JOURNAL OF

COMPOSITE
Article M AT E R I A L S
Journal of Composite Materials
0(0) 1–16
! The Author(s) 2018
Mechanical behavior of unidirectional Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
composites with hexagonal and DOI: 10.1177/0021998318759742
journals.sagepub.com/home/jcm
uneven distribution of fibers in
the transverse cross-section

M Muthukumar1, J Prasath1, YM Desai2 and NK Naik1

Abstract
Uneven distribution of fibers can adversely affect the mechanical behavior of unidirectional composites. A micromecha-
nical model based on finite element analysis is presented to evaluate elastic and strength properties of such composites
under normal loading. Analysis starts with identification of micro unit cells/micro repetitive unit cells and/or represen-
tative volume elements. Because of uneven distribution/random distribution of the fibers, fiber volume fraction can be
different for different micro unit cells present at different locations in the transverse cross-section of the unidirectional
composite. Configuration of the micro unit cell is worked out at the outset considering the fiber distribution having the
hexagonal arrangement, but with different volume fraction at different locations. For such micro unit cells, elastic and
strength properties are obtained based on finite element analysis starting with the elastic and strength properties of fiber
and matrix. With the properties obtained for different micro unit cells, elastic and strength properties of the unidirec-
tional composite with micro unit cells having hexagonal arrangement of fibers with different volume fraction at different
locations in the transverse cross-section are determined. Further, elastic and strength properties are evaluated for micro
unit cells with uneven distribution of fibers in the transverse cross-section.

Keywords
Unidirectional composite, hexagonal distribution of fibers, uneven distribution of fibers, mechanical property, finite
element analysis, micromechanical modeling

Introduction
Laminated composites made of unidirectional (UD)
layers are finding extensive uses in high-performance
applications over the last five decades. Such materials
are characterized by high specific stiffness and high
specific strength. Thermo-mechanical properties of
laminated composites are derived starting with
thermo-mechanical properties of UD layers and using
macromechanical models. Thermo-mechanical proper-
ties of UD layers are obtained either by an experimen-
tal technique or by using micromechanical models.
The input data required for micromechanical models
are the thermo-mechanical properties of the fiber and
the matrix as well as fiber volume fraction and geomet-
ric distribution of fibers within the matrix in the trans-
verse cross-section.
Fiber waviness along the longitudinal direction
and uneven distribution of fibers within the matrix
in the transverse cross-section are the possible
manufacturing errors. As a result of this, there can be
different fiber volume fractions at different locations.
With the advancement in the composites manufactur-
ing technology, alignment of fibers along the longitu-
dinal direction can be easily obtained. However,
possible uneven distribution of fibers within the
matrix in the transverse cross-section and different
fiber volume fractions at different locations is a major
concern. Such manufacturing errors can lead to reduc-
tion in mechanical properties of UD composites.
1
Aerospace Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay, India
2
Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,
India
Corresponding author:
NK Naik, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076,
India.
Email: nknaik@aero.iitb.ac.in
2 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)
Micromechanical models available in the literature
are based on the assumption that the fibers are straight
and aligned and fiber distribution within the matrix in
the transverse cross-section has a regular arrangement.
Generally, hexagonal array or square array is assumed.
For the micromechanical analysis of UD composites,
the transverse cross-section is discretized into micro unit
cells/micro repetitive unit cells (RUCs) based on the fiber
geometric distribution. It may be noted that such micro
unit cells/RUCs and representative volume elements
(RVEs) are at micro scale. Starting with the fiber and
matrix mechanical properties, mechanical properties of
the micro unit cell are evaluated. There are typical stu-
dies based on regular arrangement of fibers, either with
hexagonal array or square array, for the determination
of mechanical properties of the micro RUCs.1–9 Because
of periodicity present in the transverse plane, periodic
boundary conditions are applied to the micro RUCs.
With the regular arrangement of fibers in the matrix in
the transverse plane, the macromechanical properties of
the micro RUC and the UD composite would be iden-
tical. In reality, fiber distribution within the matrix in the
transverse cross-section would be uneven. Hence, fiber
volume fraction (Vf) can be different at different loca-
tions of the UD composite. This implies that fiber
volume fraction would be different for different micro
unit cells/micro RUCs.
There are typical studies on the elastic and strength
behavior of UD composites with uneven fiber distribu-
tion in the transverse cross-section.10–24 Several meth-
ods to generate the random distribution of fibers along
the transverse cross-section have been presented in
these studies.
Sautter et al.,10 Fang and Liu11 and Shan and
Gokhale16 studied the effects of different cross-sectional
geometry, mesh density and size of the finite element
models and randomness of fiber distribution on the
transverse elastic and strength properties of the micro-
structure using finite element analysis (FEA).
Gusev et al.,13 Matsuda et al.17 and Trias et al.19
studied the effect of random distribution of fibers
along the transverse cross-section on the elastic behav-
ior of the UD composites. Bulsara et al.,12 Van der
Sluis et al14 and Gonzalez and LLorca20 studied the
effect of distribution of fibers in the transverse direction
on the elastic and strength behavior of UD composites.
They used radial fiber distribution method to discuss
the randomness of fibers within the microstructure.
Li15 considered two fiber packaging systems namely
square and hexagonal arrangement for UD composites
capable of accommodating fibers of irregular cross-
sections and imperfections asymmetrically distributed
around fibers such as micro cracks and local debonding
in the system and compared the elastic properties
between them. He derived the boundary conditions
for these unit cells from appropriate considerations of
the conditions of symmetry.
Wongsto and Li18 presented micromechanical FEA
of UD composites. They considered two frames having
different fiber volume fractions in the transverse cross-
section. Further, they obtained random distribution of
fibers within the frames using random insertion process
and determined elastic properties of UD composites
along the transverse direction.
Melro et al.21 developed an algorithm for generation
of random distribution of fibers in the transverse cross-
section. Using FEA, stresses and strains were evaluated
for the given boundary displacements by applying peri-
odic boundary conditions. Then, they evaluated trans-
verse elastic properties by randomly selecting integration
points over the cross-section. Wang et al.22 presented a
method for automatic generation of random distribution
of fibers in the transverse cross-section. Random distri-
bution was generated starting with square array of fibers
and by global crisscrossing of fibers. Further, they deter-
mined the mechanical properties of UD composites
along the transverse direction. Jin and Pelegri23 numer-
ically developed RVE of UD random fibers. They also
studied the packing capacity of a single fiber with respect
to the cross-sectional geometry of the fibers.
Jia et al.24 analyzed the mechanical response includ-
ing the damage mechanisms for surface and interior
parts of 3D orthogonal woven composites by multi-
scale finite element method. They followed the displace-
ment difference method to apply periodic boundary
conditions to the micro unit cells in order to study
their mechanical behavior.
There are also typical studies on failure behavior of
UD composites using micro mechanical analysis.25–30 In
these studies, either hexagonal array or square array of
fibers was considered to determine the mechanical prop-
erties of the micro RUC. Starting with fiber and matrix
mechanical properties, mechanical properties of the micro
RUC were evaluated. In a recent study, multi-scale mod-
eling has been used for the evaluation of mechanical
behavior of 3D composites with unequal distribution of
fibers within the matrix in the transverse cross-section
of strand.31 Micromechanical approaches are employed
to investigate the influence of different fiber arrangement
on the mechanical behavior of UD composites.32
Uneven distribution of fibers in the transverse cross-
section of UD composites is a practical reality. Different
micro unit cells/micro RUCs can have different Vf and
fiber distribution. The first step would be to identify dif-
ferent micro unit cells/micro RUCs in the transverse
cross-section and evaluate elastic and strength properties
along the principal directions. Starting with the elastic
and strength properties of the micro unit cells/
micro RUCs and their distribution in the transverse
cross-section, elastic and strength properties of the UD
Muthukumar et al. 3

