solely the noise factor
(i.e., x
2
i
= 1=STD
i
( )
2
; where STD
i
is the standard de-
viation of ith experimental point). The new results are
also shown in Table 2 and Fig. 8. It is clear that the S=N
method has improved the prediction (by about 7%), in
particular in the later stages of response where the yarn
stiffness takes effect [21]. In fact, as noted previously, the
S=N weights have taken into account both the signal and
noise factors whereas the STD weights have concen-
trated only on points with lower deviations, with no
concern to the signal magnitude itself. Finally, Table 2
suggests that the constant k
2
is more sensitive to the
noise factors and, thus, the exponential form of the free
energy function should be used very carefully with an
intelligent weighting method, such as S=N.
Next, we fix the above constants and follow the
characterization of the three remaining constants
(c
1
; c
2
; m), using the bias extension tests. To this end, the
calculated stress data and their corresponding S=N val-
ues (Fig. 6) along with the reduced model in Eq. (8) are
employed in the inverse method in a similar manner as
the uniaxial test. In doing so, in order to show the ap-
plication of the inverse method in all regions, the data
from the entire range of deformation shown in Fig. 3 are
included. Given a particular forming operation, e.g. in
the region below the lock-up point, the same inverse
method may still be useful to fit for more precise con-
stants. The characterization results are shown in Fig. 9.
Additionally, in order to verify the effect of the added
transitional term (discussed in Section 3.1, Eq. (4)), the
same process was repeated without the presence of this
term (dashed lines in Fig. 9). It was seen that: (a) the
model without the transitional term ceases to predict the
response of the material in later stages of deformation
when the interaction between fiber and resin material
arises, and (b) during the minimization, the inclusion of
the transitional term captures the entire range of re-
sponse and is highly effective in satisfying the free stress
boundary condition (only a few percent of the penalty is
enough to satisfy the zero state of stress in the transverse
direction with a maximum error of S
2
= 10
÷8
MPa). The
small departure of the model in Fig. 9 in the interme-
diate phase of deformation (sliding phase) should be due
to the excessive amount of noise during this stage. The
latter indication agrees with previous work [5] suggest-
ing that high values of length-to-width ratio of speci-
mens are expected to lead to excessive slip and pull out.
This ratio for the employed specimens in this work is
3.44. Accordingly, it is believed that specimens with
smaller length-to-width ratios (in the range of 2:1)
should lead to less noise and, thus, a smaller departure
in the intermediate phase.
Remark: In order to ensure the material stability, the
convexity of the strain energy function given in Eq. (5)
with the identified material parameters should be
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.000 1.004 1.008 1.012
1
S
1

(
M
P
a
)
Experiment
Model, using S/N weighting method
Model, using STD weighting method
Fig. 8. Model prediction in uniaxial extension test, using two different
weighting methods.
Table 2
Evaluation of effectiveness of the inverse method, using uniaxial test data
Weighting method Parameters Statistics
a
k
1
(MPa) k
2
(–) RSS (MPa
2
) R
2
% (Goodness-of-fit)
S=N 7.92 5350.23 0.33 98.89
STD 7.98 4822.03 2.41 91.99
a
See Appendix B for definition of statistics used.
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
1 1.1 1.2 1.3
1
S
1

(
M
P
a
)
Experiment-3 sets of data
Experiment-4th set
Model, using transitional term
Fig. 9. Model prediction in bias-extension test using S=N weights.
A.S. Milani, J.A. Nemes / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 1565–1576 1573
checked. In addition to the convexity of the total
potential, it is verified that each term appearing in Eq.
(5), i.e., matrix energy term, fiber energy term, and the
interaction energy term, is positive and convex (see
Fig. 10). For models with a decoupled form of response,
such characteristics may be necessary to guarantee the
stability of individual contributions in the composite
deformation. A deeper investigation of the consequence
of adding different fiber–resin interaction terms can be
useful.
Finally, in the following section, using the presented
S=N inverse method, we will support the hypothesis that
further replication of tests should improve the charac-
terization of a material.
5.1. Validation of stability
An additional bias extension test with the same setup
explained in Section 2.1 was performed. The experi-
mental data using the latter set is included in Fig. 9. At
first, one may surmise that the new set exacerbates the
previous characterization because it opens further de-
viations, in particular in the early stage of deformation.
