- Latent Class Cluster Analysis - Vermunt, Magidson
- Chapter2 Solutions
- Bas.werker
- Tutorial
- Error analysis lecture 11
- The Surprise Element Jumps in Interest Rates
- A Bayesian Analysis for the Seismic Data
- Jhal et al 2008 (Review the NREGP).pdf
- ajfisher
- sampling ppswor
- Lecture 3
- Financial Econometrics
- p Collapse From Msa
- 1-s2.0-S0047259X14002711-main
- v51i13.pdf
- On the Heterogeneity of Dowry Motives
- Msvar
- 8. Frequencies
- Monte Carlo Finance
- A Bayesian Approach to the Selection and Testing of Mixture Models_2003
- se04-01_cud be useful.pdf
- Estimating time to pregnancy.pdf
- Mood an Introduction to the Theory of Statistics - Copy
- Ordered Probit
- Priors Algorithms Bayesian
- 10.1.1.158
- Presentasi perkuliahan pertama
- rwp13-05
- 2002 HENRIQUE Demands Calibration in Water Distribution Hybrid Method
- Document-on-How-to-Conduct-Test-Drive.pdf
- Bts Innovationtextile
- 1 Mmcd Cours
- 02 FTPMI Piraeus 2011
- - ماذا يريد العم سام
- Avant Propos
- 33065343-Exercices-Stat-Inferentielle.pdf
- Apprends LaTeX
- 63
- 2003-eng
- Chapter 1
- A 6de2qts2
- 9783642307348_TOC_001
- cel-36
- Code
- 01ResumeAlgebreLineaireSup
- 2001-eng
- Feuille Tage
- Exercice s
- 1984_ جورج أورويل
- [A._Bouziad,_J._Calbrix]Théorie de la mesure et de l'intégration
- Unites Concentration
- 02 Le Second Degre
- 1467 (2)
- PolyExoPS
- cours2
- 1S_D03
- Unites Concentration
- Cours+ +Informatique+Chap+1+Tableur+ +Bac+Economie++Gestion+(2008 2009)+Mr+GHAITH
- Cours
- polySVTE

**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

- Latent Class Cluster Analysis - Vermunt, MagidsonUploaded byNico Prokop
- Chapter2 SolutionsUploaded byalantsang2
- Bas.werkerUploaded byFaisal Javaid
- TutorialUploaded byshemieazai
- Error analysis lecture 11Uploaded byOmegaUser
- The Surprise Element Jumps in Interest RatesUploaded byLucas Pimentel Vilela
- A Bayesian Analysis for the Seismic DataUploaded byudivyaphd
- Jhal et al 2008 (Review the NREGP).pdfUploaded byrozgar
- ajfisherUploaded byspotirak
- sampling ppsworUploaded byNanmita Singh
- Lecture 3Uploaded byAias Ahmed
- Financial EconometricsUploaded bybenichou
- p Collapse From MsaUploaded byJoseph772
- 1-s2.0-S0047259X14002711-mainUploaded bypedrohcgs
- v51i13.pdfUploaded byquantanglement
- On the Heterogeneity of Dowry MotivesUploaded byIrsyad Khir
- MsvarUploaded byJulio César Chávez Galarza
- 8. FrequenciesUploaded byIndah Lestarini
- Monte Carlo FinanceUploaded byselim007
- A Bayesian Approach to the Selection and Testing of Mixture Models_2003Uploaded bySophia Oki
- se04-01_cud be useful.pdfUploaded byshishiir saawant
- Estimating time to pregnancy.pdfUploaded byEly Danel
- Mood an Introduction to the Theory of Statistics - CopyUploaded byJorge Yor
- Ordered ProbitUploaded bypoornima
- Priors Algorithms BayesianUploaded byCharalambos Stavrou
- 10.1.1.158Uploaded bymanai raghav
- Presentasi perkuliahan pertamaUploaded byArif Rahmat Kurnia
- rwp13-05Uploaded bycaitlynharvey
- 2002 HENRIQUE Demands Calibration in Water Distribution Hybrid MethodUploaded byIvan Tapia
- Document-on-How-to-Conduct-Test-Drive.pdfUploaded byJohnson Akanbi

- Bts InnovationtextileUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- 1 Mmcd CoursUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- 02 FTPMI Piraeus 2011Uploaded byHassen Hedfi
- - ماذا يريد العم سامUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- Avant ProposUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- 33065343-Exercices-Stat-Inferentielle.pdfUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- Apprends LaTeXUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- 63Uploaded byHassen Hedfi
- 2003-engUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- Chapter 1Uploaded byHassen Hedfi
- A 6de2qts2Uploaded byHassen Hedfi
- 9783642307348_TOC_001Uploaded byHassen Hedfi
- cel-36Uploaded byHassen Hedfi
- CodeUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- 01ResumeAlgebreLineaireSupUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- 2001-engUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- Feuille TageUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- Exercice sUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- 1984_ جورج أورويلUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- [A._Bouziad,_J._Calbrix]Théorie de la mesure et de l'intégrationUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- Unites ConcentrationUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- 02 Le Second DegreUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- 1467 (2)Uploaded byHassen Hedfi
- PolyExoPSUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- cours2Uploaded byHassen Hedfi
- 1S_D03Uploaded byHassen Hedfi
- Unites ConcentrationUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- Cours+ +Informatique+Chap+1+Tableur+ +Bac+Economie++Gestion+(2008 2009)+Mr+GHAITHUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- CoursUploaded byHassen Hedfi
- polySVTEUploaded byHassen Hedfi