Composites Part B 224 (2021) 109152

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/composites

Review article

A review of artificial neural networks in the constitutive modeling of

composite materials
Xin Liu a,b ,∗, Su Tian c , Fei Tao c , Wenbin Yu c
a
Department of Industrial, Manufacturing, and Systems Engineering, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019, USA
b
Institute for Predictive Performance Methodologies, The University of Texas at Arlington Research Institute, Fort Worth, TX 76120, USA
c
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Machine learning models are increasingly used in many engineering fields thanks to the widespread digital
Constitutive modeling data, growing computing power, and advanced algorithms. The most popular machine learning model in
Composite materials recent years is artificial neural networks (ANN). Although many ANN models are used in the constitutive
Multiscale modeling
modeling of composite materials, there are still some unsolved issues that hinder the acceptance of ANN
Neural networks
models in the practical design and analysis of composite materials and structures. Moreover, the emerging
machine learning techniques are posing new opportunities and challenges in the data-based design paradigm.
This paper aims to give a state-of-the-art literature review of ANN models in the constitutive modeling of
composite materials, focusing on discovering unknown constitutive laws and accelerating multiscale modeling.
This review focuses on the general frameworks, benefits, and challenges and opportunities of ANN models to
the constitutive modeling of composite materials. Moreover, potential applications of ANN-based constitutive
models in composite materials and structures are also discussed. This review is intended to initiate discussion
of future research scope and new directions to enable efficient, robust, and accurate data-driven design and
analysis of composite materials and structures.

1. Introduction
Machine learning models are rapidly penetrating many engineering
fields due to its success in speech recognition, image recognition,
language processing, etc. With the unprecedented growing data from
experiments and computer simulations, rapidly increasing computing
power, and emerging advanced algorithms, one should expect unfore-
seeable and revolutionary impacts across nearly the entire domain of
design and analysis of composite materials and structures over the next
two decades [1]. Recently, Peng et al. [2] reviewed the state-of-the-
art of machine learning in multiscale modeling with an emphasis on
biological, biomedical, and behavioral sciences. Inspired by this work,
this paper aims to focus on the artificial neural networks (ANN) models
to the challenging problems of constitutive modeling of composite
materials. The ANN models are the most widely used machine learning
models in recent years due to the outstanding performance with the
growing data, ability to approximate complex nonlinear relations, and
advanced open-source libraries (e.g., Tensorflow [3] and PyTorch [4]).
As a result, ANN models are considered an emerging technique in the
design and analysis of composite materials and structures.
The constitutive modeling plays a salient role in the design and
analysis of composite materials and structures. The ANN models used
in the constitutive modeling of composites can be categorized by how
the training data is obtained: experiments or physics-based simulations.
The ANN models based on the experimental data are commonly devel-
oped to describe phenomena in complex systems where we do not yet
have a good physical understanding [5]. The ANN models based on
computer simulation data are to provide efficient surrogate models to
replace the expensive simulations and to interpret large-scale computed
data. In general, the constitutive laws of composite materials can be
expressed as a function  of state variables:
( )
𝝈 =  𝑭 , 𝑭̇ , 𝜃, 𝒈, 𝜶 (1)
where 𝑭 is deformation gradient, 𝑭̇ is deformation gradient rate, 𝜃
{ }
is temperature, and 𝒈 is temperature gradient. Note that 𝜶 = 𝛼𝑘 is
a set of internal variables containing entities of scalar, vectorial and
tensorial associated with dissipative mechanisms [6]. Eq. (1) can be
developed based on two different approaches. The first approach is to
develop or postulate a function (e.g., a polynomial) to approximate the

∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Industrial, Manufacturing, and Systems Engineering, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019,
USA.
E-mail address: xin.liu@uta.edu (X. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.109152
Received 11 March 2021; Received in revised form 10 May 2021; Accepted 14 July 2021
Available online 21 July 2021
1359-8368/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Liu et al.
homogenized material behaviors with several unknown parameters to
be calibrated from experiments [7,8]. For example, a constitutive law
can be developed based on the thermodynamic principle with a damage
evolution law to be calibrated from experiments [9]. The ANN models
can be used to discover the unknown/hidden constitutive laws based on
the experimental data. The second approach is to build a constitutive
model by homogenizing all the constitutive behaviors of constituents
at the sub-scale. For example, one can predict linear homogenized
constitutive behaviors of fiber-reinforced composites in terms of the
properties of fiber and matrix and fiber volume fractions [10]. The ANN
models can be used to accelerate the multiscale modeling based on the
simulation data.
For the nonlinear constitutive modeling, it has been shown that
the current models are still not mature to accurately predict the non-
linear behaviors of composite materials [11,12]. With the increasing
complexity of the microstructures, the nonlinear behaviors of com-
posite materials are becoming more and more complex, which often
involves several failure mechanisms occurring simultaneously. Some
failure mechanisms (e.g., failure initiation) even cannot be fully cap-
tured by the existing physics-based models [11]. Therefore, the cur-
rent physics-based constitutive models are not sufficient to accurately
describe all the nonlinear behaviors of composites.
For the multiscale modeling, the major challenge is the computa-
tional cost in high-fidelity simulations such as three-dimensional (3D)
finite element analysis (FEA). Since a multiscale modeling approach
directly links the homogenized behavior at the macroscale to the
corresponding microstructure, it does not require an explicit material
model at the macroscale. A sub-scale modeling, either at microscale
or mesoscale, is required for each integration point at the macroscale
for each loading increment. Such expensive computations are not fea-
sible for the practical engineering design and analysis [13]. Note that
multiscale modeling does not solve the problems of the unknown
physics-based models, but shifts the problems to the sub-scale because
the nonlinear material models for the constituents and their interfaces
are usually unknown.
The goal of this paper is to provide a review of the literature and
point out the challenges and opportunities in applying ANN models
to the constitutive modeling of composite materials. Sections 2 and
3 will discuss the significance, state-of-the-art, and challenges and
opportunities of ANN models in discovering unknown constitutive laws
and accelerating multiscale modeling respectively. Section 4 will point
out some potential applications of ANN-based constitutive modeling
in design and analysis of composites. Section 5 will provide some
conclusion remarks.
2. Discovering unknown constitutive laws
2.1. Significance
The nonlinear constitutive modeling of composite materials remains
a critical challenge in the composites community. With the increasing
complexity of the microstructures in advanced composite materials, the
nonlinear homogenized constitutive behavior at the macroscale is likely
to be driven by one or multiple nonlinear mechanisms (e.g., viscoelas-
ticity, plasticity, or damage) at the sub-scale. To handle the increasing
complexity, many ANN-based data-driven models have been developed.
The basic idea is to capture the missing physics based on the experi-
mental data and approximate the constitutive model with a function in
a form-free manner. Since the aim of machine learning techniques is
to identify the correlations in data and approximate such correlations
using functions [2], the machine learning-based constitutive models
have the potential to provide a good complement or even substitution
to the physics-based models.
2
Composites Part B 224 (2021) 109152
Fig. 1. One-dimensional (1D) strain–stress relation constructed by an ANN model (gray
circles are the hidden neurons).
2.2. State-of-the-art
The traditional polynomial-based constitutive models are based on
assumed functions with coefficients to be determined from experiments.
But the assumptions of the postulated functions could cause inaccuracy
of the model [14]. This loss of accuracy is also called model errors,
which remains inevitable as far as a material model is assumed ex-
plicitly [15]. ANN models are widely used in approximating complex
mappings between input and output as a universal approximation
theorem [16], which allows approximating any functions in a form-
free manner. In addition to the universal function approximation, the
ANN model also features several other advantages in constructing
a constitutive model [17] such as better performance for unevenly
distributed data, approximating a non-smooth function, and mapping a
high dimensional input–output. The early work of ANN-based constitu-
tive models was carried out by Ghaboussi and his co-workers [18–23].
The nonlinear material behaviors such as rate-dependent [22] and
hysteretic behaviors [23] were captured by the ANN models and the
numerical implementation of the ANN models in finite element (FE)
codes was also carried out [21]. For a uniaxial hysteretic material
behavior [21], Eq. (1) can be written as:
( )
𝜎𝑛 =  𝜀𝑛 , 𝜀𝑛−1 , 𝜎𝑛−1 , 𝜁𝑛 , 𝛥𝜂𝑛 (2)
where 𝜎 is stress, 𝜀 is strain, and the subscript 𝑛 and 𝑛 − 1 denotes
the current and previous load increments. 𝜁𝑛 and 𝛥𝜂𝑛 are the internal
variables defined as 𝜁𝑛 = 𝜎𝑛−1 𝜀𝑛−1 and 𝛥𝜂𝑛 = 𝜎𝑛−1 𝛥𝜀𝑛 . The 𝜁𝑛 implies
its previous state along the equilibrium path by its energy quantity and
𝛥𝜂𝑛 implies the direction for the next load step along the equilibrium
path [21]. The corresponding ANN models using feedforward neural
networks (FNN) can be described using Fig. 1.
Another contribution of Ghaboussi’s work is learning the strain–
stress relation by combining the data from structural responses with
FE models [20]. The goal is to make use of experiments with rich
constitutive information. The stresses are not directly measured from
experiments but often derived from forces in simple experiments. It is
very challenging to derive the stress from forces if the stress state is not
uniform. For example, the stress in each layer of a multi-directional
laminate in a 3-point bending test cannot be easily derived from the
applied load. However, training an ANN model is data-hungry and
the data from simple experiments is not enough for general two-
dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) constitutive laws. By
combining experimental data from structural tests and FE models,
Ghaboussi and his co-workers developed the autoprogressive models
to enlarge the available data from complex experiments by connecting
load–deflection curves to strain–stress data. This idea was further ex-
tended to a self-learning FE method by several other researchers [24,
X. Liu et al.
Fig. 2. Different methods of using training data.
25]. Recently, Huang et al. [26] also developed ANN models for learn-
ing constitutive laws based on experimental data from structural tests
and FE models. Different from the previous work, this method does
not rely on directly paired strain–stress data, which removes a critical
requirement hindering ANN models from learning complex constitutive
models. However, this method needs a full-field displacement measure-
ment and is difficult to extend to 3D problems and multiscale modeling
problems. To enable ANN models to learn more complex constitutive
models with limited measurements, Liu et al. [27,28] and Xu et al. [29]
coupled ANN models into mechanical systems (e.g., FE models) so that
the real input and output of ANN models are derived from the coupled
system during the training. This idea has been applied to learn the
nonlinear in-plane shear constitutive model [28], failure initiation cri-
terion [28], damage accumulation law [27], and viscoelastic material
response [29].
In addition to ANN models, other machine learning models have
also been developed to enable a model-free constitutive law. Kirchdo-
erfer and Ortiz [30] developed data-driven computational mechanics to
directly construct the constitutive law from the experimental material
dataset. This method aims to find the point in the material dataset that
is closest to satisfying the essential constraints and conservation laws.
This approach has been further extended to solve inelasticity [31] and
finite elasticity [32] problems. Another machine learning technique for
constructing the constitutive law is the manifold learning developed by
̃ and his co-workers, which has been applied to learn the elastic
Ibanez
and inelastic material models [33–35].
2.3. Challenges and opportunities
2.3.1. Lack of training data
Although some constitutive models were directly constructed based
on experimental data [36–39], these constitutive relations are usually
very simple such as 1D strain–stress relations. However, the learned
constitutive models of composite materials are often implemented into
a FE model for the structural analysis, which often requires a 3D strain–
stress relation. For a 3D constitutive model, an ANN model needs at
least 6 inputs to represent 3D strains and 6 outputs to represent 3D
stresses. If ANN models are used to learn complex nonlinear material
behaviors, more inputs and outputs may be required. For example, the
path/history-dependent material behavior may require strain rate and
strain/stress from the last step as the additional inputs [22,40]. To the
best of our knowledge, there are no 3D constitutive laws constructed by
ANN-based models with real experimental data. Clearly, it is extremely
challenging to perform experiments to generate a representative train-
ing dataset, which includes 6-dimensional input and 6-dimensional
3
Composites Part B 224 (2021) 109152
output. However, there are a lot of data from complex experiments
containing ample constitutive information. For example, a three-point
bending test of a multi-directional laminate has different 3D strain–
stress states at each layer, while only the load–deflection curve can be
directly measured from experiments. Therefore, the key question is to
derive or extract the rich constitutive information from experimentally
measurable data, such as force and displacement.
Tang et al. [41] proposed a method called MAP123 that constructs a
3D constitutive model using just 1D data. The key idea is to expand the
experimentally measurable data (e.g., 1D data) to 3D strain–stress data.
A finite deformation problem was analyzed by this method. Another
potential solution is to couple ANN models into a mechanical model
(e.g., a FE model) to derive the experimentally measurable data. Fig. 2a
shows the traditional training method that requires the directly paired
data for training ANN models. Since the training data needs to be
directly obtained or derived from experiments, it is hard to generate
3D strain–stress data for composite materials because the output (3D
stress) cannot be derived or measured from a load–deflection curve
with an unknown constitutive law. Fig. 2b shows a different method
that the ANN output goes into other physics-based models to generate
the predicted values which can be directly measured or derived from
experiments. The loss function is constructed based on the predicted
values and measurable data from experiments. Note that the predicted
values contain the trainable parameters (i.e., weights and biases) which
are to be updated by minimizing the loss function. The benefit of
the second method is that the direct input and output data of the
ANN model are not required to be measurable from experiments. For
example, the ANN model still constructs strain and stress relationship
but using the load–deflection curve measured from experiments.
2.3.2. Coupling ANN with mechanical models
The ANN coupled mechanical system poses another challenge that
the input data may be derived from experimental data via the ANN
model during training. For example, the strains in a FE model are
derived from displacements which are solved from the entire FE model
with the ANN-based constitutive law. Fig. 3 shows a typical example
of learning the 2D nonlinear constitutive laws based on the load–
deflection curve using an ANN model coupled with the FE model.
The input of the ANN model and the ANN model itself need to be de-
termined simultaneously during the training [27,42]. Mathematically,
this problem can be formulated as a PDE-constrained optimization
X. Liu et al. Composites Part B 224 (2021) 109152

Fig. 3. The framework of ANN–FE coupled approach for learning constitutive laws [27].