Additionally, it was observed that new S=N values for a
few data points became negative (indicating excessive
noise). It should be noted that, for comparison pur-
poses, a negative sign for the S=N ratio is natural and a
bigger value of S=N is always preferred [20]. However,
for weighting purposes, a negative S=N ratio of a data
point indicates that the noise in that measurement is
greater than the signal itself, thus it should be down
weighted to zero. For regions with negative S=N ratios,
it may be concluded that the factors producing the
scatter (noise) in the response are a major part of the
deformation and thus data points should not be aver-
aged. Following, in order to evaluate the stability of
model constants (regression parameters), we superim-
posed the new set within the same inverse method. The
outcome of the latter attempt is compared with the
previous one in Table 3. The results support the stability
of the constants, on the one hand, and the usefulness of
employing further sets of data, on the other hand. De-
spite the new deviations in data, the model constants
remained reasonably unchanged and, as well, the
goodness-of-fit is improved. In fact, any new set should
normally add to the understanding of the state of noise
in the experiment, hence increasing the intelligence of
the method, which modifies the model towards the
points with stronger S=N ratio. Such a characteristic
may particularly be desirable for finite element appli-
cations where the material stability during simulations is
directly linked to the model constants incorporated into
the input codes.
6. Concluding remarks
It is shown that a reasonable prediction of the be-
havior of textile composites is linked to both the model
and the inverse method employed in the characterization
of the model constants. A good model should be capable
of capturing the inherent state of deformation, while the
inverse method should assist characterization in ac-
counting for different sources of noise that underlie the
Fig. 10. Convexity of strain energy function for each constituent of the composite model: (a) matrix, (b) interaction, (c) fiber (note: arrows show the
direction of ascending energy).
Table 3
Evaluation of stability of the inverse method, using bias extension test data
Number of data sets used Parameters Statistics
c
1
(MPa) c
2
(MPa) m (MPa) RSS (MPa
2
) R
2
% (Goodness-of-fit)
Three 0.050 )0.025 0.040 8:0 ×10
÷5
98.03
Four 0.046 )0.023 0.039 8:3 ×10
÷5
98.58
1574 A.S. Milani, J.A. Nemes / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 1565–1576
material response. With respect to the constitutive
approach, a simple transitional term is suggested to
improve the prediction of the material behavior by
considering the interaction between fiber and resin ma-
terials during deformation. As for the inverse method, it
has been shown that the S=N weighting method can be a
very powerful tool in capturing the non-repeatability of
the material response. Henceforth, it is recommended
that further replications of a test can always be a point
of interest for the S=N inverse method, in order to arrive
at more reliable characterizations. More work is needed
to extend the method for multi-level noise problems,
such as for unbalanced fabrics.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank their colleagues X-T.
Pham, G. Lebrun, R. Diraddo and J. Denault from the
Industrial Material Institute (IMI-CNRC) for useful
discussions and providing details of the experimental
work. The referees are greatly acknowledged for their
constructive comments.
Appendix A. Derivation of the constitutive model
The Green elastic or hyperelastic constitutive ap-
proach lies in postulating the strain energy potential as a
function of invariants of deformation of the materials
[26]. For the isotropic matrix material the strain energy
can depend on the deformation only through the three
invariants of the right Cauchy–Green deformation ten-
sor, C, given by
I
1
= tr C; I
2
=
1
2
[ tr C ( )
2
÷tr C
2
[; I
3
= det C: (A:1)
Assuming incompressibility, I
3
= 1, only two invariants
I
1
and I
2
will remain. Considering two families of
structural reinforcement directions (such as textile fab-
rics), two additional invariants, which correspond to the
square of the stretch in the fiber directions, may be de-
fined as follows [15]:
I
4
= C : A; I
6
= C : B; (A:2)
where for each fiber direction, /
1
and /
2
, each structural
tensor, A and B, can be expressed in the form of
A = a ¸a; B = b ¸b: (A:3)
In the above formulation, ‘‘¸’’ is the dyadic product,
and the unit vector in each fiber direction is considered
to be in general form as a = a
1
; a
2
; a
3
¸ ), b = b
1
; b
2
; b
3
¸ ).
For a symmetrical in-plane reinforcement this reduces
to a = cos /
0
; sin /
0
; 0 ¸ ) and b = cos /
0
; ÷sin /
0
; 0 ¸ ), as
shown in Fig. 2.