composite are evaluated. In the present study, FEA is

used to evaluate the mechanical properties of micro unit
cells with uneven distribution of fibers within the matrix
in the transverse cross-section as well as with hexagonal
fiber distribution. Further, elastic and strength proper-
ties of UD composite with micro RUCs having hex-
agonal arrangement of fibers with different Vf at
different locations in the transverse cross-section are
determined. The focus is on stress–strain plots and
strength properties along the principal directions.
Discretization of UD composite
Distribution of fibers can have an uneven pattern in
the transverse cross-section in an actual composite
structure. Typical microscopic photographs are shown
in Wongsto and Li.18 Schematic representation of
uneven fiber distribution is given in Figure 1. Figure 2
presents micro-mechanical geometric representation of
fibers in transverse cross-section of an UD composite.
Figure 2(a) to (c) shows micro RUCs with periodicity
and symmetry, with square distribution of fibers and

Figure 1. Transverse cross-section of a UD composite: schematic representation.

UD: unidirectional.

Figure 2. Micro-mechanical geometric representation: (a) Micro RUC with periodicity and symmetry, (b) Micro RUC with square
distribution of fibers, (c) Micro RUC with hexagonal distribution of fibers, (d) RVE.
RUC: repetitive unit cell; RVE: representative volume element.
4 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)
with hexagonal distribution of fibers, respectively.
A typical RVE is shown in Figure 2(d).
A square distribution has fibers arranged uni-
formly along the x- and y-directions, i.e. the centers
of the fiber cross-section are aligned in a straight line
along both the directions as shown in Figure 2(b).
In this case, the unit cell can be represented as
a square with a single fiber surrounded by matrix.
For the hexagonal arrangement, the reference fiber
is surrounded by six fibers forming a hexagonal pattern
as shown in Figure 2(c). However, it can be seen
that the unit cell with hexagonal array of fibers can
be represented as a rectangle with one fiber at the
center and four fibers at the corners. In the present
study, planar dimension of the rectangular unit cell is
21.5 mm  20.5 mm.
Normally, micro damages are introduced in compos-
ite structures. Typical micro damages are: matrix micro
cracking, voids, fiber breakage and pull out, de-bond-
ing between fiber and matrix, fiber waviness/twisting
along longitudinal direction and uneven distribution
of fibers in the transverse cross-section. Such micro
damages can significantly affect the mechanical behav-
ior of composite structures.
Effect of micro damages in composite structures
would be very critical in aircraft/aerospace applica-
tions. Type, extent and distribution of micro damages
can be different, even for identical structures made for
different aircrafts/aerospace vehicles. This is primarily
because of the possible variations in preform fabrica-
tion and manufacturing conditions.
Such a possible variation in type, extent and distri-
bution of micro damages could lead to different mech-
anical properties even for identical components.
Normal procedure used computed tomography (CT)
scans to obtain micro damage distribution within a
composite structure.. Mechanical behavior of the com-
posite structure can be obtained once micro damage
distribution is obtained by CT scans.
Present work is about one typical case with unequal
distribution of fibers in the transverse cross-section of
UD composite using micro analysis. The micro unit cell
considered ‘J’ is a typical micro unit cell with uneven
distribution of fibers (Figure 2(d).
Further, the objective is to demonstrate the meth-
odology used for the evaluation of elastic and strength
properties of UD composites. From typical CT
scan studies, distribution of fibers is considered as hex-
agonal with Vf at different locations. For the typical
case considered, fiber distribution can be represented
using eight different types of micro RUCs with Vf vary-
ing from 0.35 to 0.75. Overall, Vf was 0.65. Next, mech-
anical behavior of the micro unit cell with uneven
distribution of fibers in the transverse cross-section is
studied.
Identification of hexagonal micro RUCs
To study the effect of different Vf at different locations
of the cross-section of the UD composite, eight micro
RUCs with different Vf namely 0.35, 0.40, 0.45, 0.55,
0.60, 0.65, 0.70 and 0.75 are identified with overall Vf
equal to 0.65. All the micro RUCs are identified of
having hexagonal arrangement of fibers in the trans-
verse cross-section.
Concept of RUC and RVE
Generally, micromechanical analysis is carried out
based on the concept of RVE or RUC.6 RVE charac-
terizes heterogeneous materials with globally homoge-
neous microstructures, whereas RUC characterizes
periodic heterogeneous materials. These two different
geometric representations of heterogeneous materials
require different boundary conditions at micro level.
Homogeneous displacement and traction boundary
conditions are applied in case of RVE, whereas periodic
displacement and traction boundary conditions are
applied in case of RUC.
The concept of RUC and RVE varies based on the
periodicity and symmetry exhibited in the material
microstructure. Periodic boundary conditions can be
applied using the concept of RUC, if the microstructure
is periodic. If the microstructure is random/uneven, the
concept of RVE can be used and homogeneous bound-
ary conditions need to be applied. Micromechanical
geometric representations using the concept of RUC
and RVE are shown in Figure 2.
In the present study, two different types of fiber
arrangements are considered in the analysis. For
RUCs with hexagonal distribution of fibers in the
transverse cross-section, appropriate periodic boundary
conditions are applied. Such a configuration is referred
to as Type I (Figure 2(a)). Figure 2(d) represents a
typical RVE with uneven distribution of fibers in the
transverse cross-section. Here, micro unit cells ‘J’ and
‘S’ represent typical local fiber arrangements. Such
micro unit cells are referred to as Type II. It may be
noted that micro unit cells referred here are not peri-
odic. Hence, periodic boundary conditions cannot
be applied.
Different fiber geometric distributions considered in
the micro analysis are shown in Figure 3. For the UD
composite with Type I fiber arrangement, the concept
of RUCs with periodicity and symmetry is employed
and appropriate boundary conditions are applied.
Figure 2(a) shows the micro RUC with periodicity
and symmetry, which represents Type I fiber arrange-
ment. Here, periodic boundary conditions are applied
on the reference micro RUC ‘R’ to get the mechanical
properties. Unit cell ‘J’ (Figure 2(d)) represents Type II
fiber arrangement. Here, the mechanical properties of
Muthukumar et al.
Figure 3. Fiber geometrical distribution: (a) micro RUC, Type I, (b) unit cell, Type II.
RUC: repetitive unit cell.