Table 1
Learn unknown physics based on indirectly measurable data.
Unknown physical laws Mechanical model Indirectly measurable data ANN model
Nonlinear shear behavior [28] Lamination theory Plate force (𝐹 ), plate strain (𝜖) 𝑓 (𝜀12 ) = 𝜎12
Failure criterion [28] Lamination theory Failure load (𝐹 ) 𝑓 (𝜎𝑖𝑗 ) = 𝛼
Nonlinear shear behavior [27] FE model Load (𝐹 ), displacement (𝑢) 𝑓 (𝜀12 ) = 𝜎12
Damage accumulation [27] FE model Macro-strain (𝜀̄ 𝑖𝑗 ), macro-stress (𝜎̄ 11 ) 𝑓 (𝛽) = 𝐵
Hyperelastic [26] FE model Load (𝐹 ), displacement (𝑢) 𝑓 (𝜆) = 𝑃
Elasto-plasticity [17] FE model Load (𝐹 ), displacement (𝑢) 𝑓 (𝜀𝑖𝑗 ) = 𝜎𝑖𝑗

problem [42]:
find 𝑊
∑ ( ( ) )2
minimize 𝐿 (𝑢) = 𝑢 𝑥𝑖 − 𝑢𝑖
𝑖∈𝐼𝑜𝑏𝑠
subject to 𝐹 (𝑊 (𝑢) , 𝑢) = 0
( )
where 𝐿 is the loss function to be minimized. 𝑢𝑖 and 𝑢 𝑥𝑖 are the ANN
output and observed output at the location 𝑥𝑖 . 𝐼𝑜𝑏𝑠 is the set of indices
of the location where observations are available. 𝑊 is the trainable
variables in ANN models such as weights and biases. Since the ANN
is coupled with mechanical models, 𝑊 is also a function of 𝑢. 𝐹 (∗)
represents the PDE-constraint. This approach brings another benefit
that the physical constraints are implicitly imposed into the training
process as the ANN model must go through the FE model to generate
correct input data [17,29]. Recently, Tao et al. [43] coupled an ANN
model with the commercial FE software Abaqus, taking the existing
capabilities of the built-in FE functions. The developed Abaqus–ANN
system was used to learn the damage constitutive law of lamina with
the observations of surface responses on the laminate (see Fig. 4). A
two-step training approach was proposed in this work. The first step
was to get the strain–stress pair of each material point at each load
increment. Note that the ANN model is updating at each load increment
and cannot be used to approximate the overall constitutive law, and
therefore a second training is required. In the second step training, the
datasets obtained from the first step need to be separated into three
groups: training, validation, and testing. The validation datasets are
used during the training process to avoid underfitting and overfitting.
The trained model takes the testing datasets, which are not used in
(3) the training, to check the final accuracy of the model. In addition to
the standard validation and testing of ANN models, the trained model
should be implemented into the mechanical model to predict a new
load–deflection curve, which is not used in the two-step training, to fur-
ther examine the accuracy. Note that if the datasets are obtained from
computer simulations, the trained model needs to be further validated
against experiments. For example, a blind prediction can be carried
out by finite element analysis with the trained constitutive model, and
the predicted load–deflection curves should show reasonable agreement
with experimental results.
Some examples of using indirectly measurable data for training ANN
models are given in Table 1.
3. Accelerating multiscale modeling
3.1. Significance
In the recent years, several advanced approaches have been de-
veloped such as representative volume element (RVE) method based
on FEA [44,45], mathematical homogenization theories (MHT) [46,
47], mechanics of structure genome (MSG) [48–50], and generalized
method of cells (GMC) and its extensions [51,52]. Many commercial

