Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 14451461

Review of applications for advanced three-dimensional fibre textile

composites
A.P. Mouritz a,*, M.K. Bannister b, P.J. Falzon b, K.H. Leong b
a

Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 4331, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia
b
Cooperative Research Centre for Advanced Composite Structures Ltd. (CRC-ACS), 506 Lorimer Street, Fishermens Bend, Victoria 3027, Australia
Received 10 November 1998; accepted 28 April 1999

Abstract
Current and future potential applications for three-dimensional (3D) fibre reinforced polymer composites made by the textile processes of
weaving, braiding, stitching and knitting are reviewed. 3D textile composites have a vast range of properties that are superior to traditional
2D laminates, however to date these properties have not been exploited for many applications. The scientific, technical and economic issues
impeding the more widespread use of 3D textile composites are identified. Structures that have been made to demonstrate the possible uses of
3D composites are described, and these include applications in aircraft, marine craft, automobiles, civil infrastructure and medical prosthesis.
! 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Three-dimensional composites; E. Weaving; E. Braiding; E. Knitting; E. Stitching

1. Introduction
Polymer laminates reinforced with a two-dimensional
(2D) layered fibre structure have been used with outstanding
success for over 50 years in maritime craft [1], for about
thirty years in aircraft [2,3], and for nearly twenty years in
high performance automobiles [4] and civil infrastructure
such as buildings and bridges [5]. Despite the use of 2D
laminates over a long period, their use in many structural
applications has been limited by manufacturing problems
and by some inferior mechanical properties. The manufacturing of laminates can be expensive because of the high
labour requirement in the manual lay-up of plies. The need
by some industries (particularly the aircraft industry) to
fabricate laminates from prepreg tape adds to the production
cost, because expensive refrigeration facilities are needed to
prolong the shelf lives of the prepreg before the resin begins
to cure. Added to these costs is the poor drape of many
prepreg and fabric plies, which makes them difficult to
mould into complex shapes. As a result, many complex
components need to be built from a number of machined
laminate parts that must then be joined by co-curing, adhesive bonding or mechanical fastening. This is a major
problem in the aircraft industry, where structures such as

* Corresponding author. Tel.: ! 61-396268276; fax: ! 61-396268999.

E-mail address: adrian.mouritz@dsto.defence.gov.au (A.P. Mouritz)

wings need to be made from a large number of smaller

composite parts such as skin panels, stiffeners and stringers,
rather than being fabricated as a single integral structure.
Fabrication problems such as these have impeded the widespread use of laminates in aircraft structures because they
can be significantly more expensive than many aerospace
alloys [2].
The application of 2D laminates in some critical structures in aircraft and automobiles has also been restricted by
their inferior impact damage resistance and low throughthickness mechanical properties when compared against
the traditional aerospace and automotive materials such as
aluminium alloys and steel. The low through-thickness
properties, such as stiffness, strength and fatigue resistance,
have impeded the use of 2D laminates in thick structures
subjected to high through-thickness and interlaminar shear
stresses. The problem added to this is that many 2D laminates have low resistance to delamination cracking under an
impact loading because of their poor interlaminar fracture
toughness. As a consequence of this, their post-impact inplane mechanical properties can be severely degraded,
particularly their compression strength and fatigue performance. While these properties can be improved to a certain
extent by the use of toughened resins or fibre interleaves,
these solutions usually are expensive and do not overcome
many of the problems associated with the manufacturing of
laminates.
In an attempt to overcome many of the problems with the

1359-835X/99/$ - see front matter ! 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S1359-835 X( 99)00 034-2

1446

A.P. Mouritz et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 14451461

Fig. 1. A Jacquard loom used in the manufacture of 3D woven preforms.

manufacturing and mechanical properties of laminates,

considerable attention has been given over the past 30
years to the development of advanced polymer composites
reinforced with 3D fibre architectures. 3D composites can
be made in a number of ways using techniques as diverse as
embroidery and z-rods", in which short composite rods are
inserted through-the-thickness of traditional 2D laminates.
However, most attention has been given to 3D composites
manufactured by the textile techniques of weaving, braiding, stitching and knitting.
In this paper, it will be shown that composite structures
made with 3D textile fabrics are potentially less expensive
to manufacture and provide better through-thickness
mechanical properties than composites made with the traditional 2D fabrics. However, the ability of 3D composites to
replace 2D laminates in many structural applications has
been largely unsuccessful. The aim of this paper is to

examine this situation by reviewing present and future

applications for 3D textile composites made by weaving,
braiding, stitching and knitting. Because some of these
applications are commercially confidential, only those
current applications and potential uses that have been
reported in literature can be reviewed. This paper will determine the main factors impeding the use of 3D composites as
well as identify the key technology issues that need to be
resolved before the applications can be expanded. This
paper is not intended to be a review of the textile processes
used to manufacture 3D composites nor a review of their
mechanical properties. However, in some cases it is necessary to briefly describe the production and properties of 3D
composites in order to identify the issues impeding their use.
In this paper, the 3D composites made by weaving, braiding,
stitching and knitting will be treated separately, although
some of the issues are common.

A.P. Mouritz et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 14451461

Table 1
Advantages of 3D woven composites over 2D laminates
3D weaving can produce complex near-net-shape preforms
3D woven composites with a complex shape can be less expensive and
simpler to manufacture
3D weaving can tailor the through-thickness properties for a particular
application
3D woven composites have higher delamination resistance, ballistic
damage resistance and impact damage tolerance
3D woven composites can have higher tensile strain-to-failure values
3D woven composites have higher interlaminar fracture toughness
properties

2. 3D woven composites
The machinery and processes for integrally weaving
multi-layer fabrics of 3D woven composites have been
outlined in numerous papers, including those by Mohamed
et al. [6] and Bannister and Herszberg [7], and therefore
only the basic weaving process is described here. Warp
yarns are fed into the weaving loom from a source, which
can consist of a framework containing individual packages
of yarn (known as a creel), or a number of cylindrical beams
onto which the necessary amount of yarn has been prewound (warp beams). The warp yarns are then fed through
a lifting mechanism, which selects and lifts the required
yarns and creates a space (the shed) into which the weft
yarns are inserted at right angles to the warp. This lifting
mechanism can be mechanically controlled or, in more
advanced looms, electronically controlled. The sequence
in which the warp yarns are lifted controls the interlinking
of the warp and weft yarns, and thus the pattern is created in
the fabric. A comb-like device (reed) is used to correctly
space the warp yarns across the width of the fabric and to
compress the fabric after the weft yarns are inserted. The
binder yarns can be aligned in the warp direction or inserted
in the weft direction and their path through-the-thickness of
the preform is controlled by the lifting sequence. Fig. 1
shows a computer-controlled Jacquard loom capable of
weaving 3D preforms for composites, although weaving
can also be performed using less sophisticated machinery
such as manual hand looms.
3D woven composites were first developed nearly 30
years ago in an attempt to replace expensive high temperature metal alloys in aircraft brakes [8]. The 3D weaving to
produce the preform for the brake component was
performed by the Avco Corporation. A specialised loom
was developed to allow the weaving of hollow cylindrical
preforms in which carbon fibres were aligned in the radial,
circumferential and axial directions. The preform was
processed into a carboncarbon composite displaying
some desirable properties for aircraft brakes, namely high
specific strength and specific stiffness properties as well as
excellent resistance to thermal deterioration.
Research and development of 3D woven composites
remained at a low level until the mid 1980s, when interest

