Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886

DOI 10.1007/s10443-015-9441-8

Meshing Preprocessor for the Mesoscopic 3D Finite

Element Simulation of 2D and Interlock Fabric
Deformation

A. Wendling 1 & J. L. Daniel 1 & G. Hivet 1 &

E. Vidal-Sallé 2 & P. Boisse 2

Received: 11 March 2015 / Accepted: 17 March 2015 / Published online: 17 April 2015
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract Numerical simulation is a powerful tool to predict the mechanical behavior and the
feasibility of composite parts. Among the available numerical approaches, as far as woven
reinforced composites are concerned, 3D finite element simulation at the mesoscopic scale
leads to a good compromise between realism and complexity. At this scale, the fibrous
reinforcement is modeled by an interlacement of yarns assumed to be homogeneous that have
to be accurately represented. Among the numerous issues induced by these simulations, the
first one consists in providing a representative meshed geometrical model of the unit cell at the
mesoscopic scale. The second one consists in enabling a fast data input in the finite element
software (contacts definition, boundary conditions, elements reorientation, etc.) so as to obtain
results within reasonable time. Based on parameterized 3D CAD modeling tool of unit-cells of
dry fabrics already developed, this paper presents an efficient strategy which permits an
automated meshing of the models with 3D hexahedral elements and to accelerate of several
orders of magnitude the simulation data input. Finally, the overall modeling strategy is
illustrated by examples of finite element simulation of the mechanical behavior of fabrics.

Keywords Woven fabrics . Unit-cell model . Mesoscopic scale . 3D finite element simulations .
3D hexahedral mesh

1 Introduction

For composite materials, numerical simulations at the component scale are a powerful tool to
predict the feasibility of a composite part using a Liquid Composite Molding (LCM) process with

* A. Wendling
audrey.wendling@univ-orleans.fr

1
Laboratoire PRISME, EA 4229, Université d’Orléans, 8 rue Leonard de Vinci, 45072 Orléans, France
2
CNRS INSA-Lyon, LaMCoS UMR5259, bâtiment Jean d’Alembert, Université de Lyon, 18-20 rue
des Sciences, 69621 Villeurbanne, France
870 Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886

a given fabric and resin [1–4]. One of the main difficulties generated by this type of calculation,
however, is to obtain accurate models for both the mechanical behavior and the permeability of
dry fabrics. Experimental methods are efficient at identifying these properties but as far as dry
reinforcements are concerned, they exhibit several drawbacks: they are difficult, time-consuming,
expensive to perform and often subject to a high level of discrepancy ([5, 6] for instance). In
addition, experimental techniques cannot be used to investigate the design of new fabrics whereas
the increasing capability of weaving processes now makes it possible to imagine any type of
fabric architecture. It would thus be very helpful for weavers to be informed of the best
architecture for a specific need. When dealing with fibrous reinforcements, experimental ap-
proaches can therefore be usefully complemented with numerical investigations.
Among the possible tools, one of the most promising is undoubtedly the 3D finite element
analysis of the composite reinforcement at the mesoscopic scale [7–12], i.e., at the unit-cell
scale. Despite the interesting developments resulting from numerous recent studies on fabric
modeling at the fiber scale (microscopic scale) [13–15], modeling at this scale remains difficult
and time-consuming. Mesoscopic scale analyses are based on the geometry of the yarn
weaving architecture which is of great importance for the mechanical behavior of the rein-
forcement. They therefore ensure a good compromise between accuracy and complexity as
they deal with the interlacement of the yarns without explicitly modeling the thousands of
fibers constituting the tows. However, the difficulties associated with this type of calculation
are numerous: CAD modeling of the cell, large strains and displacements, a large number of
contacts (especially for recent high density interlocks and 3D fabrics), the need for a specific
homogenized constitutive law for the yarns, and meshing.
While more and more studies are conducted in order to find smart solutions to all these
difficulties, ideal solutions do not exist, especially as regards specific weavings such as interlock
and 3D fabrics. In addition, for mesoscopic scale finite element simulations to become a credible
complement to experimental approaches, they have to be accurate and reasonably fast. These two
criteria are impacted by all the steps of the model identification and implementation but
particularly strongly by the creation of the meshed geometry, the implementation of the boundary
conditions and the definition, localization and description of the many contacts between the yarns.
Due to the rapid increase in weaving techniques, a large number of possible reinforcement
architectures (2D, interlocks, 3D) exist. The ability to model any of them is therefore the
primary property of any fabric modeler. By nature, the weaving process leads to the creation of
periodic (or quasi-periodic) reinforcements. This pattern is typically called the unit-cell or
Representative Unit Cell/Volume (RUC or RUV). Once the unit-cell size has been set (2 × 2
yarns for a plain weave, 4 × 4 for a 2 × 2 twill, etc.), all the patterns can be considered to
generate the corresponding reinforcement and can be considered as an elementary cell. There
is therefore not one, but an infinity of possible elementary cells for a periodic reinforcement
(Fig. 1a and b). Since any of them can be used in simulation for instance in multi-layer
simulations [12], the implementation of all of them has to be possible.
Modeling the meshed geometry of a textile reinforcement can therefore be associated
to the modeling of any unit-cell of any fabric from data, whether coming from the
weaver or measured on the reinforcement (Micro-CT images [16] or micrographic
sections for example). These models should also be easy and quick to create or modify
so as to analyze the influence of the reinforcement parameters (parametric studies) or to
achieve architectural optimization for instance. However, limiting the study of reinforce-
ments to one unit-cell may be reductive, as not only do non-periodic reinforcements,
dedicated to specific applications, tend to develop but for standard fabrics the
Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886 871