4
X. Liu et al.
Fig. 4. Couple ANN with Abaqus to learn lamina constitutive laws with measurable surface responses.
Fig. 5. Schematic of the FE2 method [55].
Table 2
Commercial multiscale modeling software.
Method Software Development team
FEA-based RVE Digimat e-Xstream Engineering
FEA-based RVE Material Designer ANSYS
FEA-based RVE Micromechanics plugin ABAQUS
MHT Multiscale Designer Altair
MSG SwiftComp AnalySwift
GMC and its extensions MAC/GMC NASA Glenn Research Center
software tools have been developed based on these methods (see Ta-
ble 2) and some of them have been integrated into commercial FEA
software to serve as a multiscale modeling module [53,54].
These multiscale models not only compute homogenized properties
for the macroscale simulation (e.g., structural analysis) but also recover
local stress and strain fields at the sub-scale via dehomogenization.
Many ANN models have been developed for linear multiscale modeling
problems of different composite materials such as unidirectional (UD)
fiber-reinforced composites [56], short-fiber composites [57,58], and
textile composites [59]. For nonlinear homogenization problems, the
homogenized properties are changing due to the nonlinear behaviors of
constituents at the sub-scale. A popular modeling approach to capturing
such nonlinear behaviors is FE2 [60]. Fig. 5 shows the schematic
of the FE2 method. The macroscale FE-based structural analysis uses
homogenized properties that are directly computed by the RVE analysis
using the microscale FE-based models. Therefore, FE2 removes the
assumptions of the macroscale constitutive laws since there are no
explicit material models in the macroscale analysis [61]. However, the
computational effort can be extreme, even for a simple 2D microstruc-
ture of composites. For advanced composite materials (e.g., textile
composites or metamaterials), a 3D micro/mesostructure is needed,
which further increases the computational costs. A total number of RVE
calculations of a FE2 analysis can be approximated using the following
Eq. [55]:
𝑁𝑡𝑜𝑙 ≈ (1 + 𝛽) × 𝑁𝑖𝑛𝑡 × 𝑁𝑒 × 𝑁𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟 × 𝑁𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑙
Composites Part B 224 (2021) 109152
where 𝑁𝑖𝑛𝑡 is the number of integration points in a single element in
the macroscopic mesh, 𝑁𝑒 is the total number of elements in the macro-
scopic mesh, 𝑁𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟 is the number of iterations in each time step, and
𝑁𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑙 is the total time steps in a macroscopic analysis. For a FE2 analysis
in a 2D structure, the dimension of the tangent stiffness matrix is 3
by 3. Determining this matrix requires solving 3 additional nonlinear
problems over the RVE. For a 3D structure, the dimension of the tangent
stiffness matrix is 6 by 6, which requires solving 6 additional nonlinear
problems. Therefore, 𝛽 is equal to 3 for 2D structures and equal to
6 for 3D structures. For a real industrial problem, the nonlinear RVE
analysis will need to be performed millions of times, which makes FE2
impractical for real structural analyses.
3.2. State-of-the-art
The whole multiscale modeling process can be approximated using
a general function with 𝑰 as the input from the macroscale FE model
and 𝑶 as the output from the sub-scale models as follows:
𝑓 (𝑰) = 𝑶 (5)
where 𝑓 can be the FE-based models (i.e., FE2 )
or any functions
describing the change of the state of a point in the macroscale model.
The basic idea of using ANN models to accelerate multiscale modeling
is to replace the FE-based model with a surrogate model constructed
from data [62,63]. A general framework of using a deep neural network
model in nonlinear multiscale modeling is given in Fig. 6. This deep
neural network model is used to approximate the nonlinear behavior
of a fiber-reinforced composite material, which is based on the data
computed from a series of microscale analyses with fiber and matrix.
Lefik et al. [64,65] applied ANN models in numerical modeling of
composites. One of the applications in this work was to predict the ho-
mogenized nonlinear behavior (i.e. strain–stress curve) of a two-phase
composite material. An elastic–plastic material model was constructed
based on the data from a series of nonlinear microscale analyses. Unger
and Könke [66] applied an ANN model to construct a relation between
macroscopic stress and crack opening responses. Le et al. [67] per-
formed a number of RVE analyses with periodic boundary conditions to
generate training data for constructing a constitutive model for nonlin-
ear elastic material behavior. The macroscopic strains as well as some
microstructural parameters were used as input and the effective po-
tential of the composite, obtaining from homogenization analysis, was
computed as the output. The similar idea was applied to study the non-
linear anisotropic electrical response of graphene/polymer nanocom-
posites [68]. Liu and his co-works [69–72] developed various surrogate
models to facilitate the multiscale modeling of composite materials
(e.g., fiber-reinforced composite, amorphous material, and woven com-
posite). They also incorporated the manufacturing process into the
models. Sun and his co-workers [73–76] utilized advanced ANN models
(e.g., recurrent neural networks (RNN) and deep reinforced learning
(DRL)) to develop different surrogate models for multiscale modeling
(4) of multi-porosity materials. The cohesive laws were generated using a
5
X. Liu et al.
Fig. 6. General framework of data-driven multiscale modeling.
deep RNN model based on an offline homogenization procedure, which
was proven to be much more computationally efficient than the FE2
approach [73]. The DRL was employed to construct surrogate models
for the traction-separation law [74] and elasto-plasticity model [75].
These advanced ANN models such as RNN, convolutional neural net-
works (CNN), and mixed CNN-RNN models [77] showed additional
benefits compared with the commonly used FNN models. For example,
RNN models have been increasingly used in constitutive modeling to
capture the history/path-dependent material behaviors. To overcome
the long-term dependence problem in RNN, a gating mechanism based
on Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) or Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) is
often applied [78]. Fig. 7 shows an example of the multiscale nonlinear
computation of a 2D composite. The history/path-dependent material
behaviors were captured using RNN with a stacked GRU neural network
(SRNN) [79]. The corresponding Jacobian function can be obtained
by Eq. (6). With the 𝛥𝜀𝑡+1 𝑡+1 𝑡+1
𝑖𝑗 , 𝛥𝜎𝑖𝑗 , and 𝐷𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 , this RNN model can be
implemented as a material model for a structural analysis in the finite
element software (e.g., Abaqus UMAT).
𝛥𝜎𝑖𝑗𝑡+1
𝑡+1
𝐷𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑙 = (6)
𝛥𝜀𝑡+1
𝑖𝑗
In addition to the standard ANN models, Liu and his co-workers
[80–83] developed a deep material network (DMN) for multiscale mod-
eling of heterogeneous materials. Fig. 8a summarizes the framework
of DMN. In the offline training, the direct numerical simulation (DNS)
tools are used to compute the effective stiffness matrix 𝐶̄𝑠𝑑𝑛𝑠 based on
two random elastic stiffness matrices 𝐶𝑠𝑝1 and 𝐶𝑠𝑝2 , representing a two-
phase RVE. The fitting parameters in the model are activation 𝑧 and
rotation angles 𝛼, 𝛽 and 𝛾, all of which have physical meanings related
to microstructural geometry and mechanics. Fig. 8b gives the network
structure of the connection between inputs (i.e., two elastic stiffness
matrix) and output (i.e., effective stiffness matrix), which is a binary
tree with each building block functioning as a ‘‘neuron’’ in an ANN
model. This method has been used to construct surrogate models for
history-dependent plasticity, finite strain hyperelasticity, and interfa-
cial failure analysis. Recently, Liu et al. [84] extended this approach
to develop an integrated framework for process modeling, material
homogenization, machine learning, and multiscale simulation. This
approach showed some promising results compared with the normal
ANN models in extrapolation and physical interpretation.
Other researchers also applied different ANN models to construct
surrogate models to capture different nonlinear material behaviors such
as elasto-plasticity [85–87], finite deformation hyperelasticity [88–
92] and viscoplasticity [93]. Moreover, simulation data from even
smaller scales based on molecular dynamics (MD) was also used to
train ANN-based constitutive models [94,95]. In addition to directly ap-
proximating multiscale modeling of composites, ANN models have also
been used to accelerate the expensive computations in FE models [96,
6
Composites Part B 224 (2021) 109152
Table 3
Different nonlinear constitutive laws approximated by ANN models.
Nonlinear constitutive ANN models Reference
Elastoplastic FNN Lefik and Schrefler [64], Lefik et al. [65],
Yang et al. [101] and Zhang and Mohr [102]
Elastoplastic RNN Mozaffar et al. [87] and Wu et al. [103]
Elastoplastic DRL Wang and Sun [74]
Viscoplastic FNN Stoffel et al. [104,105]
Viscoplastic RNN Ghavamian and Simone [106]
viscoplastic CNN Stoffel et al. [107]
Hyperelasticity FNN Shen et al. [108], Le et al. [67], Sagiyama
and Garikipati [90], Nguyen-Thanh et al.
[88], Vlassis et al. [76] and Im et al. [92]
Damage FNN Hambli et al. [109] and Settgast et al. [110]
Traction-separation FNN Fernández et al. [111]
Traction-separation DRL Wang and Sun [74]
97], which reduces the computing costs in many FE-based multiscale
models. Note that ANN models are also employed in the homoge-
nization of other physical behaviors such as electrical response [68]
and thermal conductivity [98–100]. Table 3 lists some homogenized
constitutive behaviors approximated by different ANN models based on
the simulations data.
3.3. Challenges and opportunities
Although various ANN models have been employed to construct
surrogate models for different material responses, most of the works
follow the same procedure. As shown in Fig. 9, the first step is to
generate the training datasets from a series of sub-scale analyses. The
input could be the macroscopic loading paths, which are used to re-
cover the local strain and stress fields at the sub-scale. Usually, several
loading paths are required and a number of increments are needed in
each loading path [65]. Once the input and output data are obtained
from the first step, the second step is to train the surrogate model
based on an ANN model. A pre-processing of data (e.g., normalization)
is often required in most ANN models. Then, ANN models or other
machine learning models are constructed aiming to develop a function
like Eq. (5) to approximate the relation between input and output data.
During the training process, different regularization methods such as
active regularization, weight decay, and dropout can be applied to
avoid overfitting [112]. After the training, the accuracy of the trained
model will be examined by the testing datasets [113]. Once the desired
surrogate model is trained, users need to code the model through a
user-defined subroutine in FE software packages such as the UMAT
in Abaqus to perform structural analysis [114]. This surrogate model
should provide a remarkable computational efficiency without losing
too much accuracy compared with the high-fidelity multiscale analysis
(e.g., FE2 ).
X. Liu et al. Composites Part B 224 (2021) 109152

Fig. 7. Constitutive modeling using RNN models [79].

Fig. 8. General framework and mechanical data flows in DMN models [81].

Fig. 9. General procedure of multiscale surrogate modeling.