1447

was renewed because of problems being encountered with

the traditional 2D laminates used in some aircraft structures.
Two examples of problems being experienced were, firstly,
that aircraft manufacturers were finding it expensive to
produce complex components from laminates and,
secondly, aircraft maintenance engineers were finding that
laminates were highly susceptible to impact damage from
dropped tools. These types of production and maintenance
problems were the main forces behind the effort to assess the
potential benefits of using advanced 3D woven composites
in aircraft structures and components. Research into the 3D
weaving process and the properties of 3D woven composites
over the past 1015 years has revealed a number of advantages over traditional laminates, and these are listed in Table
1.
One important advantage of 3D weaving is that preforms
for a composite component with a complicated geometry
can be made to the near-net-shape. In contrast, prepreg
materials used in 2D laminates can only be easily processed
into relatively simple shapes such as flat and slightly curved
panels. This ability of 3D weaving to produce near-netshape preforms can greatly reduce the cost of a component
by reducing material wastage, the need for machining and
joining, and the amount of material handled during lay-up.
Examples of the complexity and variety of components
made using 3D woven composites are presented in Fig. 2.
An advantage of 3D weaving is that preforms can be
made on standard industrial weaving looms used for producing 2D fabrics by making minor modifications to the
machinery. This minimises the capital costs incurred by
composite manufacturers because they do not require
expensive custom-built looms to produce 3D woven
preforms. However, a range of specialised looms have
been developed over the past ten years that have higher
weaving speeds and are capable of weaving more complex
shapes than traditional looms which have been modified [9].
Another benefit of 3D weaving is that fabrics with a wide
variety of fibre architectures can be produced with
controlled amounts of binder yarns for the through-thickness reinforcement. Two of the most common architectures
are the orthogonal and layer interlock weaves, which are
illustrated in Fig. 3. The important difference between
these two architectures is the weave pattern of the
through-thickness binder yarn. These preforms can be
woven from almost any type of yarn, including carbon,
glass, Kevlar# and ceramic fibres (SiC, A12O3). In addition,
the amounts and types of warp, weft and binder yarns can be
controlled to tailor the properties of the composite for a
specific application, although the proportion of binder
yarns in most preforms is usually less than 5%. It is also
possible to produce hybrid woven preforms using more than
one type of yarn material, however the mechanical properties of hybrid composites as well as their use in structural
applications has not been examined in detail.
Another important advantage of 3D woven composites
is their high ballistic impact damage resistance [10] and

1448

A.P. Mouritz et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 14451461

Fig. 2. Examples of 3D woven preforms: (a) cylinder and flange; (b) egg crate structures; (c) turbine rotors woven by Techniweave Inc.; and (d) various
complex shapes woven by Shikishima Canvas Co., Ltd. (Courtesy of the Techniweave Inc. and Shikishima Canvas Co. Ltd.).

low-velocity impact damage tolerance [1115], which have

been a major problem with the use of 2D laminates in military aircraft structures. For example, Chou et al. [13] reports
that the impact energy needed to initiate damage in 3D
woven carbonbismaleimide composites is up to !60%
higher than in a 2D carbonbismaleimide laminate. The
improved impact damage resistance usually results in 3D
composites experiencing a lower reduction to their in-plane
mechanical properties than that suffered by the 2D counterpart laminates [14,1619]. The superior damage tolerance
of 3D composites occurs because the through-thickness
binder yarns are able to arrest or slow the growth of delamination cracks formed under an impact loading. The
binder yarns are also largely responsible for some 3D
woven composites having greatly increased tensile
strain-to-failure values [20] and for their mode I interlaminar fracture toughness values being !620 times

higher than the unidirectional carbon fibre reinforced

epoxy laminates [21].
Despite the advantages and potential benefits of 3D
woven composites, these materials have failed to find
many commercial applications. They have been used or
tested in only a few specialised structures by the building,
aircraft and marine industries, where the cost and/or performance of traditional laminates and metals have been unacceptable. The building industry has used 3D woven glass
composites in a couple of niche applications. Muller et al.
[22] report that I-beams made with a 3D woven composite
are used in the roof of a ski chair-lift building in Germany.
Due to the steep terrain, it was difficult to transport and lift
heavy steel beams at the building site, and therefore lighter
3D woven composite beams were used which demonstrated
cost savings and improved performance over steel and
conventional composite beams. The only other civil

A.P. Mouritz et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 14451461

Fig. 3. (a) Orthogonal and (b) layer-interlock interlock woven fibre architectures commonly used in 3D woven composites.

1449

1450

A.P. Mouritz et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 14451461

Table 2
Aerospace demonstrator components made with 3D woven composites
Turbine engine thrust reversers, rotors, rotor blades, insulation, structural
reinforcement and heat exchangers
Rocket motors, nozzles and fasteners
Engine mounts
T-section elements for primary fuselage frame structures
Rib, cross-blade and multi-blade stiffened panels
T- and X-shape elements for filling the gap at the base of stiffeners when
manufacturing stiffened panels
Leading edges to wings

infrastructure application for a 3D woven composite has

been for manhole covers in some petrol station forecourts.
3D woven composites are currently used for only one
reported structural application in aircraft. Woven H-joint
connectors were used for joining honeycomb sandwich
wing panels on the Beech starship. Wong [23] reports this
woven connector was critical to the cost-effective manufacture of the wing and improved the stress transfer at the joint,
thus reducing the peeling stresses. Apart from this application, 3D woven composites have been used in a variety of
demonstration structures for aircraft that are listed in Table
2. 3D woven composites have also been used to improve the
strength of repairs to damaged boat hulls [24]. While 3D
woven composites are not presently used as biomedical
materials, Limmer et al. [25] have considered their use in
leg prosthesis.
Despite the current applications and many demonstrations of the potential uses of 3D woven composites, they
have failed to replace laminates in most aircraft structures or
find many niche applications. Some of the possible causes
for this are summarised in Table 3. One of the main drawbacks of 3D weaving is the inability of current looms to
produce fabric that contain in-plane yarns aligned at angles
other than 0 and 90". This results in 3D woven composites
having highly anisotropic properties and low shear and
torsion properties, which thereby renders them unsuitable
in many aircraft structures where materials with isotropic
properties are required. There are new weaving techniques
to produce fabrics containing 0 and 90" yarns sandwiched
between an outer layer of ^ 45" yarns. However, the fabrics

Table 3
Issues impeding the use of 3D woven composites
Difficult and expensive to manufacture quasi-isotropic 3D woven
composites
3D woven composites generally have lower tension, compression, shear
and torsion properties
In-plane mechanical properties and failure mechanisms of 3D woven
composites are not well characterised
Validated methods are not available for predicting many of the properties
and long-term durability of 3D woven composites
Poor understanding of the influence of weaving parameters on the preform
architecture and composite properties

can only be made with highly specialised and expensive

looms.
Another problem is the in-plane properties and failure
mechanisms of 3D woven composites that have not been
extensively characterised. 3D weaving offers the capability
to produce composites with a wide range of architectures
woven from a variety of yarn materials. However, studies of
the compression, tension, flexure and fatigue properties
have been confined largely to carbonepoxy composites
with an orthogonal or layer interlock architecture [11
19,21,26]. Only a few studies have characterised the
mechanical properties of 3D woven composites reinforced
with other architectures or fibre types (e.g. glass, Kevlar#)
[11,12,27,28] while their durability under harsh environmental conditions has not been examined. As a consequence, there does not exist a large database of material
properties that can be used in the certification of 3D
woven composite structures, particularly in trying to prove
the lifetime performance of these materials with regard to
fatigue and environmental effects. The lack of a large database has also made it difficult to determine the optimum
weave architecture and yarn material required to provide
the desired in-plane and through-thickness (impact damage
tolerance) properties for a specific structural design.
Furthermore, due to the complex 3D fibre architecture, it
has proven difficult to develop analytical or computational
models for predicting their mechanical properties except for
Youngs modulus [2931]. This combination of factors has
caused scepticism for many composite designers about
using this material in weight-bearing structures or critical
engine/machinery components, particularly in aircraft.
An additional problem with 3D woven composites is that
many of their in-plane properties are generally inferior to
2D laminates with an equivalent amount of fibres aligned in
the load direction. While the stiffness values of 3D woven
composites are similar to 2D laminates, their tension and
compression strengths are generally lower by !1520%
[1619,27,32,33]. This reduction in strength is attributed
largely to crimping and distortion of in-plane fibres by the
binder yarns [20,28]. In fact, the amount of distortion
experienced by the fabric as it is woven is usually so severe,
that the preform architecture rarely corresponds to its idealised structure [34]. At the moment there is no clear understanding of the level of control needed over the weaving
parameters to produce preforms of the required quality.
Parameters such as yarn tensions, take-off mechanisms,
yarn surface condition and binder density all affect the quality of the preform, but it is unclear what precision is needed
to control these parameters to produce an optimum weave
architecture.
Obviously, there are a number of technical, scientific and
economic challenges that must be overcome before 3D
woven composites are generally accepted by the designers,
manufacturers and users of composites. While the future is
challenging, it is still possible to envisage a range of applications over the next decade for these materials. In the

A.P. Mouritz et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 14451461

1451

A specialised sub-group of 3D woven fabric that is

currently used commercially in composites is Distance
Fabric. This material consists of two parallel skins of 2D
glass fabric integrally connected by a low density of the
through-thickness glass yarns. Distance fabric composites
are an alternative to honeycomb or foam material to make
sandwich structures because they generally have better
(although still low) mechanical properties. These composites are primarily used to manufacture double-walled
tanks or the wall lining for chemical storage tanks, car
and truck spoilers/fairings, lightweight walls, dome structures and composite tooling.