theoretically imposed woven architecture is not as regular as expected. A significant

variability between individual cells can be clearly observed when examining a sheet of
reinforcement.
An efficient CAD modeling and meshing strategy should therefore make it possible to:

& Consider several elementary cells with different settings to achieve statistical results
(statistically representative unit-cell).
& Study a cell larger than the theoretical unit-cell size, taking into account the variability of
the reinforcement.
& Consider the definition of several patterns as representative of the behavior of non-periodic
reinforcements, so as to compute the mechanical behavior in a reasonable amount of time.
& Create existing reinforcements but also novel ones in order to advise manufacturers on the
most interesting architecture for a given need.
& Perform mesoscopic finite element simulations since this is the overall aim.

In order to satisfy these requirements, the following properties have to be ensured:

& The CAD geometry must be parameterized, set and changed quickly with minimal user
intervention in order to perform serial calculations by varying parameters (for sensitivity or
process optimization for example).
& The obtained geometry has to be meshed automatically and be directly useable for
simulations.
& Input data for simulation must be simplified and automated as much as possible.

The goal of this paper is therefore to present the complete automated strategy developed
specifically for fibrous reinforcement, from the measurement of geometrical parameters to the
simulation input file. For that purpose, the principles of the CAD modeling strategy described
in detail in [17] will be briefly summarized in order to show how it is incorporated into the
overall strategy before detailing the meshing and data input strategy and the tools specifically
developed to meet the above requirements.

2 3D CAD Model Structure

One of the most critical steps in building the input data for a mesoscopic scale simulation
is to provide a parameterized and representative 3D CAD geometrical model. In the case
of dry fabrics (or if the matrix is in liquid phase) an essential issue concerns the contacts
between the yarns that have to be precisely and accurately described by the CAD model
[18]. Many interesting tools exist in the literature based on the principle of considering
the different networks independently, and dealing with internal network contacts a
posteriori [18–28], in particular WiseTex [19, 20] and TexGen [21]. However, there are
two main problems with this approach: contacts between yarns are treated as the
consequences of an idealized yarn trajectory, and the absence of interpenetration of the
yarn is not ensured at the contact zones. This absence of interpenetration of the yarn will
be called consistency in the sequel. Some techniques can be used to modify the unit-cell
a posteriori, but they require a substantial amount of time and make it difficult to use the
unit-cell for serial calculations such as parametric sensitivity. Even if all these strategies
872 Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886

have improved over the years and have increased their ability to model complex unit-
cells with a higher degree of consistency in a reasonable amount of time, an alternative
strategy can be considered. The strategy proposed here consists in defining a parameter-
ized model that requires no modification before the simulation step. This interesting
property is achieved thanks to the fulfillment of strict surface tangencies between the
yarns, so as to obtain a model that is called Bgeometrically consistent^ [17, 18]. In order
to obtain this strict tangency condition, the contact zones between two yarns are first
located and the surfaces of the two yarns are assumed to be strictly identical. In situ
observations of yarns show that the section shape varies along a trajectory. Thus the
second specificity of the proposed model is to integrate these variations of the section
shape along the trajectory representing the yarn thanks to a swept blend interpolation.
Each yarn is referenced by a number which is an assembly of three numbers: the first one
represents the yarn network (1 for weft yarns, 2 for warp yarns). The second one is the
yarn zone number, a zone being defined as a group of yarns with the same longitudinal
coordinate (Fig. 1c and d). Since a zone can include several yarns, the third number
represents the yarn number in the zone, the yarn with the smallest z coordinate being
yarn 1 (Fig. 1c and d).