3.3.1. Computational cost of high-fidelity simulation models
One of the challenges is the computational cost for generating
training data. Generating simulation data from the high-fidelity multi-
scale analysis is very time-consuming. To construct nonlinear material
models, high-dimensional input and output data are usually required.
For example, the path/history-dependent materials will require addi-
tional loading history or state variables as input. Some microstructural
parameters (e.g., fiber volume fraction or microscale defects) may be
also needed as additional inputs to describe the microstructure of com-
posites. Such high-dimensional input and output data make the ANN
model suffer the curse of dimensionality [70], which often requires the
models to be trained with significantly larger training datasets.
There are several potential solutions to reduce the size of the
training data. Raissi et al. [115] developed the physics-informed neu-
ral network (PINN) model to incorporate physical laws into the loss
function such that
𝑀𝑆𝐸 = 𝑀𝑆𝐸𝑢 + 𝑀𝑆𝐸𝑓 (7)
where 𝑀𝑆𝐸𝑢 is the mean square error (MSE) [78] from the training
data and 𝑀𝑆𝐸𝑓 is the MSE from the imposed physical constraints. Tao
et al. [116] showed that the size of training data can be reduced to
only a fraction of the original one by adding some physical constraints
for a thin shell buckling problem. Zhang et al. [117] incorporated
physics knowledge into deep long short-term memory (LSTM) net-
works to study nonlinear structural responses subjected to a ground