Through the above four independent invariants
the strain energy potential can be postulated as
W = W(I
1
; I
2
; I
4
; I
6
). Having postulated W , the second
Piola–Kirchhoff stresses, for a balanced fabric, can then
be expressed as: S
ij
= 2
oW
oC
ij
, which using the chain rule
leads to
S
ij
= 2
oW
oI
1
_ _
oI
1
oC
ij
_ _ _
÷
oW
oI
2
_ _
oI
2
oC
ij
_ _
÷
oW
oI
3
_ _
oI
3
oC
ij
_ _
÷
oW
oI
4
_ _
oI
4
oC
ij
_ _
÷
oW
oI
6
_ _
oI
6
oC
ij
_ __
: (A:4)
For a thin fabric it is common to consider a plane stress
condition as S
33
= 0, from which the term
oW
oI
3
(i.e., por-
tion of the hydrostatic pressure) can be substituted. For
an incompressible hyperelastic material, the hydrostatic
pressure is considered as a workless reaction to the in-
compressibility constraint (I
3
= 1) on the deformation
field, and may be determined only from the equilibrium
equations and the boundary conditions [26].
Eventually, after tedious but straightforward simpli-
fications, the constitutive Eq. (A.4), for a mechanically
balanced fabric, in the principal directions 1 and 2 takes
the form of
S
i
=
2
k
2
i
(k
2
i
÷k
÷2
i
k
÷2
j
)
oW
oI
1
_
÷k
2
j
oW
oI
2
_
÷2a
2
i
oW
oI
4
÷2b
2
i
oW
oI
6
; (A:5)
where cyclic indices refer i ÷j ÷i = 1 ÷2 ÷1
(no summation).
Accordingly, [15] suggests the strain energy function,
W , for similar family of fibers to be postulated as:
W =
c
1
2
(I
1
÷3) ÷
c
2
2
(I
2
÷3) ÷
k
1
2k
2
¦exp[k
2
(I
4
÷1)
2
[ ÷1¦
÷
k
1
2k
2
¦exp[k
2
(I
6
÷1)
2
[ ÷1¦; (A:6)
where c
1
; c
2
; k
1
; k
2
are the material constants to be
determined.
Note also that for the symmetrical in-plane rein-
forcement case, recalling Eqs. (A.1) and (A.2) in the
principal directions, the four invariants can be written as
I
1
= k
2
1
÷k
2
2
÷k
÷2
1
k
÷2
2
;
I
2
= k
2
1
k
2
2
÷k
÷2
1
÷k
÷2
2
;
I
4
= I
6
= k
2
1
cos
2
/
0
÷k
2
2
sin
2
/
0
:
_
_
_
(A:7)
Appendix B. Definition of statistics
Different ways of statistical presentation in the case of
weighted regression analysis can be seen in the literature
and available packages. In order to avoid any over-in-
terpretation of quality of fit, the statistics used
throughout this work are defined as follows.
If n denotes the number of data points, Y
k
the values
of experimental data,
^
Y
k
the predicted (fitted) values by
A.S. Milani, J.A. Nemes / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 1565–1576 1575
the model, and Y
ave
the average value of experimental
data (
^
Y
ave
ffi Y
ave
=
1
n

n
k=1
Y
k
.), then the following sta-
tistics can be defined [24]:
Residual sum of squares (absolute) : RSS
=

n
k=1
(Y
k
÷
^
Y
k
)
2
: (B:1)
Portion of data variance explained : R
2
%
=

n
k=1
^
Y
k
÷Y
ave
_ _
2

n
k=1
Y
k
÷Y
ave
( )
2
×100: (B:2)
The R
2
statistic is often called the coefficient of multiple
determination and it is a frequently used measure for
assessing the quality of the fitted model (goodness-of-
fit). Nevertheless, using this statistic, close attention
should be paid to the following notions [24]: (a) it is not
to be used for judging among different candidate models
since it does not take into account the number of pa-
rameters used in the model (for this purpose, other
measures such as MellowÕs C
p
statistic is recommended),
and (b) when the spread of the regressor data (inde-
pendent variable) is substantial, particularly with a very
low sampling rate, R
2
may rise in its magnitude artifi-
cially. Given a particular model with a reasonable range
of measurements (usually compatible with the manu-
facturing process), however, the R
2
statistic can certainly
serve superior interpretation ability on the quality of the
fitted model: it represents the proportion of variation in
the response explained by the model (see Eq. (B.2)).
Moreover, the coefficient of multiple determination is a
scale-free statistic, so it can be used to compare the per-
formance of the model in different deformation modes.
For instance, recalling Tables 2 and 3, it is understood
that the proposed model can predict both the bias ex-
tension and uniaxial extension tests with similar quality.