(a) Plain weave unit-cells (b) Twill 2x2 unit cells

211

(c) reality (d) model

Fig. 1 Definition of a yarn

Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886 873

2.1 Accounting for Contacts

One of the main issues induced by consistency is to identify and locate in space the contacts
between the yarns of the different networks. With standard 2D fabrics, this task is easily achieved
because only the contacts defined by the weaving architecture, named Bweaving contacts^ exist.
These contacts are those related to the yarn interlacement process in the loom. As a result, they
depend only on the fabric architecture and their location and geometry can be easily determined.
Many tools therefore propose consistent geometries for these fabrics ([19–21, 27, 29, 30]).
Whatever the type of architecture (2D, interlock, 3D), it must be kept in mind that weaving
contacts are desirable and that they define the architecture; they are consequently the basis of the
definition of a consistent model. However, for complex fabrics such as interlock, 3D or 2D with a
very high yarn density, the identification and modeling of contacts is much more difficult. The
presence of several layers of yarns (weft) in the unit-cell together with the desire to increase their
density greatly increases the risk of contact inside the unit-cell. Unlike weaving contacts, these
contacts are not wanted and cannot always be anticipated. This is particularly true for interlock
fabrics, between the warp and weft yarns, because the warp yarns wind between the weft ones. The
spacing between the weft yarns does not allow the warp yarn to cross the cell without coming into
contact with the wefts (see for example Fig. 1c, contact between warp 211 and wefts 131 and 161).
Another type of contact taken into account concerns the contacts between parallel yarns.
Theoretically the weaving process should result in all the yarns of the same network being parallel
and separate. However, one way to increase fiber density is to parameterize, during the weaving
process, a spacing between the yarns that is smaller than their width, which leads to a contact when
the yarns intersect. The resulting contacts are named Blateral contacts^. In addition, contacts between
yarns of the same network and the same zone can also exist; they are named Blongitudinal contacts^.
Yarns of the same zone are supposed to be superimposed and separated; however, their
undulation can make them come into contact.
Both these types of contact are handled using the same strategy developed in [17], based on tools
available in CATIAV5®. The consideration and the management of these types of contact makes it
possible to develop consistent models of all types of fabrics, even dense interlocks, such as the
G1151® presented in Fig. 3. The model is composed of a trajectory, defined by control points M αi j


xαi j
leading to the succession of straight segments Dαik and parabolas Pαik whose equations are
zαi j


xSαij
defined from their apex S αik and a parameter pαik, and parameterized sections (Fig. 2).
zSαij
zαi j−1 −zαi j
Segments : d αik ¼
xαi j−1 −xαi j ð1Þ
Parabolas : ðz−zSaik Þ ¼ paik ðx−xSaik Þ2 ; 1 ≤k ≤ncαi

All the parameters are calculated thanks to an identification algorithm and the resolution of
a non linear equations system [17] that ensures the consistency of the model that is to say:

& Tangency condition on the left side of the parabola

& Tangency condition on the right side of the parabola
& Periodicity condition (continuity and tangency)
& Consistency: the contact parabolas of two yarns in contact at the contact zone are exactly
the same.
874 Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886

Detail B
M6 M7
M4 + + + M9
M2 + M5 M+
8 +
h i1
M1 + +M M+ +M11

ie
M18

ic
+ 3 10 +

t
M12 M16 h i2
+ +M13 ++M17
+ +
M14 M15
Detail A M j is noted Mj w i

(a) example of yarn trajectory (b) parameterized yarn section

(c) An example of resulting 3D model

Fig. 2 Model definition

Finally, a completely parameterized model is obtained, comprising all the control points and
apex coordinates, and all the straight segments, parabolas and section parameters.

2.2 Summary

Thanks to this strategy, it is henceforth possible to model the unit-cells of all types of 2D and
interlock fabrics from user-defined data (manufacturer data sheets, tomography, etc.). The
models can be obtained in few minutes, with management of the interferences and, as the
strategy is completely automated, without any user intervention after the input step. All the
routines are included in a package of Scilab® and VBA routines, that pilots CATIA V5®,
named GeoFab.
The model created has several important characteristics from a simulation point of view:

& it is consistent, i.e., it has neither interferences nor voids and can then be exploited for F.E.
analyses without any modifications;
& each yarn is modeled by a smoothed swept blend interpolation of sections, if necessary
shifted (lateral contacts), of different shapes and dimensions, along one planar trajectory;
& it is completely parameterized: the coordinates of all the points and the equations of all the
curves are available, making it easy to locate the key zone of the fabric for meshing and to
create the boundary conditions.

The following meshing and preprocessing tool was developed thanks to these properties.