the reference unit cell ‘J’ are obtained by applying
homogeneous displacement boundary conditions over
a distance to avoid boundary effects.
Boundary conditions
Two different types of boundary conditions are used
based on the fiber geometric distribution considered.
As explained earlier, periodic displacement and traction
boundary conditions are applied in case of RUC with
periodic and symmetric microstructure, whereas homo-
geneous displacement and traction boundary conditions
are applied in case of a unit cell with uneven distribution
of fibers in the transverse cross-section and UD compos-
ite with different Vf at different locations.
Periodic boundary conditions
Since the periodic array of micro RUCs represents a
continuous physical body, two continuity conditions
must be satisfied at the boundaries of neighboring
micro RUCs. The first condition is that the displace-
ments must be continuous to ensure that each micro
RUC in the composite has the same deformation
mode and that there is no separation or overlap between
neighboring micro RUCs. The second condition implies
that the traction distributions at the opposite parallel
boundaries of a micro RUC must be the same.
The periodic boundary conditions for the micro
RUC can be expressed with the general displacement
boundary conditions as given in Suquet.33 The displace-
ment field for a 3D periodic structure is given by
ui ðx1 , x2 , x3 Þ ¼ "ik xk þ ui ðx1 , x2 , x3 Þ ð1Þ
where "ik is the average strain applied over the RUC, xk
is the Cartesian coordinate of a material point, "ik xk is
the linear distributed displacement field, ui ðx1 , x2 , x3 Þ is
the periodic displacement field from one RUC to
5
another and i, k ¼ 1, 2, 3. It may be noted that x1 ; x2
and x3 refer to x-, y- and z-direction, respectively.
The displacements on a pair of parallel and opposite
boundary surfaces of the micro RUC along the positive
and negative direction can be expressed as
ujþ jþ 
i ¼ "ik xk þ ui ð2Þ
uj j 
i ¼ "ik xk þ ui ð3Þ
The first condition, i.e. the displacement continuity
condition can be satisfied by finding the difference
between equations (2) and (3) on a pair of parallel
and opposite boundary surfaces of the micro RUC.
This condition can be applied as the nodal displacement
constraint equation in FEA. The difference between the
displacements on the two parallel and opposite surfaces
should be constant. In the present case, the second con-
dition, i.e. traction continuity condition need not be
independently satisfied, as the displacement continuity
between the neighboring micro RUCs also ensures the
traction continuity between them. Similar approach has
been followed for implementing periodic boundary
conditions in the literature.8,24,26
Schematic representation of the micro RUC in the
form of a block used for representing periodic bound-
ary conditions is given in Figure 4. Here, ‘u’, ‘v’ and ‘w’
are the displacements along x-, y- and z-directions,
respectively. For example, if ‘u’ is externally applied
on the parallel and opposite faces x ¼ 0 (OBFD) and
x ¼ a (ACGE) of the micro RUC, the displacements ‘v’
and ‘w’ should be equal on either side of the x faces
except at the edges. The nodal displacements ‘u’ and ‘w’
should be equal on either side of the y faces (OACB
and DEGF) except at the edges, whereas the nodal dis-
placement ‘v’ should be equal in magnitude and oppos-
ite in direction. Similarly, the nodal displacements ‘u’
and ‘v’ should be equal on either side of the z faces
6 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)
(ODEA and BFGC) except at the edges, whereas the
nodal displacement ‘w’ should be equal and opposite.
The edges are excluded on the respective faces based
on the loading conditions to avoid over constraining.
This is because the corner of the micro RUC is shared
by two sides belonging to different pairs. For example,
when ‘u’ is externally applied on the x faces (OBFD and
ACGE), the nodal displacement ‘u’ on the sides OB,
DF, AC, EG of the y faces gets excluded to avoid
over constraining. When these boundary conditions
are discretized, some of them at the corners are not
fully independent. Although this does not introduce
conflicts in a mathematical sense, some commercial
finite element software diagnose it as a source of error
and lead to over constraining of the system.
Figure 4. Schematic representation of the micro RUC in the
form of a block used for representing periodic boundary condi-
tions.
RUC: repetitive unit cell.
Table 1. Periodic boundary conditions for normal loading in x-direction for micro RUC.
FACES u v
A. Periodic boundary conditions
x ¼ 0 (OBFD) Externally applied
x ¼ a (ACGE)
y ¼ 0 (OACB) Nodal displacement should be equal
y ¼ b (DEGF) on either side except at edges
OB, DF, AC, EG
z ¼ 0 (ODEA) Nodal displacement should be equal
z ¼ c (BFGC) on either side except at edges
OA, BC, DE, FG,
OD, BF, AE, CG
RUC: repetitive unit cell.
The periodic boundary conditions used for the
normal loading along x-direction are presented in a
consolidated form in Table 1. In a similar way, periodic
boundary conditions for shear loading in xy-plane for
micro RUC are worked out and presented in a conso-
lidated form in Table 2.
Homogeneous displacement boundary conditions
Homogeneous boundary conditions are the type of
boundary conditions that produce uniform strain and
stress fields in homogeneous materials. The homoge-
neous displacement boundary condition is given by
ui ðx1 , x2 , x3 Þ ¼ "ik xk ð4Þ
where "ik is the average strain applied, xk is the
Cartesian coordinate of a material point, "ik xk is the
linear distributed displacement field and i, k ¼ 1, 2, 3.
It may be noted that x1 , x2 and x3 refer to x-, y- and
z-direction, respectively. Homogeneous displacement
boundary conditions are applied for unit cell ‘J’
shown in Figures 2(d) and 3(b).
Micro analysis
Micro analysis of a composite structure consists of
analysis of fibers surrounded by matrix inside an UD
composite. Analytical methods are well developed to
find the properties of UD composites along the fiber
direction. However, analytical methods are not so ver-
satile to get the properties accurately in the transverse
direction. FEA is a better option to find the mechanical
properties in the transverse plane of UD composites.
With the uneven distribution of fibers in the transverse
cross-section, the mechanical properties of different
micro unit cells and those of the UD composite may
not be identical.
w
Nodal displacement should be equal Nodal displacement should be equal
on either side except at edges on either side except at edges
OB, DF, AC, EG OD, BF, AE, CG
Nodal displacement should be equal Nodal displacement should be equal
and opposite on either side on either side except at edges
OA, BC, DE, FG
Nodal displacement should be equal Nodal displacement should be equal
on either side except at edges and opposite on either side
OA, BC, DE, FG,
OD, BF, AE, CG
Muthukumar et al. 7

Table 2. Periodic boundary conditions for shear loading in xy-plane for micro RUC.