7
X. Liu et al.
motion excitation. The results showed that the model with physical
constraints can be trained with less rich data with good accuracy.
Following this idea, Xu and Darve [42] enforced the ANN model to
follow the conservation law of mass and momentum for a two-phase
flow problem. In addition, Xu et al. [17] trained an ANN model to
learn a lower triangular matrix 𝐿 of the stiffness matrix so that the
stiffness matrix can be constructed by 𝐿𝑇 𝐿 which remains symmetric
positive definite. Masi et al. [118] encoded two basic principles of ther-
modynamics in the network’s architecture so that the derivatives of the
free-energy, the dissipation rate, and their relation with the stress and
internal state variables are hardwired in the proposed model, which
keeps the predictions to be thermodynamically consistent. In addition
to reducing the size of training data, appropriately adding physical
constraints may also reduce the ill-posed optimization problems during
the training [17].
Another solution is to keep developing more efficient yet accu-
rate multiscale modeling approaches such as MSG, MHT, and some
reduced-order models (e.g., self-consistent clustering analysis [119],
proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) reduced model [120], and
non-uniform transformation field analysis [121]). Recently, the multi-
fidelity modeling has been used to effectively generate training data for
ANN models in composite materials and structures [122–124], which
provides another approach to balance the accuracy and efficiency in
training an ANN model [125].
3.3.2. Physical interpretation
Lack of the physical interpretation is another challenge in the ANN
models, which is a primary reason hindering machine learning models
in real engineering applications as it is very hard for engineers to
justify the results and for them to confidently use the model. Adding
physical constraints (e.g., PINN) will enforce the trained ANN mod-
els to follow the known physical laws to some extent. Usually, the
users need to adjust the ratio between the 𝑀𝑆𝐸𝑢 and 𝑀𝑆𝐸𝑓 in
Eq. (7) so that the trained ANN model will result in a good predic-
tion. In addition to PINN, physics-guided/theory-guided ANN models
have been developed aiming to design the ANN architecture with
prior knowledge in physics [126–128]. The FEA-Net has been recently
proposed incorporating knowledge of FEA into a deep convolutional
neural network to estimate material properties of composite mate-
rials [126,127]. Zobeiry et al. [128] developed theory-guided ANN
models by selecting features and ANN architectures with the knowledge
of failure and strain-softening behavior in composites. Since the ANN
models are designed with the prior knowledge in physics, the models
are usually interpretable to the users. Furthermore, the theory-guided
ANN models showed a good potential in the extrapolation. In other
words, the models have much improved predictions beyond the training
zone, which cannot be handled well by conventional ANN models.
However, the design of such ANN models is highly problem-dependent
and largely driven by the domain knowledge of the users.
4. Potential research directions
Sections 2 and 3 reviewed the state-of-the-art of the ANN models
in discovering unknown constitutive laws and accelerating multiscale
modeling. The major challenges as well as the potential solutions
were also discussed. For the composite materials and structures, many
challenging problems are related to the above two topics. This section
will discuss the future research directions and potential applications of
the ANN models to the constitutive modeling of composite materials
and structures.
8
Composites Part B 224 (2021) 109152
4.1. Design optimization
One major advantage of advanced composite materials and struc-
tures is that their properties can be tailored for different requirements
in different applications. However, such a design process is challenging
for this complex material-structural system mainly because of the ex-
pensive multiscale numerical simulation and a large amount of design
parameters available. ANN models can be used as efficient surrogate
models in the design optimization of composite materials and struc-
tures. The benefit of cost-saving of using surrogate models is manifold.
First, the surrogate model reduces the analysis time during each itera-
tion of the optimization process. Moreover, gradient-based methods are
generally inapplicable for black-box physical models or commercial FE
software. However, for surrogate models, either finite difference or di-
rect derivative can be computed. Second, parallel computing techniques
can be implemented. Instead of evaluating expensive functions sequen-
tially in the optimization process, the data acquisition step of building
the surrogate model only needs independent evaluations of different
design points in the domain, which can be done concurrently. Third,
preprocessing time can be saved. Generating an accurate geometry from
a limited number of design parameters and meshing the part with good
quality can be time-consuming and subject to flaws and failures of the
preprocessor. Instead, surrogate models directly link design variables
to the output, which can save the preprocessing cost significantly.
The general framework using ANN models in design optimization
problems is given in Fig. 10. After training the model, the variables
(i.e., weights 𝒘 and biases 𝒃) in the ANN model are determined. Then,
the trained model is used to find the optimal inputs in the optimization
problems.
An early attempt of such implementations was performed to mini-
mize the weight of the composite stiffened panels subjected to buckling
constraints [129]. The method was also used for a multi-objective opti-
mization for vibration frequency and critical buckling load [130]. The
similar ideas were further developed for optimizing the weight and the
failure load of composite stiffened panels [131]. Typical inputs of ANN
models in design optimization of composite materials and structures
include the geometries of structural features such as stiffeners [129,
131–133], layup schemes (e.g. numbers of plies, material orientations
and stacking sequence) [129,130,134,135], and the architecture of the
micro/mesoscale structures [132].
In addition to using FNN models in the shape and size optimization
of composite structures, the application of CNN models to topology
optimization problems has generated considerable interest recently,
especially in the design of architectured materials thanks to the ad-
vances in additive manufacturing [136,137]. A widely-used topology
optimization strategy is to find the best constituent for each element
in a fixed meshed domain, which is commonly described as a ‘pixel’
or ‘voxel’ style. Because of this fundamental different feature from the
shape and size optimization, and also the similarity to the task of image
recognition, CNN is considered suitable for this purpose. The CNN
models take the input such as structure geometry, external loads, and
boundary conditions and predict the stress fields [138], structural stiff-
ness [139] or damage initiation [72]. The trained model is then used to
replace the physics-based models to perform the topology optimization.
In addition, CNN models are also used in the topology optimization of
composite materials by arranging stiff and soft materials to improve the
fracture toughness [140,141].
4.2. Multiscale inverse identification
For composite materials and structures, there is a need to dis-
cover the constitutive laws of the constituents at the micro/mesoscale.
However, it is hard to directly measure the properties of constituents
(e.g., transverse properties of fibers or 3D properties of fiber tows). The
more common approach is to test a composite coupon and identify
the properties of constituents using inverse modeling, which is very
X. Liu et al.
Fig. 10. The general framework of ANN assisted design optimization problems.
Fig. 11. Train meso/microscale ANN model with measurable data from macroscale.
challenging for nonlinear constitutive models. Some machine learning
models have been used to help identify engineering constants at the
sub-scale by a parameter inverse analysis [142,143]. However, identi-
fication of the entire constitutive law at the sub-scale is a functional
inverse problem with an infinite functional space [29]. The ANN cou-
pled mechanical models could provide a solution that requires the ANN
models to be coupled into a multiscale model (see Fig. 11). In this
way, the measurable information at the macroscale can be passed to
the sub-scale to train the ANN models. However, effectively passing
information across different scales and integrating ANN models in
multiscale modeling are still challenging problems to solve.
4.3. Metamaterials
In the past decade, metamaterials are emerging as an advanced ma-
terial system that exhibits unprecedented mechanical behaviors which
cannot be found in conventional materials [144]. The excellent per-
formance of metamaterials is mainly achieved by engineering the mi-
crostructures [145,146], which also adds extra complexities in predict-
ing the nonlinear constitutive laws of metamaterials. The nonlinear
behavior of metamaterials is often introduced from both the material
nonlinearity (e.g., damage and plasticity) and geometry nonlinearity
(e.g., micro-structural buckling) [147,148]. Therefore, it is very dif-
ficult to develop a physics-based constitutive model of metamaterials
considering all the nonlinearities. However, extensive experimental
studies have been carried out to study the nonlinear constitutive be-
haviors of various metamaterials [149–151], which contains abundant
constitutive information (i.e., strain and stress) embedded in the experi-
mental data (e.g., load–deflection curves). Hence, there is a great poten-
tial to develop data-driven constitutive laws based on the measurable
experimental data, employing an ANN-coupled mechanical system.
The computational cost is another obstacle in the design and anal-
ysis of metamaterials. Many efforts have been devoted to study the
mechanical behaviors of the unit cell in metamaterials by FEA [152–
154], and the multiscale modeling is a common approach since most
metamaterials are fabricated by repeating a unit cell. As mentioned
in Section 3, nonlinear homogenization of complex microstructures is
9
Composites Part B 224 (2021) 109152
very expensive. Furthermore, metamaterials are usually associated with