3 Mesh and Calculation Data Input

3.1 Objectives and Issues

As mentioned, the aim is to obtain a parameterized (adjustable number of elements), topolog-

ically correct (from a calculation point of view), automated hexahedral mesh of all types of
Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886 875

fabric cells. The mesh has, in addition, to be created quickly so as to enable serial simulation
with varying parameters. The use of linear hexahedral elements is amply justified by their
efficiency (calculation time/accuracy ratio), especially when there is bending (of yarns here)
and numerous contacts. Moreover simulations at the mesoscopic scale use the constitutive
equations developed in [9, 11, 31, 32]. As detailed in the previous section, yarn geometry
results from a smoothed swept blend interpolation volume and is therefore a strongly multi-
curved shape. With current standard hexahedral meshing tools, such a mesh cannot be
obtained automatically. Based on the data extracted from the parameterized 3D CAD approach
presented in section 2, a dedicated meshing tool was therefore developed to achieve this. This
section describes this meshing tool, which aims to be efficient, i.e., parameterized, quick and
automatic. Besides the meshing issue, defining the calculation input (contact definitions,
boundary conditions, etc.) is lengthy when completely manual. In particular, defining the
contact zones between yarns can be extremely time-consuming if a good accuracy/calculation
time ratio is sought after. Thus the second objective consists in simplifying and significantly
accelerating the calculation input.

3.2 Meshing the Reinforcement

3.2.1 Meshing Strategy

As the aim is to take into account the contacts and sliding between yarns, each yarn was associated to
one Part and meshed independently. The entire yarn consists of a strongly multi-curved volume
(Fig. 2c), which does not allow a consistent hexahedral mesh. Nevertheless, the volume that
connects two consecutive sections of a yarn can be automatically meshed with a good level of
accuracy by standard meshing software. The meshing strategy therefore consists in automatically
partitioning the yarns into elementary solids connecting two consecutive control sections of the
model and then in meshing each of these solids. This task can be performed after each control
section has been localized thanks to the data exported by the geometrical modeler (Fig. 3).
Once the yarn has been divided into the meshable elementary cells (solids) linking two
consecutive sections, the cells’ edges are partitioned in order to explicitly control the number
of elements. First, along the thickness, which is essential to control transverse behavior
modeling in slim structures such as the yarns of technical fabrics, the mesh seed is defined
by number (Fig. 4c). Hence, in the longitudinal direction, a mesh seed is defined by size
(Fig. 4a) in order to ensure a correct topology of the elements and to limit their number.
For the remaining upper and lower edges of the sections, while a regular mesh (size or number
of elements) is possible, it would lead to a large number of elements in the width of the yarn,
greatly increasing the calculation time. To ensure a correct topology, the element size along the
section width is limited by the size of the flat flanges of the yarn, which is classically very small
(yarn section shapes being often almost lenticular inside the fabric). Consequently, if a regular
mesh is applied, the fulfillment of the validity criterion of the elements would impose a high
number of small elements. Thus, for these edges a progressive mesh is chosen. The parameters of
the mesh respect the number of elements and the ratio between the largest and the smallest
element (Fig. 4b). All the mesh parameters are specified by the user in the mesh data sheet:

& The number of elements in thickness

& The number of elements in width
& The element sizes in the longitudinal direction
876 Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886

(a) Unit-cell of G1151®

(b) Comparison tomography/model for a cut in the first (c) Comparison tomography/model for a cut in the
zone of weft yarns of G1151® fifth zone of weft yarns of G1151®

(d) Comparison tomography/model for a cut in the tenth zone (e) Comparison tomography/model for a cut in the
of weft yarns of G1151® first zone of warp yarns of G1151®

(f) Comparison tomography/model for a cut in the third zone (g) Comparison tomography/model for a cut in the
of weft yarns of G1151® fifth zone of weft yarns of G1151®

Fig. 3 G1151® CAD model accounting for all contacts

Once the meshing strategy has been defined, the other issue consists in accelerating the
calculation input as, in addition to automating the meshing step, it is necessary to create the
following automatically: the node sets, the element sets, the contact surfaces and all the files
containing the data required to define the simulation conditions. These different steps are
Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886 877

sh ize
me ts s
u lar men
g e
Re y el
(a)ined b
f
De

(c) Regular mesh

(b) Progressive mesh
Defined by elements number
Defined by:
• elements number
• ratio between the bigger and the smaller
elements

Fig. 4 Meshing strategy: different types of mesh seeds

summarized in Fig. 5 and detailed hereafter. The entire strategy is automated via a Python
script under Abaqus®, which is also presented in the following sections.

3.2.2 Yarn Partition

The undulation of the yarns (sometimes very high) and the presence of complex skew surfaces
means that a direct hexahedral mesh cannot be produced with standard software. In accordance
with the strategy presented in the previous section, the solution is to partition the yarns in
elementary cells and to mesh each of these partitions. The yarns are partitioned first with
respect to their median plane and then, each half yarn is partitioned at each control section
(Fig. 6), the longitudinal coordinate of the control section being automatically extracted from
the parameterized CAD model. For the interlock fabric G1151® presented here, composed of

CAD geometries
Model data
Abaqus data

Mesh seed
Creation and
Yarns application and Element Creation of
limitation of the
partition mesh of the reorientation nodesets
contact zones
partitions

Nodes and
Node sets
elements

Fig. 5 Steps of the meshing strategy

878 Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886

Fig. 6 Yarn partitions

21 yarns, 506 partitioned blocks were created, which illustrates the time saved compared to
manual creation.
Once these two steps have been completed, each cell can be meshed with hexahedral
elements.