References
[1] Boisse P, Buet K, Gasser A, Launay J. Meso/macro-mechanical
behaviour of textile reinforcements for thin composites. Compos
Sci Technol 2001;61:395–401.
[2] Kawabata S. Nonlinear mechanics of woven and knitted mate-
rials. Textile Struct Compos 1989;3:67–116.
[3] Milani AS, Nemes JA, Pham XT, Lebrun G. The effect of fiber
misalignment on parameter determination using picture frame
test. In: 14th International Conference on Composite Materials,
San Diego, CA, USA. SME International; 2003.
[4] Chang SH, Sharma SB, Sutcliffe MPF. Microscopic investigation
of tow geometry of dry satin weave fabric during deformation.
Compos Sci Technol 2003;63:99–111.
[5] Chen J, Lussier DS, Cao J, Peng XQ. Materials characterization
methods and material models for stamping of plain woven
composites. Form Process 2001;4:269–83.
[6] Prodromou AG, Chen J. On the relationship between shear angle
and wrinkling of textile composites prefroms. Composites Part A
1997;28:491–503.
[7] Lebrun G, Bureau MN, Denault J. Evaluation of bias-extension
and picture frame test methods for the measurement of intraply
shear properties of PP/glass commingled fabrics. Compos Struct
2003;61:341–52.
[8] Daniel C, Wood FS. Fitting equations to data: computer analysis
of multifactor data. New York: Willey; 1980.
[9] Johnson AF, Costalas E. Forming models for fabric reinforced
thermolastics. In: Advanced Composite Materials Conference
Proceeding, Nottingham, UK. ASM International; 1995.
p. 341–52.
[10] Potter K. Bias Extension measurements on cross-plied unidirec-
tional prepreg. Composites Part A 2002;33:63–73.
[11] Mohammed U, Lekakou C, Dong L, Bader MG. Shear defor-
mation and micromechanics of woven fabrics. Composites Part A
2000;31:229–308.
[12] Nguyen M, Herszberg I, Paton R. The shear properties of woven
carbon fabric. Compos Struct 1999;47:767–79.
[13] Tucker CL. Sheet forming of composite materials. In: Gutowski
TG, editor. Advanced Composites Manufacturing. New York:
Wiley; 1997.
[14] Weiss JA, Marker BN, Govindjee S. Finite element implementa-
tion of incompressible, transversely isotropic hyperelasticity.
Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 1996;135:107–28.
[15] Holzapfel GA, Gasser TC. A viscoelastic model for fiber-
reinforced composites at finite strains: Continuum basis, compu-
tational aspects and applications. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng
2001;190:4379–430.
[16] Chastel Y, Billon N, Massoni E. Inverse methods applied to the
thermomechanical and microstructural characterisation of metals
and polymers. In: European Scientific Association For Material
Forming Conference Proceeding, Liege, Belgique, vol. 1. ESA-
FORM International, 2001. p. 399–402.
[17] Biles WE, Swain JJ. Optimization and industrial experimentation.
New York: Wiley; 1980.
[18] Roussas GG. A first course in mathematical statistics. Massachu-
setts: Addison-Wesley; 1973.
[19] Taguchi G. System of experimental design: engineering methods
to optimize quality and minimize costs, vols. 1&2. White Plains,
NY: UNIPUB/Kraus International Publications; 1987.
[20] Roy RK. Design of experiment using the Taguchi approach.
Toronto: Wiley; 2001.
[21] Gasser A, Boisse P, Hanklar S. Mechanical behaviour of dry
fabric reinforcements. 3D simulations versus biaxial tests. Com-
putat Mater Sci 2000;17:7–20.
[22] Milani AS, Shanian A, Madoliat R, Nemes JA. The effect of
normalization norms in multiple attribute decision making
(MADM) models: A case study in gear material selection. J
Struct Multidisciplinary Optimiz, submitted for publication.
[23] Chong EKP, Zak SH. An introduction to optimization. Chich-
ester: Wiley; 2000.
[24] Meyers RH. Classical and modern regression with applications.
Boston: Pws-Kent; 1989.
[25] Schnur DS, Zabaras N. An inverse method for determining elastic
material properties and a material interface. Numer Meth Eng
1992;33:2039–57.
[26] Holzapfel GA. Nonlinear solid mechanics. Chichester: Wiley;
2000.
1576 A.S. Milani, J.A. Nemes / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 1565–1576