FACES u v w

x ¼ 0 (OBFD) Nodal displacement should be Externally applied Nodal displacement should be

x ¼ a (ACGE) equal on either side equal on either side
except at edges except at edges
OB, DF, AC, EG OD, BF, AE, CG
y ¼ 0 (OACB) Externally applied Nodal displacement should be Nodal displacement should be
y ¼ b (DEGF) equal on either side except at equal on either side except at
edges edges
OB, DF, AC, EG OB, DF, AC, EG
z ¼ 0 (ODEA) Nodal displacement should be Nodal displacement should be Nodal displacement should be
z ¼ c (BFGC) equal on either side except at equal on either side equal on either side except at
edges except at edges edges
OA, BC, DE, FG, OA, BC, DE, FG, OA, BC, DE, FG,
OD, BF, AE, CG OD, BF, AE, CG OD, BF, AE, CG
RUC: repetitive unit cell.

typical micro RUCs are shown in Figure 5. Figure

Assumptions in micro analysis
Following assumptions are made in FEA of micro
RUCs:
A. Hexagonal arrangement of fibers in the transverse
cross-section
1. The eight micro RUCs identified represent the
entire domain of the UD composite.
2. Fibers are hexagonally packed inside the matrix,
but volume fraction differs from place to place.
3. For hexagonal distribution of fibers, unit cell is
rectangular.
4. Fibers are straight and aligned and have the same
elastic and strength properties throughout the
domain.
5. Fibers and matrix are perfectly bonded through-
out the domain.
5(a) to (c) represents micro RUCs having hexagonal
distribution of fibers with Vf of 0.65, 0.55 and 0.35,
respectively. It may be noted that these micro RUCs
are of Type I.
Strain loading of e ¼ 0.1% is applied in the form of
displacement on the respective boundary nodes. Applied
strain was increased and the corresponding induced
stress was evaluated in the elements of fibers and
matrix. Whenever the induced stress within the element
was reaching the ultimate value, the corresponding elem-
ent in the finite element model is killed. Further, it is
considered that the composite breaks as soon as one
fiber breaks by employing maximum stress theory.
The average stress on the micro RUC was calculated
from elemental stresses using equation
1X n

6. There is no discontinuity or micro cracks in fibers ij ¼ ij vek ð5Þ

V k¼1
and matrix.
7. Periodic boundary conditions can be applied. where ij is the average stress over the entire domain, ij
B. Uneven distribution of fibers in the transverse cross- is the average stress of all the nodes in an element, V is
section the total volume of the entire domain and vek is the
8. For the micro unit cells with uneven distribution volume of one element.
of fibers, St Venant’s principle can be applied. From the known strain matrix and the stress matrix
obtained from FEA, the engineering constants in com-
pliance matrix are given by
Micro analysis of UD composites 2 1 yx zx 3
2 3 Ex Ey Ez 0 0 0
2 3
Micromechanical analysis of E-glass/epoxy UD com- "xx 6 xy 1 zy 7 xx
6 "yy 7 6 E 0 0 0 7
posite with hexagonal distribution of fibers in the trans- 6 7 6 x Ey Ez 76 yy 7
6 7 6 xz yz 1 76 7
verse cross-section has been carried out to generate the 6 "zz 7 6 E 0 0 0 76 zz 7
6
7
6 7 6 x Ey Ez 76 7 ð6Þ
mechanical properties using FEA. As a first step, 6 "yz 7 ¼ 6 76
0 Gyz 0 0 76 yz 7
6 7 6 0 0 1 7  7
homogeneous properties of the eight micro RUCs 6 7 6 76 7
4 "xz 5 6 60 0 1
0 0 Gxz 0 57 4 xz 5
with different Vf having hexagonal distribution of 4
fibers were evaluated from the properties of the fiber "xy xy
0 0 0 0 0 G1xy
and the matrix. FE discretized models of the three
8 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

Figure 5. FE mesh for micro analysis, micro RUCs with hexagonal arrangement of fibers, Type I: (a) Vf ¼ 0.65, (b) Vf ¼ 0.55,
(c) Vf ¼ 0.35.
RUC: repetitive unit cell; FE: finite element.