3.2.3 Mesh Seed Application and Partition Meshing

A mesh seed is created from the pattern parameters input by the user (parameterized mesh).
The medial axis algorithm is chosen because it follows the mesh seed perfectly and thus
respects the topology of the elements (ratio, angles, etc.). In accordance with the optimal
strategy presented in the previous section, the mesh seed strategy depends on the edge location
(Fig. 4):
The first step consists in sorting all the edges of the yarns depending on the mesh seed
strategy (by size, by number, or with a progressive mesh. See 3.2.1). The ranking algorithm is
based on the comparison of the coordinates of each edge vertex. Once all the edges have been
sorted and seeded, each elementary cell can be meshed automatically as presented in Fig. 7.
During this step the first Binclude files^ are also created. These are text files, created for each
yarn, containing all the information required for the calculation to start. The implementation of
the finite element calculation will therefore result in a successive call to these Binclude files^
created automatically by the Python code. The first include file stores all the yarn nodes and
their coordinates, the second one stores all the yarn elements and their connectivity list.

3.2.4 Reorientation of the Elements

One of the main issues with fibrous media consists in following the strong anisotropy
direction, which corresponds here to the longitudinal direction of the yarns. If this direction
is not perfectly followed, significant errors cumulate, leading to inaccurate results [33]. The
follow-up of the material directions during strain is ensured by the implementation of a specific
objective derivative in the hypoelastic approach chosen, but it is crucial that the initial
orientation of the elements follows the initial material directions. During the creation of the
mesh the default orientation is far from respecting this property (Fig. 8a). Therefore all the
elements have to be reoriented. Several methods can be used to define the fiber direction in a
Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886 879

Fig. 7 Yarn after the meshing step

yarn mesoscopic model. It is for example possible to use the yarn trajectory of the CAD swept
blend interpolation [12]. But considering the cell structure and the meshing strategy, the
element edges also follow the initial material directions. Defining the correct orientation for
the elements therefore amounts to establishing the correct correspondence between the element
edges and the local frame. As in the previous section, this is achieved via an automated
comparison between the element coordinates. Element reorientation for a yarn is presented in
Fig. 8b. A new include file is created and stores both the material assigned to the elements and
the orientation of the latter.

3.2.5 Creation of the Node Sets

Once the mesh has been defined and oriented, all the parameters required for the mesoscopic
simulations have to be created and stored in new include files. This means, first, the node sets

(a) orientations of the elements just after the (b) orientation of the elements after reorientation
meshing step

Fig. 8 Reorientation step

880 Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886

required for the application of the boundary and periodicity conditions. Creating node sets is of
great importance to accelerate the calculation input as it allows the boundary (and periodicity)
conditions to be dissociated from the mesh and from the unit-cell considered. Depending on
the loading considered (biaxial extension, shear, compression), whatever the architecture and
the mesh the same boundary conditions are applied to the same sets, the latter being
automatically created by the software in the following way. All the nodes are sorted by sets
according to their localization, i.e.,: above, below, at the end or on the sides of the yarn
(Fig. 9a), as the boundary conditions are different at each of these locations. The nodes at the
extremities of the yarn are also sorted by line (Fig. 9b) and the corners are stored independently
and classified in the same order at each extremity in order to apply the periodicity conditions.
Each of these node sets is created thanks to the same type of coordinate comparison algorithm
already used previously. An include file is then created storing all the node sets created, each
carrying a Btype^ name, which locates the set with respect to the yarn. As explained, the
boundary and periodicity conditions are therefore applied using these node sets. Any modifi-
cation in the mesh or architecture changes the node sets constitution but does not affect the
boundary and periodicity conditions. For the biaxial extension of the G1151® (Fig. 11b), about
400 node sets were automatically created for periodicity and boundary conditions, which
represents a significant time saving.