3. 3D braided composites

Fig. 4. Comparison of fibre architectures of three distinctive 3D braids: (a)

4-step braid (b) 2-step braid; and (c) multi-layer interlocked braid.

aerospace industry, the use of 3D woven composites is

hampered by the current inability to economically produce
commercial quantities of fabric that contain ^ 45" yarns.
However, there are few specific aerospace components that
are completely manufactured with 0/90" fabric or have a
minimal requirement for shear or torsion performance,
such as some leading and trailing edge components that
experience mainly bending forces. 3D woven composites
are candidate materials for these types of components
because their impact performance, which is superior to 2D
laminates, will be an important design consideration.
The potential applications for 3D woven composites
appear to be more promising in non-aerospace industries
such as maritime, civil infrastructure and land transportation. In these industries, the need to save weight and the
conservative design philosophies are not as demanding as
they are in the aerospace industry, so there is more scope for
use of 3D woven composites. Possible applications are
floors and floor beams in trains and fast ferries, and flat
load trays in trucks. The improved impact energy absorption
capacity of 3D woven composites also makes them suitable
as crash members in cars, buses and trucks. Impact performance is also critical for shipping containers and other
container transport applications (e.g. coal trucks, chemical
transport), where the critical design consideration, other
than impact, is the ability to carry as heavy a dead load as
possible. The reduction in the weight of a container, as
compared to a standard metal container, will allow heavier
payloads to be carried, thus making the container more cost
efficient.

Braiding was the first textile process used to manufacture

a 3D fibre preform for a composite. This process was developed in the late 1960s to produce 3D carboncarbon
composites to replace high temperature metal alloys in
rocket motor components in order to achieve weight savings
of 3050% [35]. While only a few of these rocket motor
components were made, it did demonstrate the ability of
braiding to produce a light-weight composite component
with an intricate shape.
The process for manufacturing the motor components is
now known as four-step (or row-and-column) braiding, a
term given because of the four distinct operations in the
braid cycle. A complete description of this braiding process
is given by Ko [36] and Brown and Crow [37]. The fibre
architecture produced by the four-step braiding is illustrated
in Fig. 4, and it is characterised by almost all the braider
yarns being offset at different angles between the in-plane
and through-thickness directions. Since the mid-1980s,
variations to the original four-step process have been
proposed, such as circular versions of four-step braiding
[38], six-step braiding [39] and multi-step braiding [40].
In addition, two other distinctive styles of 3D braiding
that have also gained popularity are two-step braiding and
multi-layer interlock braiding. Two-step braiding, which
was first described by Popper and McConnell [41] in
1987, produces braids with the axial yarns interconnected
by a small amount of through-thickness reinforcing yarns
(Fig. 4(b)). Utilising the conventional maypole approach of
2D braiding, Brookstein [42,43] developed a braid interlocking process for making preforms consisting of multiple
triaxial braided layers that are interlaced by a parallel series
of through-thickness braider yarns (Fig. 4(c)). A similar
technique was recently developed by Murata Machinery
Ltd. in Japan [44]. These different processes offer the ability
to manufacture a range of braided architectures which can
be tailored for specific structural applications by providing
the optimum amounts of axial and through-thickness yarns.
The major developments in 3D braiding over recent years
have been driven by the superior manufacturing and mechanical properties of braided composites over traditional 2D

1452

A.P. Mouritz et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 14451461

Table 4
Advantages of 3D braided composites over 2D laminates

Table 5
Issues impeding the use of 3D braided composites

3D braiding has the ability to produce complex near-net-shape preforms

3D braiding processes can be automatically controlled, which increases
production and preform quality
3D braided composites with a complex shape can be inexpensive and
simple to manufacture
3D braided composites have higher delamination resistance and impact
damage tolerance
3D braided composites have greatly superior crashworthiness properties
3D braided composites are less sensitive to notches

Almost all 3D braiding machines are still under development

Most 3D braiding machines are only capable of producing narrow
preforms
3D braiding machines have long set-up times and are slow and expensive
The spools in 3D braiding machines are small because they are
continuously moving in the production of the preform, consequently
production runs between machine set-ups are brief
Many of the mechanical properties of 3D braided composites have not
been investigated
Stiffness and strength of 3D braided composites are generally lower than
2D laminates
Scaling the results from mechanical tests performed on small 3D braided
composite specimens to large braided structures is difficult because of
edge effects
The mechanical performance of large 3D braided composite structures
have not been extensively studied
Large amount of scatter in the mechanical properties of braided composite
structures
Predictive models for determining strength and fatigue performance have
not been developed
Durability and long-term environmental ageing tests on 3D braided
composites have not been performed

laminates, and these properties are listed in Table 4. Braided

preforms have higher levels of conformability, drapability,
torsional stability and structural integrity, which makes it
possible to produce composite structures with intricate
geometries to the near-net-shape. This can lower the manufacturing cost considerably because the amount of fabric
handling and material scrap is reduced, as is the need for
extensive machining and joining. 3D braided composites
also have higher delamination resistance, better impact
damage tolerance and lower notch sensitivity than 2D laminates because of the through-thickness reinforcement
[11,4449].
Despite these advantages, the applications for 3D braided
composites have been limited for reasons that are
summarised in Table 5. One major limitation is that the
maximum preform size is determined by the braiding
machine size, and most industrial machines are only able
to braid preforms with a small cross-section (under 100 mm
in width). Extremely big and expensive machines are
needed to produce preforms large enough for typical aircraft
structures. Another problem is that many 3D braiding
machines are still in a research and development stage,
and only a few machines are presently able to commercially
manufacture preforms. 3D braiding machines are also slow,
and as a result 3D braids cannot presently compete with 2D
braids and laminates on a cost-saving basis [50].
Compounding the difficulties in using 3D braided composites in structural applications is that their mechanical properties are generally lower than for 2D laminates with an
equivalent weight fraction of in-plane fibres. Crane and
Camponeschi [46] and Macander et al. [51] found that the
tensile and compressive properties of 3D braided composites are low because most braided axial tows are off-axis
from the loading direction and are heavily crimped. They
have also shown that the Youngs modulus and strength of
the 3D braided composites are sensitive to factors such as
braid angle, braid pattern and tow size [46,51]. This sensitivity increases the amount of mechanical testing needed to
determine the optimum braid fibre architecture for a composite structure, which is a further impediment to their use.
While the tensile and compressive properties of 3D braided
composites have been studied in some detail for composites
reinforced by fabrics with low axial braid angles (1220"),
the properties of 3D composites with fibre orientations that

are commonly required for aircraft structures, such as 0/ ^

45" or quasi-isotropic configurations, have not been studied.
Properties of 3D braided composites such as flexural
strength [46,51], fracture toughness [52] and fatigue performance [45] have only received scant attention, while many
other properties, including translaminar and interlaminar
shear strengths, interlaminar fracture toughness and creep
resistance, have not been investigated at all. The performance and durability of these composites after environmental ageing have also not been examined. It is known that the
failure mechanisms of 3D braided composites are more
complex than for 2D laminates because they are dependent
on the braid pattern, braid angle, tow material, tow size and
edge effects, however a systematic study of these parameters on the failure mechanisms has not been performed.
Until the mechanical properties and failure mechanisms
have been thoroughly investigated, the braided composites
cannot be used with sufficient confidence, particularly in
aircraft components, where a large amount of structural
and environmental testing is required for new materials to
be certified for use. Added to the problem that there is a
limited amount of mechanical property data is the problem
that models for predicting the mechanical performance of
3D braided composites are at present only able to accurately
determine the Youngs modulus in tension or compression.
Models for calculating the strength and fatigue life have not
been developed, but these are necessary for optimising the
design of braided composite structures.
Arguably, the most important finding from studies on
small specimens is that the mechanical properties are
strongly influenced by the edge condition of the braid.
Cutting the edges from braided composites adversely affects