Here E, G and m are the elastic properties and suffixes was used for both the fibers and the matrix. Each elem-
x, y and z represent the corresponding directions. ent has eight nodes at the corners and each node has
Ex, Ey and Ez were obtained by applying corres- three degrees of freedom
ponding axial strain. Similarly, Gxy, Gyz, and Gxz were As a first step, homogeneous properties of the eight
obtained by applying corresponding shear strain. types of micro RUCs with different Vf having hex-
Poisson’s ratios were obtained by applying the normal agonal distribution of fibers were evaluated from the
strains simultaneously in all the three axial directions. properties of the fiber and the matrix. In turn, proper-
By simplifying equation (6), expressions for ties of macro unit cell/UD composite were obtained
Poisson’s ratios are given as using homogeneous boundary conditions.
All the micro RUCs were considered of having
2 3 2 yy 31 2 3
zz
0 "xx  Exxx hexagonal arrangement of fibers in the transverse
xy E Ex
6 7 6 xxx zz 7 6 yy 7 cross-section. Dimensions of all the micro RUCs with
4 xz 5 ¼ 6 Ex 0 Ey 7 4 "yy  Ex 5 ð7Þ
4 5 different Vf are considered to be the same for the pre-
yy
yz 0 xx
Ex Ey
"zz  Ezzz sent analysis. The FE discretization of typical micro
RUCs is shown in Figure 5.
2 3 2 yy zz
31 2 3 The dimensions of micro RUC used for FE model
yx Ey Ez 0 "xx  Exxx
6 xx 7 for E-glass/epoxy were 21.5 mm  20.5 mm  0.5 mm
6 7 6 E 0 zz 7 6 yy 7
ð8Þ
4 zx 5 ¼ 4 y Ez 5 4 "yy  Ex 5 along x-, y- and z-directions, respectively, for all Vf.
zy 0 xx yy "zz  Ezzz Then, based on Vf, fiber distribution in the transverse
Ez Ez
cross-section was evaluated. The elastic properties of E-
glass fiber are: Efl ¼ Eft ¼ 72 GPa, G flt ¼ G ftt ¼ 26:66
The above-mentioned procedure was employed for GPa and  flt ¼ 0:35. Fiber diameter is d f ¼ 13.5 mm.
each micro RUC and the mechanical properties were The elastic properties of epoxy resin are: E ¼ 3.5 GPa,
obtained by applying appropriate periodic boundary G ¼ 1.29 GPa and m ¼ 0.35.
conditions to ensure periodicity. Only one element was considered in the thickness (z)
direction to reduce computational time. Number of
elements in the transverse cross-section for the different
FE modeling of micro structure
micro RUCs was decided based on the convergence
Micromechanical analysis was performed for the follow- study for the average stress over the cross-section. In
ing three cases with two possible distributions of fibers in the case of micro RUC with Vf 0.65, a total of 2076
the transverse cross-section, namely Type I and Type II elements were chosen based on this study.
for the evaluation of elastic and strength properties. It may be noted that the micro RUCs with Type I
fiber arrangement are symmetric. For such cases, mech-
Micro RUCs with hexagonal distribution of fibers anical properties were evaluated by applying axial
and shear loading separately after applying periodic
having different Vf, i.e. Type I fiber arrangement
boundary conditions. The periodic boundary condi-
Commercial FEA software ANSYS was used for the tions applied on micro RUCs for normal loading in
micro analysis.34 Eight-node brick element, SOLID 45 x-direction are given in Table 1, whereas the periodic
Muthukumar et al.
boundary conditions for shear loading in xy-plane are
given in Table 2. Schematic representation of the micro
RUC in the form of a block used for representing peri-
odic boundary conditions is given in Figure 4.
Boundary conditions for the other loading conditions
were worked out in a similar way.
Micro unit cell with uneven distribution of fibers
having Vf ¼ 0.65, i.e. Type II fiber arrangement
Realistically, fiber distribution in the transverse cross-
section may not have hexagonal pattern. Figure 2(d)
represents a typical RVE with uneven distribution of
fibers in the transverse cross-section. Here, micro unit
cells ‘J’ and ‘S’ represent typical local fiber arrangement
referred to as Type II. For the present analysis, micro
unit cell ‘J’ is considered. For other micro unit cells
with unequal distribution of fibers, damage distribution
can be obtained using CT scans, and mechanical behav-
ior can be obtained using micro analysis as explained.
Figure 6 represents micro unit cells with uneven dis-
tribution of fibers having Vf ¼ 0.65. In this case, micro
unit cell ‘J’ is a typical micro unit cell. It is surrounded
by corner points 1, 2, 3 and 4. It may be noted that this
micro unit cell is not symmetric and hence periodic
boundary conditions cannot be applied. Micro unit
cell ‘J’ is considered to be surrounded by 47 micro
unit cells of identical fiber distribution for the analysis.
This arrangement was worked out for applying homo-
geneous boundary conditions. To minimize the effect of
stress concentration, the arrangement of surrounding
Figure 6. Representation of micro unit cell ‘J’ with uneven
distribution of fibers, Vf ¼ 0.65: for FE analysis.
FE: finite element.
9
micro unit cells was worked out based on the mirror
image. Planar view is shown in Figure 6. There are 16
micro unit cells in the planar view. Three planes, one
above and one below the reference plane having 16
micro unit cells in each of the three planes are con-
sidered. This makes a total of 48 micro unit cells includ-
ing micro unit cell ‘J’. This arrangement is worked out
to apply homogeneous boundary condition to micro
unit cell ‘J’. Similar approach can be followed for the
evaluation of elastic and strength properties of micro
unit cell ‘S’ and other micro unit cells (Figure 6).
FE modeling of UD composites having Vf ¼ 0.65,
Type I fiber arrangement
The transverse cross-section of the UD composite is con-
sidered to be having rectangular shape with overall
Vf ¼ 0.65. Number of micro RUCs considered is 48, 37
and 1 along x-, y- and z-directions, respectively. With this,
the dimensions of UD composite are 1032 mm, 758.5 mm
and 0.5 mm along x-, y- and z-directions, respectively.
As explained earlier, eight types of micro RUCs
having hexagonal distribution of fibers were identified
for the analysis. It may be noted that it corresponds to
Type I fiber arrangement. Micro RUCs having hex-
agonal arrangement of fibers with different Vf at differ-
ent locations in the transverse cross-section were
considered. Distribution of micro RUCs with different
Vf in the transverse cross-section was carried out in
such a way that micro RUCs having the same Vf are
not adjacent to each other. This was done to have uni-
form distribution of micro RUCs with different fiber
volume fractions. There are 1776 micro RUCs in
total. Specifically, number of micro RUCs considered
with Vf ¼ 0.35, 0.40, 0.45, 0.55, 0.60, 0.65, 0.70 and 0.75
are 41, 43, 89, 89, 89, 712, 360 and 353, respectively. It
may be noted that the overall Vf of the UD composite is
0.65 with such a distribution of micro RUCs.
To model the UD composite, the micro RUCs are
built as 3D solid block elements in FEA. There are 1776
blocks with 48, 37 and 1 block along x-, y- and z-dir-
ections, respectively. The dimension of a single block
element is the same as that of the micro RUC,
21.5 mm  20.5 mm  0.5 mm. The individual set of prop-
erties obtained for each of the eight different types of
micro RUCS are then assigned to these blocks accord-
ingly. In this case, homogeneous boundary conditions
are applied at the boundaries of the UD composite.
Results and discussion
Elastic properties
The elastic properties for the three cases considered are
calculated using equations (5) to (8).
10 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

Micro RUCs with hexagonal fiber arrangement
having different Vf, i.e. Type I fiber arrangement
Elastic properties of the eight types of micro RUCs
with Vf of 0.35, 0.40, 0.45, 0.55, 0.60, 0.65, 0.70 and
0.75 are presented in Table 3a. The transverse elastic
properties as well as the elastic properties in the fiber
direction show an increase with increase in Vf. Further,
rate of increase is enhanced for Ex, Ey, Gxy, Gyz and Gxz
as Vf increases.
Micro unit cells with uneven distribution of fibers
having Vf ¼ 0.65, i.e. Type II fiber arrangement
Elastic properties of the micro unit cell with uneven
distribution of fibers having Vf ¼ 0.65 are given in
Table 3b. For such a configuration, Ez is nearly the
same as that for micro RUC Type I, Vf ¼ 0.65.
However, Ex and Ey are higher for micro unit cell
Type II by 4.85% and 4.12%, respectively, compared
with those for micro RUC Type I. With uneven distri-
bution of fibers, the degree of contiguity would be
higher compared to the case with regular distribution
of fibers. Higher degree of contiguity leads to higher
transverse Young’s moduli.35 Hence, Ex and Ey are
higher for micro unit cell Type II compared with
those for micro RUC Type I. Further, average stress
is higher within the matrix for micro unit cell Type II
compared with micro RUC Type I. This would lead to
higher Ex and Ey for micro unit cell Type II.
UD composites, Type I fiber arrangement
Elastic properties of the UD composite made of micro
RUCs with hexagonal fiber arrangement with different
Vf as explained earlier were evaluated using equations
(5) to (8). Results are presented in Table 4. It may be
noted that the overall Vf is 0.65. Elastic properties of
micro RUC Type I with Vf ¼ 0.65 are also presented for
comparison. Ez is nearly identical for both the cases.
However, Ex and Ey are higher for UD composite by
3.43% and 3.16%, respectively, compared with those
for micro RUC Type I due to the effect of degree of
contiguity. With uneven distribution of micro RUCs

Table 3. Elastic properties of micro RUCs.