3.2.6 Creation and Limitation of the Contact Zones

In problems exhibiting numerous contacts, defining the contact zone is both a long and trying
step. That is why some strategies such as Bgeneral contact^ are often recommended by
software such as Abaqus®. However, since by definition all the surfaces of all the cells are
considered for contact with each other, the accuracy/calculation time ratio is significantly
lower than that of smartly implemented kinematic contacts. In addition, contacts between
yarns are highly important for the mechanical behavior of fabrics, especially as regards non
linearities; it is therefore crucial to describe these contacts accurately. In the case proposed
here, kinematic contact, which is accurate and localized thus minimizing the calculation time,
was chosen. To overcome the long and trying definition of the contact zones, the contact zone
was automatically defined. As explained, this saves considerable time (several hours) for the
calculation input, and also optimizes calculation times, since the contact zones between yarns
are created so as to include only the surfaces really in contact before, during and at the end of
the calculation. First, the surfaces initially in contact and those that might be during the
calculation have to be localized. Since they do not exist as surface entities in the Abaqus®

(a) Global node sets (b) Node sets per line

Fig. 9 Node sets

Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886 881

model, these contact surfaces are created from the element surfaces (type Bby element^). They
are therefore composed of the sum of the surfaces of each element.
Any strategy is potentially implementable (definition of the zone sizes, of the number of
elements, etc.), but a simple and efficient strategy consists, here again, in using the surfaces
that have been identified and stored in the CAD modeling as initially in contact and that were
used to create a consistent geometrical model, since the new contact surfaces are built from the
surfaces initially in contact complemented by the neighboring surfaces at each side. The latter
are included so as to take into account the modification of the contact zone during the strain
(sliding, crushing, etc.) (Fig. 10c). The number of neighboring surfaces added to the initial
contact surface can be adjusted by the user (from one to any number) depending on the loading
case. For example, concerning tension and compression, just one neighboring cell is enough,
but for high shear angles it may be necessary to increase this number. Even if anticipating the
evolution of the contact surfaces may be difficult, the number of neighboring surfaces can be

131 141
warp 211
111 121

(a) Cut in the middle warp 211

Intersection with the transverse yarns (wefts 111 and

121)
Contact zone with weft 111
111

121

Contact zone with weft 121

Contact zone with both wefts 111 and 121

(b) Contact between yarns of different networks (example of warp 211 and weft 111)
Upper tool

211
221
111

(c) Cut in the middle weft 111

211

Intersection with the transverse yarn 211 Contact zones with the upper tool

(d) Contact between yarn and tools (example of weft 111 with the upper tool)

Fig. 10 Definition of the contact zones

882 Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886

adjusted thanks to a first iteration of the calculation. At worst, if some contact surfaces have to
be manually added or modified by the user, the time saved by the automatic definition of the
overwhelming majority of them using this strategy is huge.
Concretely, the necessary steps for the automation of this strategy are the following:

& Locate all the elements of the 6 surfaces of the yarn and the right face of the element
associated to the contact surface thanks to the connectivity list of each element and to the
coordinates and location of each node.
& Limit the contact surface size by detecting the surface zones in contact. Three types of
contact have to be distinguished (Fig. 10); each is treated separately by taking into account
the data given by the geometrical model:

– Contact between yarns of the same network

– Contact between yarns of different networks
– Contact between yarns and tools in the case of a compression test for example.

The contact cases treated automatically correspond to the vast majority of the contacts
encountered in fabrics before, during and after the fabric loading. Other cases may exist for
very specific fabrics and loadings but accounting for all the possible cases would increase the
level of complexity far beyond the benefits.
All the 432 contact surfaces were automatically defined for the G1151®, without any
intervention by the user which saves a huge amount of time for that kind of unit-cell in which
contacts are numerous.

3.3 Summary

Based on the consistent parameterized 3D CAD model obtained with GeoFab, an automated
hexahedral meshing tool has been created. It consists in a Python routine that automatically
meshes, with hexahedrons, any fabric type in only a few minutes and without any intervention
by the user after the definition of the mesh parameters. Some examples on various architecture
types with different densities are presented in Fig. 11.
In addition, the proposed strategy also automates most of the calculation input steps.
It generates all the files that contain the parameters required for the calculation input. The
automated creation of the contact pairs leads, for instance, to a very substantial time
saving. Furthermore, with this strategy the boundary and periodicity conditions can also
be automated as they are stored in a template file for each type of loading (tension,
compression, shear, etc.), which is consistent whatever the architecture of the fabric or
mesh. All these tools reduce the time needed to input the calculation from a day to a
minute.

4 Application to Finite Element Simulation

The previously presented strategy enables one to obtain a consistent meshed geometry of
the unit-cell that is directly useable for finite element simulation. The final step is to
implement a constitutive law of the equivalent homogeneous material of the yarn that is
used to model its fibrous nature within a continuous approach. The model used is based
Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886 883