A.P. Mouritz et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 14451461

Fig. 5. (a) A rib-stiffened panel and (b) rocket nozzle fabricated by ARC
using 3D braiding. (Courtesy of the Atlantic Research Corporation).

their properties because the yarns are no longer continuous

around the edges of the specimen [46,51]. This is significant, because it reveals that small coupon tests cannot
provide a reliable measure of the properties of large composite structures, and as a consequence there is a requirement
to undertake a comprehensive full-scale structural test
program before a 3D braided composite can be used. This
type of testing is usually slow and expensive, and will
impede the application of 3D braided composites in many
primary aircraft structures.
The performance of some 3D braided structures have
been determined by large-scale mechanical testing
[55,56,59]. Gause and Alper [59] performed compression
tests on channel sections, hat-sections and cruciform
sections, to investigate their buckling, post-buckling and

1453

crippling behaviour. They also conducted pull-off tests on

T-sections to measure the tensile failure strength of stiffener-to-flange joints. It was found that the 3D braided
structures have on average only two-thirds the buckling
and crippling performance of the same structures made
with 2D laminate. This poor performance was attributed
to the unbalanced stiffness of the composite through the
braided sections. There was a large amount of scatter in
the test results that Gause and Alper believe may be a characteristic of these composites. Any significant scatter in
properties will almost certainly contribute to the difficulty
in using these materials in load-supporting structures.
The applications for 3D braided composites will remain
limited until the issues outlined in Table 5 are largely
resolved. Despite these problems, a variety of demonstrator
components have been made that clearly illustrate the versatility of this textile process. 3D braiding has been used to
manufacture biomedical devices [53], C-, J- and T-section
panels [4153], I-beams [38,5458], bifurcated beams [41],
connecting rods [54], rib stiffened panels, airframe spars
[38], F-section fuselage frames [38], fuselage barrels [50]
and rocket engine nozzles. Fig. 5 shows two examples of the
degree of complexity that can be achieved in the 3D braiding of aircraft structures and components. However, any use
of these materials is likely to be confined to long slender
structural elements where weight saving is critical. NASA is
currently leading a detailed study into applications for
advanced composites, and the potential use of 3D braided
composites in stiffeners and stringers for aircraft wings as
well as circumferential frames for aircraft fuselages are
being assessed [50]. Other possible applications include
structural booms, tail shafts on aircraft, and propeller shafts
on marine craft. 3D braided composites are also strong
candidates for use in the beams and shells for automobile
bodies and chassis as well as in drive shafts. These composites offer weight savings of up to 50% compared to steel
[60] with similar damage tolerance and crashworthiness.
However, it is unlikely that braided composites will be
used in automobiles, until the braiding and resin infusion
technologies are developed to a stage where the cycle time
for component production is less than two or three minutes,
so that production rates of 10,000 to 200,000 components
per year can be achieved [4].

4. 3D stitched composites
The stitching of composites has been reviewed in some
detail by Morales [61] and Dransfield et al. [62], and will be
only briefly described here. Fig. 6 illustrates the stitching
process, which basically involves sewing high tensile
strength yarn (e.g. glass, carbon or Kevlar#), through an
uncured prepreg laminate or dry fabric plies using an industrial sewing machine. Stitching has also been performed
using polyester thread, although Kevlar# is the most popular yarn material because of its high strength and flexibility.

1454

A.P. Mouritz et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 14451461

Fig. 6. An illustration of stitching composite material (from Dransfield et

al. [62]).

Through-thickness yarns have been stitched into composites

to densities ranging from 0.4 to 25 stitches/cm 2, however
most stitching is performed between 3 and 10 stitches/cm 2.
A variety of sewing machines can be used to stitch composites, although they can usually be classified as singleneedle or multi-needle machines.
Stitching is occasionally used to reinforce prepreg laminates, however the tackiness of the uncured resin makes
sewing difficult with some of the in-plane fibres being
broken and distorted. This damage can adversely affect
the mechanical properties, with reductions in Youngs
modulus, strength and fatigue resistance of 1020% being
common, although much larger reductions have been
reported as pointed out by Mouritz et al. [63] and Mouritz
and Cox [64]. Because of this problem, stitching is used
mostly to sew dry fabric preforms before they are consolidated with a resin into a composite.
The stitching of composites was first assessed in the early
1980s by Holt [65] and Cacho-Negrete [66] as a method for
joining uncured carbon fibreepoxy prepreg laminates to
obtain high lap joint strengths. These early studies were
aimed at determining whether stitching would be a suitable
replacement to adhesive bonding and riveting for joining
composite structures in advanced fighter aircraft. Holt [65]
showed that stitching has considerable promise as a joining
method, with the tensile strength of stitched panel-to-stiffener joints being up to 72% higher than joints without
stitching. In some cases, the strength of stitched joints was
Table 6
Advantages of stitched composites over 2D laminates
Can be inexpensive and simple to manufacture
Improved handling of preforms (plies prevented from moving)
Improved impact damage tolerance, particularly to barely visible impact
damage
Improved delamination resistance to ballistic impact and blast loading
Improved modes I and II interlaminar fracture toughness
Improved interlaminar fatigue resistance
Improved joint strength under monotonic and cyclic loading
Slight improvement in through-thickness tensile modulus and strength

even higher than joints reinforced with metal rivets. Soon

after these first studies were reported, stitching was used to
reinforce flat laminate panels in the through-thickness direction to improve properties such as impact damage tolerance
and, to a lesser extent, through-thickness strength.
The advantages of stitched composites over 2D laminates
are summarised in Table 6. Improvements in impact damage
resistance and post-impact mechanical properties have been
major reasons for the burgeoning amount of research into
stitched composites, since the mid 1980s. Most research
work has been aimed at determining the effect of stitching
on the in-plane and interlaminar properties of flat composite
coupons and small panels. A large amount of mechanical
property data now exists on the effect of stitching on the
tensile, compressive, flexure, fatigue, interlaminar shear and
interlaminar fracture properties, and some data is also available on creep and translaminar fracture toughness.
Currently, the amount of mechanical property data for
stitched composites is more than for 3D woven composites
and substantially more than for 3D braided and 3D knitted
composites. The interlaminar fracture toughness properties
of stitched composites have been reviewed by Dransfield et
al. [62] and Mouritz and Jain [67], while the in-plane
mechanical properties have been extensively reviewed by
Mouritz et al. [63] and Mouritz and Cox [64].
In contrast to the large amount of work performed on
stitched coupons and small flat panels, comparatively little
research has been reported on stitched composite structures.
Most of the published research on stitched structures has
been performed on aircraft joints, because of the desire of
aircraft manufacturers to reduce the number of mechanical
fasteners used on primary structures, particularly on the
wings and fuselage of supersonic fighter aircraft where
environmentally-assisted fretting fatigue around rivets can
be a problem. Stitches are also lighter than mechanical
fasteners and provide a more uniform stress state over the
joint area compared to fasteners where the stress is concentrated around the rivets [68]. The composite structures that
have been stitched are lap joints [6974], angle joints [70],
wing-to-spar joints [67,75], T- and J-section stiffeners
[67,69,76,77]. These structures have been made to demonstrate to the aircraft industry that stitching is developing into
a viable alternative to the traditional joining methods of cocuring, adhesive bonding or riveting.
While stitching has the potential to be used for joining
laminates, a number of scientific and technical issues still
need to be resolved and these are summarised in Table 7.
Mechanical tests on stitched lap joints show that the failure
strength is determined by a number of factors such as laminate thickness, joint overlap length, stitch yarn material,
density of stitching, and the distance of stitching from the
overlap edge [6973]. The effect these parameters have on
the joint properties has not been fully characterised, and
while experimental and computational studies are in
progress, much more research is needed. The lack of a
large database on the performance of stitched joints