Ex Ey Ez Gxy Gyz Gxz

Vf (GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa) txy tyz txz

A. Hexagonal fiber arrangement having different Vf, TYPE I

0.35 7.21 7.29 27.44 2.26 2.29 2.23 0.4085 0.1856 0.1835
0.40 7.48 7.53 30.86 2.77 2.38 2.34 0.4348 0.1732 0.1720
0.45 7.84 7.86 34.28 3.37 2.52 2.49 0.4589 0.1639 0.1635
0.55 9.13 9.03 41.11 4.89 3.00 3.02 0.5114 0.0703 0.0708
0.60 10.25 10.07 44.53 5.90 3.42 3.47 0.5186 0.0716 0.0727
0.65 11.95 11.64 47.92 6.38 4.06 4.17 0.5185 0.0763 0.0782
0.70 15.02 14.31 51.36 9.07 5.73 5.93 0.5112 0.0869 0.0906
0.75 21.05 20.05 54.77 11.64 7.76 8.16 0.4695 0.1126 0.1179
B. Type I and Type II fiber arrangement, Vf ¼ 0.65
TYPE I 11.95 11.64 47.92 6.38 4.06 4.17 0.5185 0.0763 0.0782
TYPE II 12.53 12.12 47.88 4.86 4.88 4.79 0.4779 0.0925 0.0679
RUC: repetitive unit cell.

Table 4. Elastic properties of micro RUCa and UD composite.b

Properties Ex Ey Ez Gxy Gyz Gxz

Type Vf (GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa) txy tyz txz

UD composite 0.65 12.35 12.01 47.89 5.45 5.31 4.56 0.4852 0.0853 0.08566
RUCa 0.65 11.95 11.64 47.92 6.38 4.06 4.17 0.5185 0.0763 0.0782
a
Elastic properties of micro RUC with hexagonal fiber arrangement, Type I, Vf ¼ 0.65.
b
Elastic properties of UD composite with micro RUCs consisting of hexagonal fiber arrangement having different Vf. Overall Vf ¼ 0.65.
RUC: repetitive unit cell; UD: unidirectional.
Muthukumar et al. 11

having different Vf, the degree of contiguity would be
higher for UD composite compared with that for micro
RUC Type I. This would lead to higher Ex and Ey for
UD composite compared with that for micro RUC
Type I. Further, the average stress is higher within
the matrix for UD composite compared with micro
RUC Type I. This would also lead to higher Ex and
Ey for UD composite.
Stress–strain behavior
Using maximum stress theory,35 stress–strain plots
were obtained. Strain loading of e ¼ 0.1% was applied
in the form of displacement on the respective boundary
nodes. Applied strain was increased and the corres-
ponding induced stress was evaluated in the elements
of fibers and matrix. Whenever the induced stress
within the element was reaching the ultimate value,
the corresponding element in the finite element model
is killed. The stress–strain behavior for the three cases
considered is presented below.
Micro RUCs with hexagonal fiber
arrangement having different Vf , i.e.
Type I fiber arrangement
Strength properties of micro RUCs with hexagonal
fiber arrangement having different Vf are presented in
Table 5a. Vf is varied in a practical range of 0.35 to
0.75. Figure 7 presents FE mesh for micro analysis and
locations of strain ("x ) concentrations.
Figure 8 presents stress–strain diagrams. Plots are
presented for Vf ¼ 0.65 and 0.45. In these plots, point
‘1’ indicates failure initiation in the form of matrix
cracking, whereas point ‘2’ indicates the ultimate fail-
ure. Stress–strain plots for the transverse tensile loading
(Figure 8(a) and (b)) are linear. For these cases, ultim-
ate failure is the first mode of failure. In Figure 8(c),
point 2 indicates the ultimate failure in the form of fiber
breakage.
It is interesting to note, from Table 5a and Figure 9,
the trend of variation of the ultimate transverse tensile
strength as a function of Vf. It increases up to about
Vf ¼ 0.55 and then decreases. This is because of strain
concentration effect.
Figure 7 presents FE mesh for micro analysis and
locations of strain concentrations. Regions ‘a1’ and
‘b1’; ‘a2’ and ‘b2’; and ‘a3’ and ‘b3’ are, respectively,
the locations of strain concentrations for Vf ¼ 0.75,
Vf ¼ 0.55 and Vf ¼ 0.35. The strain concentration
values at regions ‘a1’, ‘b1’, ‘a2’, ‘b2’, ‘a3’ and ‘b3’ are
7.1%, 0.8%, 1.2%, 1.1%, 1.3% and 0.7%, respectively
for the applied average strain of 0.5%. It may be noted
that strain concentration decreases as Vf increases up to
0.55 and then increases. Specifically, strain concentra-
tion is the minimum at regions ‘a2’ and ‘b2’ with
Vf ¼ 0.55. Hence, the transverse tensile strength is the
highest with Vf ¼ 0.55.
From Figure 8(c), it can be seen that the longitudinal
tensile stress–strain behavior is linear up to point ‘1’.
The slope changes at point ‘1’. This is because of matrix
cracking at strain corresponding to point ‘1’.

Table 5. Strength properties of micro RUCs.

Transverse tensile
strength in Transverse tensile Longitudinal tensile
Fiber volume x-direction, strength in strength in
Type fraction XT (MPa) y-direction, YT (MPa) z-direction, ZT (MPa)

A. Hexagonal fiber arrangement having different Vf, TYPE I

– 0.35 86.5 80.2 1006
– 0.40 89.7 82.9 1150
– 0.45 94.1 86.5 1294
– 0.55 104.0 99.4 1580
– 0.60 102.5 100.7 1725
– 0.65 83.7 93.1 1870
– 0.70 75.1 80.4 2012
– 0.75 64.9 62.4 2160
B. Type I and Type II fiber arrangement, Vf ¼ 0.65
TYPE I 0.65 83.7 93.1 1870
TYPE II 0.65 71.3 73.1 1842
RUC: repetitive unit cell.
12 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

Figure 8. Stress–strain diagrams for micro RUCs with hex-

agonal arrangement of fibers, Type I, Vf ¼ 0.65 and 0.45:
(a) transverse tensile behavior along x, (b) transverse tensile
behavior along y, (c) longitudinal tensile behavior along z.
RUC: repetitive unit cell.