(a) Plain weave (b) G1151®

Fig. 11 Some mesh examples

on a nonlinear hypoelastic behavior law [19] that takes the requirements of fibrous
materials into account (geometrical nonlinearities caused by large yarn displacements
and strains, and material nonlinearities linked to the yarn constitution); the yarn behavior
is the association of single fiber behavior and of the assembly of fibers as yarn.
Moreover, as the fibers constituting these yarns have a diameter in the range of a few
microns, they exhibit almost exclusively longitudinal stiffness and can slide past one
another. The yarns are therefore highly anisotropic with a longitudinal stiffness that is
significantly higher than the other stiffnesses. In order to model the mechanical behavior
of this fiber assembly without explicitly representing each fiber, a constitutive model was
developed for roving yarns within the hypoelastic approach and a specific objective
derivative proposed by Badel [4, 5]. Moreover, tomography observations show a trans-
verse isotropy of yarn distribution, so the assumption of transverse mechanical isotropy
can be made. The transverse isotropic constitutive tensor, linking the Cauchy stress
increment to strain increment in the basis of fibers fi can therefore be expressed as:
dσi j ¼ C ijkl dεkl ð2Þ

(a) Compression test on two layers of 6 unit-cells of a (b) Biaxial tension test on G1151®
plain weave

Fig. 12 Simulation examples

884 Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886

250

6 RUC

200 1 RUC

Load (N) 150

100

50

0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Thickness(mm)

Fig. 13 Effect of variability

2 3
C 1111 C 1122 C 1133 0 0 0
6 C 2222 C 2233 0 0 0 7
6 7
  6 C 3333 0 0 0 7
Cfi ¼6
6
7
7 ð3Þ
6 C 1212 0 0 7
4 Symmetry C 2323 0 5
C 1313

The Cijkl functions can be identified on single yarn tests and fiber data as will be developed
in a future paper, but also using inverse identification on a fabric test [31].
The performance of the tools created means that calculations can be rapidly launched on
geometries with several unit-cells, with variable parameters, variable numbers of layers
(Fig. 12a), for different types of load and for complex unit-cells such as interlocks
(Fig. 11b). Fig. 12b is an example of an equibiaxial tension test on the interlock G1151® with
a strain of 1 %. Thanks to this strategy, the effect of the variability of unit-cells can also be
brought out. The curves presented in Fig. 13 show the differences between one and six unit-
cells integrating the variability (dimensions of yarns, spacing between two consecutive yarns)
of a glass plain weave. Both models have the same material parameters, which are those of the
yarn constituting the fabric; to compare the results, the loads given on the graph are normalized
to one unit-cell. The results obtained show the ability of the entire strategy to make efficient
simulations avoiding tests on fabrics, to perform sensitivity studies and account for variability
which is a key point as regards fabrics.

5 Conclusion

The overall input strategy for the finite element simulation at the mesoscopic scale of woven
fabrics presented here enables to meet the initial target. Indeed, from geometrical parameters
measured on the fabric, a consistent 3D CAD model, i.e., with accurate surface contacts
between yarns (without interpenetrations or voids) and a good correlation with real fabrics is
created automatically. The 3D CAD model is totally parameterized, making it easy to take into
account the unit-cells variability or to study the impact of varying the parameters. While this
Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886 885

tool already leads to a significant gain for mesoscopic scale simulations, the other steps of the
calculation input also require a huge amount of time when performed manually. A meshing
tool was therefore developed and associated to the CAD tool. It automatically provides a
parameterized hexahedral mesh of any fabric from the geometrical parameters exported from
the 3D CAD model. Here again, automation results in a considerable time saving, producing
the mesh in a few minutes. Furthermore, the software created also ensures the automation of a
large part of the calculation input step. This step is a long and complex phase for the simulation
of woven fabrics especially because of the numerous boundary conditions and contacts
between yarns and between yarns and tools. Therefore a strategy has been proposed and
programmed to enable the automatic definition of the contact zones and the creation of the
objects required to implement the boundary conditions. All these routines lead to very
competitive times for the global calculation data input and have already shown their efficiency
for simulations on different fabric unit-cells such as interlocks, making the mesoscopic
simulation of unit-cells a real complementary tool to the experimental characterization of
fabrics' mechanical behavior.