A.P. Mouritz et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 14451461

Table 7
Issues impeding the use of stitched composites
Most sewing machines cannot stitch large and thick composite structures
Sewing machines require access to both sides of the preform
Most sewing machines cannot stitch curved composite structures with a
complex shape
The effects of stitching parameters (eg. stitch density, yarn materials, yarn
denier) on joint strengths is not fully understood
Stitching usually degrades the in-plane mechanical properties
The environmental ageing and durability of stitched composites is not
fully understood
Predictive models for determining strength and fatigue performance have
not been satisfactorily developed

combined with the inability of computational methods as

yet to accurately predict the strength and fatigue properties,
has made it difficult to certify stitched joints for use in
aircraft. Until these problems are overcome, it can be
expected that the use of stitching in joining aircraft structures will remain limited.
Another factor which has impeded the use of stitching on
aircraft is that some structures such as wing-to-spar joints
that have been stitched are prone to accelerated environmental degradation in hot-moist conditions [66,75]. Whiteside et al. [75] measured the moisture content in stitched
wing-to-spar joints to be several percentage points higher
around the stitches than in the bulk composite, because the
stitching yarns provided a pathway for the rapid ingress of
water. Cacho-Negrete [66] reports that this moisture caused
the stitched joints to fail prematurely under shear loading.
This type of environmental degradation will not only
impede the use of stitching in aircraft structures, but will
probably be an impediment to its use in high performance
marine craft, such as racing yachts.
While environmental degradation appears to be a
problem for stitched composites, comparatively little
research has been performed to understand and control the
problem. Furrow et al. [78] examined the effect of temperature and humidity cycling on the compression strength and
fatigue life of a stitched carbon fibreepoxy laminate panel,
but found that stitching had only a small affect. Qi et al. [79]
studied the effect of hydrothermal cycling on the impact
damage tolerance of stitched and unstitched carbon fibre
epoxy laminate panels. They showed that environmental
cycling caused cracking around the stitches as well as
caused the stitches to debond from the surrounding composite material. Despite this damage, the impact damage tolerance of the stitched composite remained the same as the
unstitched laminate. Clearly, much more research into the
durability of stitched composites in harsh environments is
needed, before they can be certified for use as aerospace and
marine structures.
On another topic, most current stitching machines are
limited to a vertical stitching plane in which the stitch is
inserted normal to the laminate surface. These machines
have difficulty sewing curved shapes (such as T-joints),

1455

because of the limited access for the needle head. Dexter

[80] believes that complex composite structures require offaxis stitching using robotically controlled multi-needle
machines. The problem with these machines is that they
are still largely in the development stage and are expected
to be expensive when they become commercially available.
Another problem with current sewing machines is their difficulty in stitching large and thick structures. The size of the
sewn composite is limited by the width of the machine when
performing multi-needle stitching or by the reach of the
needle head on single-needle machines. Most industrialgrade sewing machines that have been adapted to stitch
composites can only handle preforms less than !1 m wide
and !5 mm thick. Preforms of this size are usually too small
for many aircraft structures. However, Brown [81] reports
that NASA has a 28 m long sewing machine (shown in Fig.
7) capable of stitching fabric over 15 m long, nearly 3 m
wide and about 40 mm thick. The capital cost of large
purpose-built sewing machines are extremely high and
beyond the budget of most composite fabricators, which is
another major factor impeding the wider use of stitching in
large composite structures.
Until the problems outlined in Table 7 are resolved, it is
likely that most applications for stitched composites will be
restricted to relatively simple structures that are not used in
harsh environments. However, a considerable amount of
work has been undertaken by NASA in association with
some large aircraft manufacturers such as Northrop Grumman and the Douglas Aircraft Co. to produce a stitched wing
[8289]. The project aims to manufacture impact-tolerant
composite aircraft wing cover panels that are 25% lighter
and 20% cheaper than conventional aluminium wings [81].
Fig. 8 shows a stitched wing cover panel manufactured by
the Douglas Aircraft Co. that is 2.4 3.0 m 2. As well as this
work, stitching is also being assessed for fabricating structures in aircraft fuselages [83,84,8688,90].
5. 3D knitted composites
3D knitted composites are arguably the least understood
of the four classes of 3D textile composites reviewed in this
paper. While a considerable amount of research has been
performed on composites reinforced with 2D knitted fabrics
[91,92], by comparison little is known about the mechanical
properties and applications of 3D knitted composites. This
section provides a brief description of the three types of 3D
knitted composite currently available, which are broadly
categorised as sandwich, non-crimp, and near-net-shape
composites. The production, properties and applications of
these different composites are described separately,
although they have many advantages and disadvantages in
common that are listed in Tables 8 and 9, respectively.
5.1. 3D knitted sandwich composites
3D knitted sandwich fabrics were developed as

1456

A.P. Mouritz et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 14451461

Fig. 7. A stitching machine used to stitch composite materials to make wing panels (from Brown [81]).

reinforcement for polymer composites by Verpoest and

colleagues in the early 1990s. Sandwich preforms are
produced on double-bed Raschel machines by knitting the
top and bottom skins simultaneously on each needle bed.
During the knitting process, yarns are intermittently
swapped between the two sets of needles to create a core
of through-thickness yarns, called pile, which are interconnected to the skins. The density and relative orientation of
the pile yarns are easily manipulated by controlling the level
of yarn crossover between the two skins, and preforms have
been made with piles aligned in the vertical direction or
inclined at 45". The two needle beds can be independently
programmed to produce skins with different structures and,
hence, different mechanical properties [9398]. So far, 3D
knitted sandwich preforms have only been produced with
polyester and glass yarns [94,95].
Since 3D knitted sandwich composites are a recent development, there is only a small amount of published information on their mechanical properties and potential
applications. Verpoest et al. [94] and Philips et al. [95]
report that these composites have a higher energy absorption
capacity, but lower flexural stiffness and specific

compressive strength compared with several more conventional sandwich polymer composites containing polymer
(PMI) foam or Nomex# cores. The 3D composites are
expected to be cheaper to manufacture and have better
skin-to-core peel strengths compared with, say, honeycomb
sandwich composites, although this has not yet been demonstrated.
In view of the limited understanding of the mechanical
properties and long-term durability of 3D knitted sandwich
composites, they have not yet been made into structural
components. However, they show considerable promise
for use in bicycle helmets (see Fig. 9), because they are
light-weight and the preform drapes more easily over the
helmet mould than prepreg tape or 2D woven fabric.
Furthermore, the knit architecture of the skin can be
controlled to provide optimum air-flow for heat dissipation
from the wearers head, which is a major benefit during
endurance cycling.
5.2. 3D warp knitted non-crimp composites
3D warp knitted non-crimp preforms are produced using

Fig. 8. A stitched composite wing panel (from Smith et al. [89]).

A.P. Mouritz et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 14451461

Table 8
Advantages of 3D knitted composites over 2D laminates
3D knitted preforms have better formability because they are more
drapable
3D knitting can produce more complex near-net-shape preforms
Some types of 3D knitting can be done on existing automatic machines
with little modification
3D knitted sandwich composites have a lower specific density
Some types of 3D knitted composites have higher impact damage
tolerance and energy absorption (crash) properties

a combination of fibre tow placement and warp knitting.

Preforms are made from layers of non-crimp fabric (made
with unidirectional tows) stacked in the required orientations and then bound together with binder yarns inserted
in the through-thickness direction by warp knitting needles.
Bi-, tri- and quad-axial fabrics of glass, carbon and Kevlar#
have been produced using polyester and Kevlar# binders
[99102]. Non-crimp fabrics with interleaved layers of
random fibre mat have also been warp knitted [103]. The
amount of binder used is normally below 5% of the total
fibre fraction to minimise the amount of damage to the noncrimp fabric. Dexter and Hasko [100] report that where the
knitting needles pierce the non-crimp fabric, they cause
distortions and fractures in the in-plane fibres.
Three main advantages provide the impetus for the development of 3D knitted non-crimp composites. Firstly, unlike
3D weaving, the preforms can be made cost-effectively with
off-axis reinforcement. Secondly, like 3D weaving, the knitting process has the potential to greatly lower production
costs by reducing the time needed to produce the preform
[102]. Finally, this material has superior impact damage
resistance and marginally better damage tolerance
compared with traditional 2D prepreg tape laminates
[102,104]. These factors have been instrumental in having
the composite demonstrated for some aircraft structures,
such as wing stringers [105] and wing panels [80], where
several warp-knitted non-crimp fabrics are bound together
by through-the-thickness stitching. Apart from these aircraft
Table 9
Issues impeding the use of 3D knitted composites
Many 3D knitting machines are still under development, and cannot
produce commercial quantities of fabric
Most conventional knitting machines cannot make thick preforms
Weft knitting of non-crimp fabrics causes breakages and distortions to the
in-plane fibres
3D knitted composites generally have lower stiffness and strength
properties
In-plane properties and failure mechanisms of 3D knitted composites are
not well characterised
Validated methods are not available for predicting many of the properties
and long-term durability of 3D knitted composites
Poor understanding of the influence of the knitting process parameters on
the composite properties
Knitted composite components usually contain soft spots and hard
spots caused by a change in the knit structure due to stretching of the
fabric during prefoming