Figure 7. FE mesh for micro analysis, micro RUCs with hex-

agonal arrangement of fibers, Type I, locations of strain ("x )
concentrations: (a) Vf ¼ 0.75, (b) Vf ¼ 0.55, (c) Vf ¼ 0.35.
RUC: repetitive unit cell; FE: finite element.

Figure 9(b) shows longitudinal tensile strength as a

function of Vf. The behavior is linear.

Micro unit cells with uneven distribution of fibers

having Vf ¼ 0.65, i.e. Type II fiber arrangement
Strength properties of the micro unit cell having Figure 9. Tensile strength as a function of Vf for micro RUCs,
Vf ¼ 0.65 with uneven distribution of fibers in the trans- Type I: (a) transverse strength, (b) longitudinal strength.
verse cross-section are given in Table 5b. RUC: repetitive unit cell.
Muthukumar et al. 13

Stress–strain diagrams for the micro RUCs Type I
and micro unit cell Type II are given in Figure 10.
Stress–strain diagrams for the transverse strength are
presented in Figure 10(a) and (b). It may be noted that
the stress–strain plots are linear for Type I, whereas
they are not linear for Type II. It can be seen from
Figure 10(c) that the longitudinal tensile stress–strain
behavior is linear up to point ‘1’. The slope changes at
point ‘1’. This is because of matrix cracking at strain
corresponding to point ‘1’.
It can be seen from Table 5b and Figure 10 that the
transverse tensile strength values are significantly lower
for Type II fiber arrangement compared with Type I
fiber arrangement. This is because of enhanced strain
concentration for Type II fiber arrangement compared
with Type I fiber arrangement. Specifically, the max-
imum strain concentration is 2.9% for Type II fiber
arrangement compared with 1.2% for Type I fiber
arrangement for the applied average strain of 0.5%.
It is interesting to note that the transverse tensile
strength decreases for Type II fiber arrangement com-
pared with Type I fiber arrangement, even though stiff-
ness increases for Type II arrangement compared with
Type I fiber arrangement. On the other hand, longitu-
dinal tensile strength and stiffness are nearly identical
for Type II and Type I.
Elastic and strength properties of possible other
micro unit cells with different uneven distribution of
fibers can be obtained in a similar way, for example
micro unit cell ‘S’ in Figure 2(d). In turn, properties
of macro unit cell/RVE/UD composite can be obtained
using homogeneous boundary conditions.

UD composites, Type I fiber arrangement

Figure 10. Stress–strain diagrams for micro RUC Type I and
unit cell Type II, Vf ¼ 0.65: (a) transverse tensile behavior along x,
(b) transverse tensile behavior along y, (c) longitudinal tensile
behavior along z.
RUC: repetitive unit cell.
Strength properties of the UD composite made of the
micro RUCs with hexagonal fiber arrangement and dif-
ferent Vf as explained earlier are evaluated and pre-
sented in Table 6. It may be noted that the overall
Vf ¼ 0.65 for the UD composite. Strength properties
of the micro RUC Type I with Vf ¼ 0.65 are also pre-
sented for comparison. Stress–strain diagrams for UD
composite and Type I micro RUC are presented in
Figure 11.
Stress–strain diagrams for the transverse strength
are linear (Figure 11(a) and (b)). For these cases,
the ultimate failure is the first mode of failure. It can

Table 6. Strength properties of micro RUCa and UD composite.b

Transverse tensile strength in Transverse tensile strength in Longitudinal tensile strength in

Type x-direction, XT (MPa) y-direction, YT (MPa) z-direction, ZT (MPa)