References

1. Saouab, A., et al.: Injection simulations of thick composite parts manufactured by the RTM process.
Compos. Sci. Technol. 61(3), 445–451 (2001)
2. Yu, W.R., Pourboghrat, F., Chung, K., et al.: Non-orthogonal constitutive equation for woven fabric
reinforced thermo-plastic composites. Compos. Part. A. 33, 1095–1105 (2002)
3. Pickett, A.K.: Review of finite element simulation methods applied to manufacturing and failure prediction
in composites structures. Appl. Compos. Mater. 9, 43–58 (2002)
4. Hamila, N., Boisse, P., Sabourin, F., Brunet, M.: A semi-discrete shell finite element for textile composite
reinforcement forming simulation. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 79(12), 1443–1466 (2009)
5. Cao, J., et al.: Characterization of mechanical behavior of woven fabrics: experimental methods and
benchmark results. Compos. A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 39(6), 1037–1053 (2008)
6. Vernet, N., et al.: Experimental determination of the permeability of engineering textiles: Benchmark II.
Compos. Part. A. 61, 172–184 (2014)
7. Peng, X., Cao, J.: A dual homogenization and finite element approach for material characterization of textile
composites. Compos. Part B 33(1), 45–56 (2002)
8. Lomov, S.V., Verpoest, I.: Model of shear of woven fabric and parametric description of shear resistance of
glass woven reinforcements. Compos. Sci. Technol. 66(7–8), 919–933 (2006)
9. Badel, P., et al.: Simulation and tomography analysis of textile composite reinforcement deformation at the
mesoscopic scale. Compos. Sci. Technol. 68(12), 2433–2440 (2008)
10. Charmetant, A., Vidal-Sallé, E., Boisse, P.: Hyperelastic modelling for mesoscopic analyses of composite
reinforcements. Compos. Sci. Technol. 71(14), 1623–1631 (2011)
11. Nguyen, Q.T., et al.: Mesoscopic scale analyses of textile composite reinforcement compaction. Compos.
Part B 44(1), 231–241 (2013)
12. Grail, G., et al.: Consistent finite element mesh generation for meso-scale modeling of textile composites
with preformed and compacted reinforcements. Compos. A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 55(0), 143–151 (2013)
13. Durville, D.: Simulation of the mechanical behaviour of woven fabrics at the scale of fibers. Int. J. Mater.
Form. 3, 1241–1251 (2010)
14. Duhovic, M., Bhattacharyya, D.: Simulating the deformation mechanisms of knitted fabric composites.
Compos. A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 37(11), 1897–1915 (2006)
15. Miao, Y., et al.: Mechanics of textile composites: micro-geometry. Compos. Sci. Technol. 68(7–8), 1671–
1678 (2008)
16. Naouar, N., et al.: Meso-scale FE analyses of textile composite reinforcement deformation based on X-ray
computed tomography. Compos. Struct. 116, 165–176 (2014)
17. Wendling, A., et al.: Consistent geometrical modelling of interlock fabrics. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 90, 93–
105 (2014)
18. Hivet, G., Boisse, P.: Consistent 3D geometrical model of fabric elementary cell. Application to a meshing
preprocessor for 3D finite element analysis. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 42(1), 25–49 (2005)
886 Appl Compos Mater (2015) 22:869–886

19. Wisetex, on line at http://www.mtm.kuleuven.be/onderzoek/composites/software/wisetex

20. Lomov, S.V., et al.: Textile geometry preprocessor for meso-mechanical models of woven composites.
Compos. Sci. Technol. 60(11), 2083–2095 (2000)
21. Sherburn, M.: Texgen open source project. Available from: http://texgen.sourceforge.net/index.php/main_
page
22. Glaessgen, E.H., et al.: Geometrical and finite element modelling of textile composites. Compos. Part B
27(1), 43–50 (1996)
23. Adanur, S., Liao, T.: 3D modeling of textile composite preforms. Compos. Part B 29(6), 787–793 (1998)
24. Brown, D., Morgan, M., McIlhagger, R.: A system for the automatic generation of solid models of woven
structures. Compos. A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 34(6), 511–515 (2003)
25. Li, Z., Sun, B., Gu, B.: FEM simulation of 3D angle-interlock woven composite under ballistic impact from
unit cell approach. Comput. Mater. Sci. 49(1), 171–183 (2010)
26. Couegnat, G.: Approche multiéchelle du comportement mécanique de matériaux composites à renfort tissé.
PhD diss., Université Sciences et Technologies-Bordeaux I (2008)
27. Kuhn, J., Charalambides, P.: Modeling of plain weave fabric composite geometry. J. Compos. Mater. 33,
188–220 (1999)
28. Stig, F., Hallström, S.: Spatial modelling of 3D-woven textiles. Compos. Struct. 94(5), 1495–1502 (2012)
29. Lomov, S.V., et al.: Textile composites: modelling strategies. Compos. A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 32(10), 1379–
1394 (2001)
30. Robitaille, F., et al.: Automatically generated geometric descriptions of textile and composite unit cells.
Compos. A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 34(4), 303–312 (2003)
31. Badel, P., Vidal-Sallé, E., Boisse, P.: Large deformation analysis of fibrous materials using rate constitutive
equations. Comput. Struct. 86(11–12), 1164–1175 (2008)
32. Badel, P., Vidal-Sallé, E., Boisse, P.: Computational determination of in-plane shear mechanical behaviour of
textile composite reinforcements. Comput. Mater. Sci. 40(4), 439–448 (2007)
33. Badel, P., et al.: Rate constitutive equations for computational analyses of textile composite reinforcement
mechanical behaviour during forming. Compos. A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 40(8), 997–1007 (2009)