1457

structures, the only other applications for warp knitted

composites are being assessed is in automobiles. Hamilton
and Schinske [106] briefly reported that composites reinforced with stitched multi-axial glass fabrics were being
considered for use in car bumper bars, floor panels and
door members, however further details have not been
published.
The tensile, compression, flexural, interlaminar shear,
shear, impact and post-impact compression properties of
3D knitted non-crimp composites have been studied in
some detail [100,102,103,105,107]. In most cases the properties have not been compared directly against traditional
tape laminates made with an equivalent amount of in-plane
fibres, and for this reason it is difficult to assess the relative
performance of the 3D knitted composites. It does appear,
however, that these composites have inferior or at best similar tensile properties compared with prepreg tape laminates
of similar lay-up [101]. It is believed the tensile properties
are degraded by crimp and fracture to the in-plane fibres
during knitting, although the adverse effects of this damage
on the properties has not been fully investigated. The crimp
damage also appears responsible for 3D knitted composites
having lower compressive strengths than prepreg tape laminates with an equivalent amount of in-plane fibres [101].
5.3. 3D near-net-shape knitted composites
Near-net-shape or fully-fashion 3D knitted composites
were first made during the early 1990s, but since then little
information has been published about the knitting technique
or their mechanical properties. Near-net-shape knitting can
be performed by a two-bed weft knitting machine, however
additional needle beds are required for producing 3D (multilayer) fully-fashion fabrics [108,109]. The additional
needles and yarn guides are needed both to create the different layers of knits and to facilitate the transfer of yarns
between the layers. The final near-net-shape fabric is predominantly a result of careful stitch control during the knitting
process. Several demonstration components have been
reported in literature including jet engine vanes [108,109],
T-shape connectors [110], I-beams [109], a rudder tip fairing for a mid-size jet engine aircraft, and even medical
prosthesis [91]. Despite these successful trials, the development of 3D knitted near-net-shape composites is still in an
early state, and the high cost of machine and software development stands in the way of a more rapid progress.
6. Conclusions
The development of advanced 3D textile composites for
specialised aircraft components began in the late 1960s, and
since then these materials have attracted increasing attention
because of their potential uses in aircraft, marine vessels,
civil infrastructure and medical prosthesis. This review has
shown that the potential uses of composites made with
3D woven or 3D braided fabrics range from I-beams and

1458

A.P. Mouritz et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 14451461

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Techiweave Inc., Shikishima Canvas
Co. Ltd., Atlantic Research Corporation and the editor of
Aerospace America for permission to use photographs
presented in the paper.

References

Fig. 9. A 3D knitted sandwich preform for a bicycle helmet. From Verpoest

et al. [92].

T-joints through to rocket motor nozzles and rib-stiffened

panels. Stitching has considerable potential for joining
composites and for improving the damage tolerance of
structures such as aircraft wing panels. Currently, the least
developed composites are made from 3D knitted fabrics,
although they have potential applications in niche areas
where the components are a complex shape, such as bicycle
helmets and engine vanes.
Despite the wide variety of demonstration components
made from 3D textile composites, these materials currently
have few commercial applications. 3D woven composites,
for example, have only been used in a few niche applications such as manhole covers and highly specialised joints
on advanced aircraft. The reason for the low usage of 3D
woven, braided, stitched and knitted composites is complicated, and is due to a combination of economic, manufacturing, mechanical property and durability issues. Many of
these issues have been identified in this paper. In addition to
these impediments, another hindrance to the use of 3D
composites is not strictly a technical issue, but more one
of perception. Even though 2D textile fabrics are currently
used within the composites industry, the advanced textile
production techniques described in this paper are new to
most designers and manufacturers of composite structures,
and are not seriously treated as alternative production
methods due to their origins within the traditional textile
industry. A change in attitude will be needed before
advanced 3D textile composites can begin to make
gains within the composite industry. As the impediments outlined in this paper are overcome and the
cost of 3D composites falls, it is expected that their
applications will increase gradually. In the short-term,
however, it is expected in most cases the composites
will continue to be used in niche applications, despite
the construction of stitched composite wing panels.

[1] Smith CS. Design of marine structures in composite materials,

London: Elsevier Applied Science, 1990.
[2] Haresceugh RI. Aircraft and aerospace applications of composites.
In: Kelly A, editor. Concise encyclopedia of composite materials,
Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1989. pp. 17.
[3] Niu MCY. Composite airframe structures, Hong Kong: Conmilit
Press, 1992.
[4] Beardman P. Automotive components: fabrication. In: Kelly A,
editor. Concise encyclopedia of composite materials, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1989. pp. 2431.
[5] Bowen DH. Applications of composites: an overview. In: Kelly A,
editor. Concise encyclopedia of composite materials, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1989. pp. 715.
[6] Mohamed M, Zhang Z, Dickinson L. Manufacture of multilayer
woven preforms. Advanced composites and processing technology
1988;MD 5:8189.
[7] Bannister M, Herszberg I. Advanced reinforcements. In: Kruckenberg T, editor. Resin transfer moulding for aerospace structures,
London: Chapman and Hall, 1998.
[8] Mullen CK, Roy PJ. Fabrication and properties description of Avco
3D carboncarbon cylindrical composites, National SAMPE
Symposium, 1113 April, Los Angeles, California, USA, SAMPE,
1972, pp. III-A-Two-l8.
[9] Yamamoto T, Nishiyama S, Shinya M. Study on weaving method for
three-dimensional textile structural composites, Proceedings of the
Fourth Japan International SAMPE Symposium, 2528 September,
Tokyo, Japan, SAMPE, 1975, pp. 655660.
[10] Lundblad W, Dixon C, Olher H. U.S. Patent 5,456,974, 10 October
1995.
[11] Ko F, Hartman D. Impact behaviour of 2D and 3D glassepoxy
composites. SAMPE Journal 1986;22:2630.
[12] Reedy ED, Guess TR. Additional comparisons of interlocked fabric
and laminated fabric Kevlar 49/epoxy composites. Journal of
Composite Technology and Research 1986;8:163168.
[13] Chou S, Chen HC, Wu CC. BMI resin composites reinforced with
3D carbonfibre fabrics. Composite Science and Technology
1992;43:117128.
[14] Voss S, Fahmy A, West H. Impact tolerance of laminated and 3dimensionally reinforced graphiteepoxy panels. In: Chandra T,
Dhingra AK, editors. Advanced composites 93: international conference on advanced composite materia1s, The Minerals, Metals and
Materials Society, 1993. pp. 591596.
[15] Billaut F, Roussel O. Impact resistance of 3-D graphite/epoxy
composites. In: Portsartip A, Street K, editors. Proceedings of the
Tenth International Conference on Composite Materials, ICCM-10,
Woodhead, 1995 1418 August, pp. V551V58.
[16] Dickinson L, Mohammed MH, Klang E. Impact resistance and
compression properties of three-dimensional woven carbon/epoxy
composites, ECCM-4, 2528 September, Stuttgart, Germany,
Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1990 pp. 65964.
[17] Ding YQ, Wenger W, Mcllhagger R. Structural characterisation and
mechanical properties of 3-D woven composites, European SAMPE
1993, pp. 19.
[18] Arendts FJ, Drechsler K, Brandt J. Manufacturing and mechanical
performance of composites with 3-D woven fibre reinforcement,

A.P. Mouritz et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 14451461

[19]

[20]
[21]

[22]
[23]

[24]
[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]
[31]

[32]

[33]
[34]

[35]