Micro RUCa 83.7 93.1 1870

UD compositeb 73.3 62.6 1871
a
Strength properties of micro RUC with hexagonal fiber arrangement, Type I, Vf ¼ 0.65.
b
Strength properties of UD composite with micro RUCs consisting of hexagonal fiber arrangement having different Vf. Overall
Vf ¼ 0.65.
RUC: repetitive unit cell; UD: unidirectional.
14
Figure 11. Stress–strain diagrams for micro RUC and UD
composite: (a) transverse tensile behavior along x, (b) transverse
tensile behavior along y, (c) longitudinal tensile behavior along z.
RUC: repetitive unit cell; UD: unidirectional.
be seen from Figure 11(c) that the longitudinal tensile
stress–strain behavior is linear up to point ‘1’. The slope
changes at point ‘1’. This is because of matrix cracking
at strain corresponding to point ‘1’.
It can be seen from Table 6 and Figure 11 that the
transverse tensile strength values are significantly lower
for UD composite compared with Type I fiber arrange-
ment. This is because of micro RUCs having different
Vf ranging from 0.35 to 0.75 at different locations of
UD composite.
It is interesting to note that the transverse tensile
strength decreases for UD composite compared with
Type I fiber arrangement, even though stiffness
increases for UD composite compared with Type I
fiber arrangement. On the other hand, the longitudinal
Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)
tensile strength and stiffness are nearly identical for UD
composite and Type I fiber arrangement.
Conclusions
Micromechanical analysis has been performed for three
cases with two possible distributions of fibers in the
transverse cross-section, namely Type I and Type II
for the evaluation of elastic and strength properties.
A computational method is presented for the micro
analysis of micro RUCs with hexagonal arrangement
of fibers in the transverse cross-section of the UD
composite for the mechanical properties. Mechanical
properties of UD composite with micro RUCs having
hexagonal arrangement of fibers with different Vf at
different locations in the transverse cross-section are
also evaluated. Further, mechanical properties of
micro unit cells having uneven distribution of fibers in
the transverse cross-section are presented for micro unit
cell ‘J’. Elastic and strength properties of possible other
micro unit cells with different uneven distribution of
fibers can be obtained in a similar way, for example,
micro unit cell ‘S’ in Figure 2(d). In turn, properties of
macro unit cell/RVE/UD composite can be obtained
using homogeneous boundary conditions
Specific observations are:
. Transverse moduli Ex and Ey are higher for micro
unit cell Type II (micro unit cell ‘J’) by 4.85% and
4.12%, respectively, compared with those for micro
RUC Type I with Vf ¼ 0.65.
. Transverse moduli Ex and Ey are higher for UD com-
posite by 3.43% and 3.16%, respectively, compared
with those for micro RUC Type I with Vf ¼ 0.65.
. Transverse strength of micro RUC Type I with
Vf ¼ 0.55 is higher compared to the other micro
RUCs with different Vf.
. Transverse strength in x- and y-directions is signifi-
cantly lower for the micro unit cell Type II (micro
unit cell ‘J’) compared with micro RUC Type I with
Vf ¼ 0.65.
. Transverse strength in x- and y-directions is signifi-
cantly lower for UD composite compared with
micro RUC Type I with Vf ¼ 0.65.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Muthukumar et al.
References
1. Sun CT and Vaidya RS. Prediction of composite proper-
ties from a representative volume element. Compos Sci
Technol 1996; 56: 171–179.
2. Searles K, Odegrad G and Kumosa M. Micro- and meso-
mechanics of 8-harness satin woven fabric composite:
I – evaluation of elastic behavior. Compos Part A 2001;
32: 1627–1655.
3. Swan CC and Kim H. Multi-scale unit cell ana-
lyses of textile composites. In: Proceedings of 15th
ASCE engineering mechanics conference, 2–5 June 2002,
pp.1–8. New York: Columbia University.
4. Rupnowski P and Kumosa M. Meso- and micro-stress
analysis in an 8 HS graphite/ polyimide woven composite
subjected to biaxial in-plane loads at room temperature.
Compos Sci Technol 2003; 63: 785–795.
5. Crookston JJ, Sreedhar K, Warrior NA, et al. 3D textile
composite mechanical properties prediction using auto-
mated FEA of the unit cell. In: Proceedings of 16th inter-
national conference on composite materials, 8-13 July
2007, pp.1–7. Kyoto, Japan: Organizing committee.
6. Drago A and Pindera MJ. Micro-macromechanical
analysis of heterogeneous material: macroscopically
homogenous vs. periodic microstructures. Compos Sci
Technol 2007; 67: 1243–1263.
7. Wang XF, Wang XW, Zhou GM, et al. Multi-scale ana-
lysis of damage evolution in plain woven composites.
J Eng Appl Sci 2007; 2: 354–361.
8. Wang XF, Wang XW, Zhou GM, et al. Multi-scale ana-
lysis of 3D woven composite based on periodic boundary
conditions. J Compos Mater 2007; 41: 1773–1788.
9. Lomov SV, Ivanov D and Verpoest I. Predictive models
for textile composites. In: Proceedings of 7th international
conference on TEXSCI, 6-8 September 2010, pp.1–6.
Organizing committee: Liberec, Czech Republic.
10. Sautter M, Dietrich Ch, Poech MH, et al. Finite element
modelling of a transverse-loaded fibre composite effects
of section size and net density. Comput Mater Sci 1993; 1:
225–233.
11. Fang D and Liu T. Transverse plastic deformation of
metal-matrix with randomly arranged continuous fibers.
Comput Mater Sci 1997; 7: 343–350.
12. Bulsara VN, Talreja R and Qu J. Damage initiation
under transverse loading of unidirectional composites
with arbitrarily distributed fibers. Compos Sci Technol
1999; 59: 673–682.
13. Gusev AA, Hine PJ and Ward IM. Fiber packing and
elastic properties of a transversely random unidirectional
glass/epoxy composite. Compos Sci Technol 2000; 60:
535–541.
14. Van der Sluis O, Schreurs PJG, Brekelmans WAM, et al.
Overall behaviour of heterogeneous elasto viscoplastic
materials: effect of microstructural modelling. Mech
Mater 2000; 32: 449–462.
15. Li S. General unit cells for micromechanical analyses of
unidirectional composites. Compos Part A 2000; 32:
815–826.
15
16. Shan Z and Gokhale AM. Representative volume elem-
ent for non-uniform micro-structure. Comput Mater Sci
2002; 24: 361–379.
17. Matsuda T, Ohno N, Tanaka H, et al. Effects of
fiber distribution on elastic-viscoplastic behavior of long
fiber-reinforced laminates. Int J Mech Sci 2003; 45:
1583–1598.
18. Wongsto A and Li S. Micromechanical FE analysis of
UD fibre-reinforced composites with fibres distributed
at random over the transverse cross-section. Compos
Part A 2005; 36: 1246–1266.
19. Trias D, Costa J, Mayugo JA, et al. Random models
versus periodic models for fibre reinforced composites.
Comput Mater Sci 2006; 38: 316–324.
20. Gonzalez C and LLorca J. Mechanical behavior of uni-
directional fiber-reinforced polymers under transverse
compression: microscopic mechanisms and modeling.
Compos Sci Technol 2007; 67: 2795–2806.
21. Melro AR, Camanho PP and Pinho ST. Influence of geo-
metrical parameters on the elastic response of unidirec-
tional composite materials. Compos Sci Technol 2008; 68:
2092–2102.
22. Wang Z, Wang X, Zhang J, et al. Automatic generation
of random distribution of fibers in long-fiber-reinforced
composites and mesomechanical simulation. Mater Des
2011; 32: 885–891.
23. Jin BC and Pelegri AA. Three-Dimensional numerical
simulation of random fiber composites with high aspect
ratio and high volume fraction. J Eng Mater and Technol
2011; 133: 041014-1-041014-7.
24. Jia X, Xia Z and Gu B. Micro/meso-scale damage ana-
lysis of three-dimensional orthogonal woven composites
based on sub-repeating unit cells. J Strain Anals Eng Des
2012; 47: 313–328.
25. Adams DF and Crane DA. Finite element micromechani-
cal analysis of a unidirectional composite including
longitudinal shear loading. Comput Struct 1984; 18:
1153–1165.
26. Xia Z, Chen Y and Ellyin F. A meso/ micro-mechanical
model for damage progression in glass–fiber/ epoxy
cross-ply laminates by finite-element analysis. Compos
Sci Technol 2000; 60: 1171–1179.
27. Bahei-EL-Din YA, Rajendran AM and Zinry MA.
A micromechanical model for damage progression in
woven composite system. Int J Solids Struct 2004; 41:
2307–2330.
28. Fiedler B, de Jong C, Hobbiebrunken T, et al. Micro/
macro-mechanical approach of first ply failure in
CFRP. J Mater Sci 2006; 41: 6760–6767.
29. Kurashiki T, Zako M, Nakai H, et al. Damage
development of woven composites based on multi-scale
analysis. In: Proceedings of 16th international conference
on composite materials, 8-13 July 2007, pp.1–7. Kyoto,
Japan: Organizing committee.
30. Ernst G, Vogler M, Huhne C, et al. Multiscale progres-
sive failure analysis of textile composites. Compos Sci
Technol 2010; 70: 61–72.
31. Muthukumar M, Prasath J, Sathish S, et al. 3D layer-
to-layer orthogonal interlock woven composites under
16
monotonic loading: multiscale modeling. J Reinf Plast
Compos 2017; 36: 1263–1285.
32. Huang Y, Jin KK and Ha SK. Effect of fiber arrange-
ment on mechanical behavior of unidirectional compos-
ites. J Compos Mater 2008; 42: 1851–1871.
33. Suquet P. Elements of homogenization theory for inelas-
tic solid mechanics. In: Sanchez-Palencia E and Zaoui A
Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)
(eds) Homogenization techniques for composite media.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1987, pp.202–208.
34. Release 13.0 documentation for ANSYS, 2010.
35. Jones RM. Mechanics of composite materials. London:
Taylor & Francis Ltd, 1999, pp.147–151, 160–163.