more design variables (e.g., constituent properties and geometries of
the unit cell) than traditional fiber-reinforced composites (see Fig. 12).
Therefore, an efficient ANN model provides a promising alternative
to the expensive FEA which will greatly facilitate the design and
analysis of metamaterials [155,156]. The potentials of the applications
of machine learning and artificial intelligence in metamaterials have
also been reviewed in two recent publications [157,158].
4.4. Damage detection, identification and prediction
Cost-effective and reliable damage detection is critical for composite
materials and structures [159]. FNN models have been used along with
acoustic emission for the damage detection and real-time structural
monitoring of composites. The acoustic emission parameters are used
as inputs and the outputs can be the failure modes (classification) [160]
or damage tolerance (regression) [161]. Recently, deep learning CNN
models have been increasingly used in damage detection and identifica-
tion [162–164]. The CNN models take images as inputs, which showed
enhanced performance in detecting the local damage information such
as delamination [165]. Moreover, multiscale modeling based on CNN
models [166–169] will provide an end-to-end damage prediction ap-
proach (Fig. 13), which can potentially enable in-process assessment of
composites. Specifically, leveraging in-process monitoring systems the
microstructures including initial defects/imperfections can be captured
in images during the manufacturing process, serving as inputs for mul-
tiscale modeling. Then, the CNN models will predict the performance
of the as-manufactured composites. This approach will enable process
intervention toward better quality and better performance of composite
materials and structures.
4.5. Multifunctional composite materials
Many problems in the design and analysis of multifunctional ma-
terials are multiscale in nature. The homogenized material properties
(e.g., thermoelectric [171], piezoelectric [172], and electromagnetoe-
lastic [173], to name a few) are characterized considering the different
X. Liu et al.
Fig. 12. Auxetic unit cell design by ANN models.
Fig. 13. Illustration of a typical CNN model in multiscale modeling [170].
Fig. 14. Illustration of constructing constitutive models of yarns based on ANN models.
constituent properties and microstructures. One challenge in multi-
functional material design is the high computational cost due to the
increased design parameters compared with the problems only involv-
ing mechanical properties. The multiscale modeling based on ANN
models can provide an efficient alternative in the multifunctional ma-
terials design thanks to its excellent performance in approximating the
high-dimensional mapping between input and output. Currently, the
application of ANN models in multifunctional composite materials has
not been well recognized.
4.6. Mechanical behavior of yarns in textile composites
Textile composites have been increasingly used in many composite
structures (e.g., T-joints) due to the lower manufacturing cost and
improved delamination resistance [174–176]. However, it is very chal-
lenging to predict the nonlinear behavior of textile composites. One
obstacle is the unknown constitutive models of yarns under complex
loading conditions. First, it is difficult to experimentally characterize
the mechanical behavior of yarns in textile composites. The current
models treat the yarns as traditional UD composite lamina to predict
the homogenized elastic properties [177–179]. However, the yarns are
10
Composites Part B 224 (2021) 109152
usually interlaced with each other and subjected to a more complex
stress state, and therefore, failure models derived from UD composite
lamina may not be applicable to yarns. Liu et al. [14] has shown
that the failure criteria commonly used in the fiber-reinforced laminate
result in significant inaccuracy for predicting the failure initiation of
yarns. Utilizing ANN models coupled with a FE model could be a
potential solution to inversely discover the nonlinear constitutive laws
of yarns. As many experimental tests have been performed for various
3D textile composites (e.g., 3D orthogonal [180,181], T-joints [182],
braided [183], and interlaced [184]), these experimental data has
stored very rich constitutive information of yarns. Second, multiscale
modeling can provide a promising solution to the constitutive model of
yarns from the fiber and matrix. However, the computational cost is the
major barrier, especially in nonlinear multiscale modeling. Therefore,
the ANN model can be used as a potential alternative to the high-
fidelity multiscale modeling. Note that the ANN model may need more
training datasets than UD composites because the stress state in the
yarns is more complex due to the interlaced yarn geometries. Fig. 14
shows the two approaches (e.g., forward and inverse) to constructing
the constitutive models of yarns.
X. Liu et al.
4.7. Other applications
There are many other applications of ANN models in the general
constitutive modeling of composites. The general constitutive modeling
can be viewed as a way to describe different mechanical behaviors of
materials in addition to the strain and stress relationship. For example,
the ANN models have been used to predict the ballistic limit [185],
first-ply failure [186], and the effects of embedded defects and fea-
tures [187]. Another interesting application of ANN-based constitutive
models is the design and optimization of additive manufacturing (AM)
process. The AM process has been adopted in many industries as a rapid
and economical solution for manufacturing industrial components and
is increasingly used in fabricating polymer composites [188,189]. The
manufacturing parameters such as raster orientation, layer thickness,
and printing speed can be considered as additional inputs to the ANN
models along with the constituent properties. As pointing out in the
National Academies report of Integrated Computational Materials En-
gineering (ICME) [190], the process has a profound effect on the
effective material properties which should be taken into account in
the design and analysis of advanced materials. The ANN models can
be leveraged to establish such a high-dimensional mapping connecting
manufacturing parameters and constituent properties to the material
constitutive behaviors. The trained ANN model will provide an efficient
approach in the design and optimization of processing parameters
toward fewer-defects, enhanced-performance products.
In addition to the applications reviewed in this paper, the ANN
models can be potentially employed to solve many other problems in
discovering unknown physical laws and accelerating computer simula-
tions for composite materials and structures featuring anisotropy and
heterogeneity.
5. Conclusions
Many ANN models have been developed for the constitutive mod-
eling of composites. Two research topics were reviewed and discussed,
namely discovering unknown constitutive laws and accelerating mul-
tiscale modeling. Discovering unknown constitutive laws requires a
huge number of training datasets with ample constitutive informa-
tion (e.g., paired 2D/3D strains and stresses) from experiments. This
requirement can hardly be satisfied from the currently available exper-
imental data. This review brought a potential solution that is to use
indirect data derived from experimental measurements through some
physics-based models. There are several benefits from this solution.
First, more data from complex experiments, containing rich constitu-
tive information, becomes available as the directly paired data is not
required. Second, the real ANN output needs to go through another
physics-based model, which enforces the ANN model to follow certain
physical constraints, avoiding the physically inconsistent predictions.
Third, this approach enables learning nonlinear constitutive laws at the
scale of the constituents with the data from coupon or structural tests,
which can be applied to multiscale inverse problems.
Accelerating multiscale modeling can be summarized into three
major steps. First, training datasets are generated by offline simula-
tions using FEA (e.g., RVE model). Second, the ANN models are then
trained with tuned hyperparameters and tested to ensure accuracy.
Third, the trained ANN models are implemented into FEA via a user-
defined material subroutine. The major challenges are to reduce the
cost of data generation from physics-based models and to add physical
interpretability to the ANN model. Several research directions were
discussed in the paper such as adding physical constraints, developing
more efficient physics-based models, and using multi-fidelity data.
Finally, the recent efforts in the modeling of composite materials
showed a trend toward applying ANN models in conjunction with
physics, experiments and data science, which created a hybrid system
utilizing full potentials from each element (see Fig. 15). Bringing
physics into ANN models will reduce the requirement of the size of
11
Composites Part B 224 (2021) 109152
Fig. 15. Integrated ANN model with physics, experiments, and data science.
the training datasets, reduce the potential physically inconsistent pre-
diction [191], and enhance the physical interpretability. Appropriately
designed experiments with enriched constitutive information combined
with physics-based models will expand the data availability for training
ANN models. The methods from data science can be used to preprocess
the training data (e.g., principal component analysis [192,193]) to re-
duce the input dimensions which will greatly reduce the computational
costs. The key challenge is to connect different elements into a single
system so that the ANN models can keep tracking the information
across different elements. The future research directions highlighted in
this paper will stimulate further discussions and studies in tapping into
the potential of machine learning and artificial intelligence for better
modeling of composite materials and structures.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Dimiduk DM, Holm EA, Niezgoda SR. Perspectives on the impact of machine
learning, deep learning, and artificial intelligence on materials, processes, and
structures engineering. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 2018;7(3):157–72.
[2] Peng GC, Alber M, Tepole AB, Cannon WR, De S, Dura-Bernal S, Garikipati K,
Karniadakis G, Lytton WW, Perdikaris P, et al. Multiscale modeling meets