[36]
[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

Fourth Textile Structural Composites Symposium, Philadelphia,

July 1989.
Farley GL, Smith BT, Maiden J. Compressive response of thick
layer composite laminates with through-the-thickness reinforcement. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites
1992;11:787810.
Cox BN, Dadkhah MS, Morris WL. On the tensile properties of 3D
woven composites. Composites 1996;27A:447458.
Mouritz AP, Baini C, Herszberg I. Mode I interlaminar fracture
toughness properties of advanced textile fibreglass composites.
Composites 1999;30A:859870.
Muller J, Zulliger A, Dorn M. Economic production of composite
beams with 3D fabric tapes. Textile Month 1994;September:913.
Wong R. Sandwich construction in the Starship, Proceedings of the
37th International SAMPE Symposium, 912 March 1992, pp. 186
197.
Anon, Professional Boatbuilder, August/September 1995, pp. 37
39.
Limmer L, Weissenbach G, Brown D, Mcllhagger R, Wallace E.
The potential of 3-D woven composites exemplified in a composite
component for a lower-leg prosthesis. Composites 1996;27A:271
277.
Dadkhah MS, Morris WL, Cox BN. Compressioncompression fatigue of 3D woven composites. Acta Metallurgica and Materialia
1995;43:42354246.
Guess TR, Reedy ED. Comparison of interlock fabric and laminated
fabric Kevlar 49/epoxy composites. Journal of Composites Technology and Research 1985;7:136142.
Callus PJ, Mouritz AP, Bannister MK, Leong KH. Tensile properties
and failure mechanisms of 3D woven GRP composites. Composites
A 1999;30A:30(11);12771287.
Cox BN, Carter WC, Fleck NA. A binary model of textile composites. I Formulation. Acta Metallurgica and Materialia
1994;42:34633479.
Cox BN, Dadkhah MS. The macroscopic elasticity of 3D woven
composites. Journal of Composite Materials 1995;29:785819.
Tan P, Tong L, Steven GP. Modeling for predicting the mechanical
properties of textile compositesa review. Composites
1997;28A:903922.
Norman TL, Alsion P, Baldwin JW, Gracias BK, Seesdorf D. Effect
of tow alignment on the mechanical performance of 3-D woven
textile composites, NASA Conference Publication 3211, 1992.
Byun JH, Chou TW. Elastic properties of 3-D angle-interlock fabric
preforms. Journal of the Textile Institute 1990;81:538548.
Bannister MK, Herszberg I, Nicolaidis A, Coman F, Leong KH. The
manufacture of glass/epoxy composites with multi-layer woven
architectures. Composites 1998;29A:293300.
Stover ER, Marck WC, Marfowitz I, Mueller W. Preparation of an
omniweave-reinforced carboncarbon cylinder as a candidate for
evaluation in the advanced heat shield screening program, Report
AFML-TR-70-283, March 1971.
Ko FK. Braiding, Engineering Materials Handbook, 1. ASM International, 1987 pp. 519528.
Brown RT, Crow EC Jr. Automatic through-the-thickness braiding,
Proceedings of the 37th International SAMPE Symposium, March
912, 1992, pp. 832842.
Brown RT. Design and manufacturing of 3-D braided preforms,
Proceedings of the Fifth Textile Structural Composites Symposium,
Philadelphia, 5 December, 1991.
Li J, Chen P, El-Shiekh A. Construction and geometry of 6-Step
braided preforms for composites, Proceedings of the 39th International SAMPE Symposium, 1114 April, 1994, pp. 826833.
Kostar TD, Chou TW. Microstructural design of advanced multistep three-dimensional braided preforms. Journal of Composite
Materials 1994;28:11801201.
Popper P, McConnell R. A new 3D braid for integrated parts manufacture and improved delamination resistancethe 2-step process,

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]
[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

1459

Proceedings of the 32nd International SAMPE Symposium, 69

April 1987, pp. 92103.
Brookstein DS, Interlocked fiber architecture: braided and woven,
Proceedings of the 35th International SAMPE Symposium, 25
April, 1990, pp. 746756.
Brookstein DS. Comparison of multilayer interlocked braided
composites with other 3D braided composites, Proceedings of the
36th Internationial SAMPE Symposium, 1518 April 1991, pp.
141150.
Fedro MJ, Willden K. Characterization and manufacture of braided
composites for large commercial aircraft structures, NASA CP
3154, Second NASA Advanced Composites Technology Conference, November 47, 1991, pp. 387429.
Gause LW, Alper JW. Structural properties of braided graphite/
epoxy composites. Journal of Composite Technology & Research
1987;9:141150.
Crane RM, Camponeschi Jr ET. Experimental and analytical characterization of multidimensionally braided graphite/epoxy composites. Experimental Mechanics 1986;September:259266.
Whitney JM, Stansbarger DL, Howell HB. Analysis of the rail shear
test-applications and limitations. Journal of Composite Materials
1971;5:2434.
Ko FK. Developments of high damage tolerant, net shape composites through textile structural design, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Composite Materials, ICCM-V, 29 July1
August 1984, pp. 12011210.
Gong JC, Sankar BV. Impact properties of three-dimensional
braided graphite/epoxy composites. Journal of Composite Materials
1991;25:715731.
Dexter HB. Innovative textile reinforced composite materials for
aircraft structures, Proceedings of the 28th International SAMPE
Technical Conference, 47 Nov. 1996, pp. 404416.
Macander Jr. AB, Crane RM, Camponeschi ET. Fabrication and
mechanical properties of multidimensionally (X-D) braided composite materials, composite materials, Composite Materials: Testing
and Design (Seventh Conference), ASTM STP 893. Philadelphia,
PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1986 pp. 422443.
Malkan SR, Ko FK. Effect of fiber reinforcement geometry on
single-shear and fracture behaviour of three-dimensionally braided
glass/epoxy composite pins. Journal of Composite Materials
1989;23:798818.
Brookstein DS. Three-dimensional braids for reinforcing composites, Technical Textiles International, May 1993, pp. 1214.
Ko FK, Soebroto HB, Lei C, 3-D net shaped composites by the 2step braiding process, Proceedings of the 33rd International SAMPE
Symposium, 710 March, 1988, pp. 912921.
Yau SS, Chou TW, Ko FK. Flexural and axial compressive failures
of three-dimensionally braided composite I-beams. Composites
1986;17:227232.
Chiu C-H, Lu C-K, An T-C. The influence of braiding pitch-length
on flexural behaviour of 2-step braiding I-beam composites,
Proceedings of the 39th International SAMPE Symposium, 1114
April 1994, pp. 16171628.
Wulfhorst B, de Weldige E, Kaldenhoff R, Moll K-U. New developments and applications of textile reinforcements for composite
materials, Proceedings of the 4th Japan International SAMPE
Symposium, 2528 September 1995, pp. 673678.
Fukuta K, Kinbara M, Amano M, Tamaki H, Ozaki H, Nakamura K, Furuyama M, Mitani K, Takei T. Research and development of 3D fabric reinforced composites, Proceedings of the
4th Japan Internatiorial SAMPE Symposium, 2528 September
1995, pp. 736741.
Gause LW, Alper JW. Braided to net section graphite/epoxy composite shapes. Journal of Composites Technology and Research
1988;10:3346.
Brandt J, Drechsler K. The potential of advanced textile structural
composites for automotive and aerospace applications, Proceedings

1460

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]
[65]
[66]

[67]

[68]
[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

A.P. Mouritz et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 14451461

of the Fourth Japan International SAMPE Symposium, 2528
September 1995, pp. 679686.
Morales A. Structural stitching of textile preforms Proceedings of
the 22nd International SAMPE Technical Conference, 68 November 1990, pp. 12171230.
Dransfield K, Baillie C, Mai Y-W. Improving the delamination resistance of CFRP by stitchinga review. Composite Science and
Technology 1994;50:305317.
Mouritz AP, Leong KH, Herszberg I. A review of the effect of
stitching on the in-plane mechanical properties of fibre-reinforced
polymer composites. Composites 1997;28A:979991.
Mouritz AP, Cox BN. A mechanistic approach to the properties of
stitched laminates. Composites A. 1999, in press.
Holt HB. Future composite aircraft structures may be sewn together.
Automotive Engineering 1992;90:4649.
Cacho-Negrete C. Integral Composite Skin and Spar (ICSS) Study
Program, AFWAL-TR-82-3053, Flight Dynamics Laboratory,
Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, Ohio, September 1982.
Mouritz AP, Jain LK. Further validation of the Jain and Mai models
for interlaminar fracture of stitched composites. Composites Science
and Technology 1999; in press.
Liu D. Photoelastic study on composite stitching. Experimental
Techniques 1990;February:2527.
Sawyer JW. Effect of stitching on the strength of bonded composite
single lap joints. Journal of the American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics 1985;23:17441748.
Tada Y, Ishikawa T. Experimental evaluation of the effects of stitching on CFRP laminate specimens with various shapes and loadings.
Key Engineering Materials 1989;37:305316.
Lee C, Liu D. Tensile strength of stitching joint in woven glass
fabrics. Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology
1990;112:125130.
Tong L, Jain LK, Leong KH, Kelly DW, Herszberg I. Failure of
transversely stitched RTM lap joints. Composite Science and Technology 1998;58:221227.
Tong L, Jain LK. Analysis of adhesive bonded composite lap joints
with transverse stitching. Applied Composite Materials 1995;2:343
395.
Moll KU, Wulfhorst B. Determination of stitching as a new method
to reinforce composites in the third dimension, Proceedings of
Texcomp-3, 1996, paper 4.
Whiteside JB, Delasi RJ, Schulte RL. Measurement of preferential
moisture ingress in composite wing/spar joints. Composite Science
and Technology 1985;24:123145.
Mitchell L, Herszberg I. Analysis and testing of stitched carbon/
epoxy shear panels, Proceedings of the Second Pacific International
Conference on Aerospace Science and TechnologySixth Australian Aeronautical Conference (PICAST2-AAC6), Melbourne,
Australia, 2023 March, 1995, pp. 593598.
Brosius D, Clarke S. Textile preforming techniques for low cost
structural composites, Proceedings of Advanced Composite Materials: New Developments and Applications, 30 Sept3 Oct 1991, pp.
110.
Furrow KW, Loos AC, Cano RJ. Environmental effects on stitched
RTM textile composites. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 1996;15:378419.
Qi B, Herszberg I, Bannister MK, Baker AA. The residual compression strength of stitched and unstitched plain-weave carbon/epoxy
laminates after impact and hygrothermal cycling, Proceedings of the
11th International Conference on Composite Materials, ICCM-11,
1418 July 1997, pp. V149V159.
Dexter HB. Innovative textile reinforced composite materials for
aircraft structures, Proceedings of the 28th International SAMPE
Conference, 47 Nov 1996, pp. 404416.
Brown AS. Cutting composite costs with needle and thread. Aerospace America 1997;Nov:2425.

[82] Palmer RJ, Dow MB, Smith DL. Development of stitching reinforcement for transport wing panels, Proceedings of the First NASA
Advanced Composites Technical Conference, Part 2, 1991, pp. 621
646.
[83] Dexter HB. An overview of the NASA textile composites program,
Proceedings of Fiber-Tex 1992, 3211. NASA Conference Publication, 1992 2729 October 1992, pp. 131.
[84] Deaton JW, Kullerd SM, Madan RC, Chen VL. Test and analysis
results for composite transport fuselage and wing structures,
Proceedings of Fiber-Tex 1992, 3211. NASA Conference Publication, 1992 2729 October 1992, pp. 169193.
[85] Jegley DC, Waters WA. Test and analysis of a stitched RFI
graphiteepoxy panel with a fuel access door, NASA Technical
Memo. 108992, 1994.
[86] Markus A. Resin transfer molding for advanced composite primary
wing and fuselage structures, Proceedings of Fiber-Tex 1992, 3211.
NASA Conference Publication, 1992 2729 October, pp. 141167.
[87] Suarez J, Dastin S. Comparison of resin film infusion, resin transfer
molding and consolidation of textile preforms for primary aircraft
structure, Proceedings of Fiber-Tex 1992, 3211. NASA Conference
Publication, 1992 2729 October, pp. 353386.
[88] Jackson AC, Barrie RE, Shah BM, Shulka JG. Proceedings of FiberTex 1992. Advanced textile applications for primary aircraft structures, NASA Conference Publication, 1992 2729 October, pp.
325352.
[89] Smith BA, Proctor P, Sparaco P. Airframers pursue lower aircraft
costs. Aviation Week and Space Technology 1994;September 5:57
58.
[90] Kullerd SM, Dow MB. Development of stitched/RTM composite
primary structures, Proceedings of Fiber-Tex 1992, 3211. NASA
Conference Publication, 1992 2729 October, pp. 115140.
[91] Leong KH, Falzon PJ, Bannister MK, Herszberg I. An investigation
of the mechanical performance of Milano rib weft-knit glass/epoxy
composites. Composite Science and Technology 1998;58:239251.
[92] Verpoest I, Gommers B, Huymans G, Ivens I, Luo Y, Pandita S,
Phillips D. The potential of knitted fabrics as a reinforcements for
composites, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Composite Materials, 1418 July 1997, pp. 1-1081-133.
[93] Hogg PJ. Knitted fabrics have better drape in sandwich structures.
Advanced Composites Bulletin 1995;October:2.
[94] Verpoest I, Ivens I, van Vuure AW, Gommers B, Vendeurzen P,
Efstratiou V, Phillips D. New developments in advanced textiles for
composites, Proceeditigs of the Fourth Japan International SAMPE
Symposium, 2528, 1995, 644.
[95] Phillips D, Verpoest I, van Raemdonck J. 3D-knitted fabrics for
sandwich panels, Proceedings of Texcomp-3, 1996, paper 18.
[96] Phillips D, Verpoest I, van Raemdonck J. Optimising the mechanical
properties of 3D-knitted sandwich structures, Proceedings of the
11th International Conference on Composite Materials, 1418 July
1997, pp. V211V218.
[97] Davies S. Textile for composites. Technical Textile International
1997;2224.
[98] Subhash A. Warp knitted structures in composites. Proceedings of
ECCM7 1996;2:377381.
[99] Hogg PJ, Ahmadnia A, Guild FJ. The mechanical properties of noncrimped fabric-based composites. Composites 1993;24A:423432.
[100] Dexter HB, Hasko GH. Mechanical properties and damage tolerance
of multiaxial warp-knit composites. Composite Science and Technology 1996;56:367.
[101] Bibo GA, Hogg PJ, Kemp M. Mechanical characterisation of glass
and carbon-fibre-reinforced composites made with non-crimp
fabrics. Composites Science and Technology 1997;57:1221.
[102] Bibo GA, Hogg PJ, Backhouse R, Mills A. Carbon-fibre non-crimp
fabric laminates for cost-effective damage-tolerant structures.
Composite Science and Technology 1998;58:129.
[103] Kress G. Understanding reinforcement concepts: part II, Composite
Fabrication, April 1998, pp. 1214.

A.P. Mouritz et al. / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 14451461

[104] Kay ML, Hogg PJ. Damage tolerance of non-crimp fabric
composites. In: Bunsel AR, Kelly A, Massiah A, editors.
Proceedings of ECCM-6, 1993. pp. 361369 Bordeaux,
France.
[105] Clayton G, Falzon P, Georgiadis S, Liu XJ. Towards a composite
civil aircraft wing, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference
on Composite Materials, ICCM-11, 1418 July 1997, pp. I310
I319.
[106] Hamilton S, Schinske N. Multiaxial stitched preform reinforcement,
Proceedings of the Sixth Annual ASM/ESD Advanced Composites
Conferences, 811 October 1990, pp. 433434.
[107] Wang Y, Li J, Do PB. Properties of composite laminates reinforced

1461

with E-glass multiaxial non-crimp fabrics. Journal of Composite

Materials 1995;29:23172333.
[108] Gibbon J. Knitting in the third dimension. Textile Horizons
1994;14:22.
[109] Sheffer E, Dias T. Knitting novel 3-D solid structures with multiple
needle bars, Proceedings of the UMIST Textile Conferences
Textile Engineered for Performance, Manchester, UK, April 1998,
pp. 2022.
[110] King JE, Greaves RP, Low H. Composite materials in aeroengine
gas turbine: Performance potential vs commercial constraint?,
Keynote Lecture, Presented at Sixth European Conference on
Composite Materials, London, UK, May 1996, pp. 1416.