machine learning: What can we learn? Arch Comput Methods Eng 2020;1–21.
[3] Abadi M, Agarwal A, Barham P, Brevdo E, Chen Z, Citro C, Corrado GS, Davis A,
Dean J, Devin M, Ghemawat S, Goodfellow I, Harp A, Irving G, Isard M,
Jia Y, Jozefowicz R, Kaiser L, Kudlur M, Levenberg J, Mané D, Monga R,
Moore S, Murray D, Olah C, Schuster M, Shlens J, Steiner B, Sutskever I,
Talwar K, Tucker P, Vanhoucke V, Vasudevan V, Viégas F, Vinyals O, Warden P,
Wattenberg M, Wicke M, Yu Y, Zheng X. TensorFlow: Large-scale machine
learning on heterogeneous systems. 2015, URL: https://www.tensorflow.org/,
Software available from tensorflow.org.
[4] Paszke A, Gross S, Chintala S, Chanan G, Yang E, DeVito Z, Lin Z, Desmai-
son A, Antiga L, Lerer A. Automatic differentiation in PyTorch. In: NIPS 2017
autodiff workshop: The future of gradient-based machine learning software and
techniques. 2017.
[5] Dolbow JE, Garikipati K, Park HS. Computational mechanics vision and future
challenges workshop report. Technical Report, Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan; 2019.
[6] de Souza Neto EA, Peric D, Owen DR. Computational methods for plasticity:
Theory and applications. John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
[7] Hahn HT, Tsai SW. Nonlinear elastic behavior of unidirectional composite
laminae. J Compos Mater 1973;7(1):102–18.
[8] Hu H-T, Lin W-P, Tu F-T. Failure analysis of fiber-reinforced composite
laminates subjected to biaxial loads. Composites B 2015;83:153–65.
[9] Zhang L, Yu W. Constitutive modeling of damageable brittle and quasi-brittle
materials. Int J Solids Struct 2017;117:80–90.
[10] Rique O, Liu X, Yu W, Pipes RB. Constitutive modeling for time-
and temperature-dependent behavior of composites. Composites B
2020;184:107726.
[11] Hinton M, Soden P, Kaddour A-S. Failure criteria in fibre reinforced polymer
composites: The world-wide failure exercise. Elsevier; 2004.
X. Liu et al.
[12] Hinton M, Kaddour A. Triaxial test results for fibre-reinforced composites:
The second world-wide failure exercise benchmark data. J Compos Mater
2013;47(6–7):653–78.
[13] Geers MG, Kouznetsova VG, Matouš K, Yvonnet J. Homogenization methods
and multiscale modeling: nonlinear problems. In: Encyclopedia of computational
mechanics second edition. Wiley Online Library; 2017, p. 1–34.
[14] Liu X, Gasco F, Goodsell J, Yu W. Initial failure strength prediction of woven
composites using a new yarn failure criterion constructed by deep learning.
Compos Struct 2019;230:111505.
[15] Furukawa T, Yagawa G. Implicit constitutive modelling for viscoplasticity using
neural networks. Internat J Numer Methods Engrg 1998;43(2):195–219.
[16] Csáji BC. Approximation with artificial neural networks, Vol. 24. Hungary:
Faculty of Sciences, Etvs Lornd University; 2001, p. 48.
[17] Xu K, Huang DZ, Darve E. Learning constitutive relations using symmetric
positive definite neural networks. J Comput Phys 2021;428:110072.
[18] Ghaboussi J, Garrett Jr J, Wu X. Knowledge-based modeling of material
behavior with neural networks. J Eng Mech 1991;117(1):132–53.
[19] Ghaboussi J, Sidarta D. New nested adaptive neural networks (NANN) for
constitutive modeling. Comput Geotech 1998;22(1):29–52.
[20] Ghaboussi J, Pecknold DA, Zhang M, Haj-Ali RM. Autoprogressive training
of neural network constitutive models. Internat J Numer Methods Engrg
1998;42(1):105–26.
[21] Hashash Y, Jung S, Ghaboussi J. Numerical implementation of a neural network
based material model in finite element analysis. Internat J Numer Methods
Engrg 2004;59(7):989–1005.
[22] Jung S, Ghaboussi J. Neural network constitutive model for rate-dependent
materials. Comput Struct 2006;84(15–16):955–63.
[23] Yun GJ, Ghaboussi J, Elnashai AS. A new neural network-based model
for hysteretic behavior of materials. Internat J Numer Methods Engrg
2008;73(4):447–69.
[24] Shin H, Pande G. On self-learning finite element codes based on monitored
response of structures. Comput Geotech 2000;27(3):161–78.
[25] Yun GJ, Ghaboussi J, Elnashai AS. Self-learning simulation method for inverse
nonlinear modeling of cyclic behavior of connections. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Engrg 2008;197(33–40):2836–57.
[26] Huang DZ, Xu K, Farhat C, Darve E. Learning constitutive relations from indirect
observations using deep neural networks. J Comput Phys 2020;416:109491.
[27] Liu X, Tao F, Du H, Yu W, Xu K. Learning nonlinear constitutive laws using
neural network models based on indirectly measurable data. J Appl Mech
2020;87(8).
[28] Liu X, Tao F, Yu W. A neural network enhanced system for learning nonlinear
constitutive law and failure initiation criterion of composites using indirectly
measurable data. Compos Struct 2020;252:112658.
[29] Xu K, Tartakovsky AM, Burghardt J, Darve E. Inverse modeling of viscoelasticity
materials using physics constrained learning. 2020, arxiv preprint arXiv:2005.
04384.
[30] Kirchdoerfer T, Ortiz M. Data-driven computational mechanics. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Engrg 2016;304:81–101.
[31] Eggersmann R, Kirchdoerfer T, Reese S, Stainier L, Ortiz M. Model-free
data-driven inelasticity. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg 2019;350:81–99.
[32] Conti S, Müller S, Ortiz M. Data-driven finite elasticity. Arch Ration Mech Anal
2020;237:1–33.
[33] Ibañez R, Borzacchiello D, Aguado JV, Abisset-Chavanne E, Cueto E, Lade-
vèze P, Chinesta F. Data-driven non-linear elasticity: constitutive manifold
construction and problem discretization. Comput Mech 2017;60(5):813–26.
[34] Ibanez R, Abisset-Chavanne E, Aguado JV, Gonzalez D, Cueto E, Chinesta F.
A manifold learning approach to data-driven computational elasticity and
inelasticity. Arch Comput Methods Eng 2018;25(1):47–57.
[35] Ibáñez R, Abisset-Chavanne E, González D, Duval J-L, Cueto E, Chinesta F.
Hybrid constitutive modeling: data-driven learning of corrections to plasticity
models. Int J Mater Form 2019;12(4):717–25.
[36] Najjar YM, Huang C. Simulating the stress–strain behavior of Georgia kaolin
via recurrent neuronet approach. Comput Geotech 2007;34(5):346–61.
[37] Mahdi E-S, El Kadi H. Crushing behavior of laterally compressed composite
elliptical tubes: experiments and predictions using artificial neural networks.
Compos Struct 2008;83(4):399–412.
[38] Zopf C, Kaliske M. Numerical characterisation of uncured elastomers by a neural
network based approach. Comput Struct 2017;182:504–25.
[39] Rodríguez-Sánchez AE, Ledesma-Orozco E, Ledesma S, Vidal-Lesso A. Appli-
cation of artificial neural networks to map the mechanical response of a
thermoplastic elastomer. Mater Res Express 2019;6(7):075320.
[40] Li X, Roth CC, Mohr D. Machine-learning based temperature-and rate-dependent
plasticity model: application to analysis of fracture experiments on DP steel. Int
J Plast 2019;118:320–44.
[41] Tang S, Zhang G, Yang H, Li Y, Liu WK, Guo X. MAP123: A data-driven
approach to use 1D data for 3D nonlinear elastic materials modeling. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Engrg 2019;357:112587.
12
Composites Part B 224 (2021) 109152
[42] Xu K, Darve E. Physics constrained learning for data-driven inverse modeling
from sparse observations. 2020, arxiv preprint arXiv:2002.10521.
[43] Tao F, Liu X, Du H, Yu W. Learning composite constitutive laws via coupling
Abaqus and deep neural network. Compos Struct 2021;272:114137.
[44] Sun C, Vaidya R. Prediction of composite properties from a representative
volume element. Compos Sci Technol 1996;56(2):171–9.
[45] Lomov SV, Ivanov DS, Verpoest I, Zako M, Kurashiki T, Nakai H, Hirosawa S.
Meso-FE modelling of textile composites: Road map, data flow and algorithms.
Compos Sci Technol 2007;67(9):1870–91.
[46] Guedes J, Kikuchi N. Preprocessing and postprocessing for materials based on
the homogenization method with adaptive finite element methods. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Engrg 1990;83(2):143–98.
[47] Fish J, Yu Q, Shek K. Computational damage mechanics for composite materials
based on mathematical homogenization. Internat J Numer Methods Engrg
1999;45(11):1657–79.
[48] Yu W. A unified theory for constitutive modeling of composites. J Mech Mater
Struct 2016;11(4):379–411.
[49] Liu X, Rouf K, Peng B, Yu W. Two-step homogenization of textile composites
using mechanics of structure genome. Compos Struct 2017;171:252–62.
[50] Liu X, Yu W, Gasco F, Goodsell J. A unified approach for thermoelastic
constitutive modeling of composite structures. Composites B 2019;172:649–59.
[51] Aboudi J. The generalized method of cells and high-fidelity generalized
method of cells micromechanical models—A review. Mech Adv Mater Struct
2004;11(4–5):329–66.
[52] Aboudi J, Arnold SM, Bednarcyk BA. Micromechanics of composite materials:
A generalized multiscale analysis approach. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2012.
[53] Omairey SL, Dunning PD, Sriramula S. Development of an ABAQUS plugin tool
for periodic RVE homogenisation. Eng Comput 2019;35(2):567–77.
[54] Liu X, Gasco F, Yu W, Goodsell J, Rouf K. Multiscale analysis of woven
composite structures in MSC.Nastran. Adv Eng Softw 2019;135:102677.
[55] Yvonnet J. Computational homogenization of heterogeneous materials with
finite elements. Springer; 2019.
[56] Yan S, Zou X, Ilkhani M, Jones A. An efficient multiscale surrogate modelling
framework for composite materials considering progressive damage based on
artificial neural networks. Composites B 2020;194:108014.
[57] Mentges N, Dashtbozorg B, Mirkhalaf S. A micromechanics-based artificial neu-
ral networks model for elastic properties of short fiber composites. Composites
B 2021;108736.
[58] Breuer K, Stommel M. Prediction of short fiber composite properties by an
artificial neural network trained on an RVE database. Fibers 2021;9(2):8.
[59] Balokas G, Czichon S, Rolfes R. Neural network assisted multiscale analysis for
the elastic properties prediction of 3D braided composites under uncertainty.
Compos Struct 2018;183:550–62.
[60] Feyel F, Chaboche J-L. FE2 multiscale approach for modelling the elastovis-
coplastic behaviour of long fibre SiC/Ti composite materials. Comput Methods
Appl Mech Engrg 2000;183(3–4):309–30.
[61] Geers MG, Kouznetsova VG, Brekelmans W. Multi-scale computational homog-
enization: Trends and challenges. J Comput Appl Math 2010;234(7):2175–82.
[62] Arnold SM, Piekenbrock M, Ricks TM, Stuckner J. Multiscale analysis of
composites using surrogate modeling and information optimal designs. In: AIAA
scitech 2020 forum. 2020, p. 1863.
[63] Stuckner J, Graeber S, Weborg B, Ricks TM, Arnold SM. Tractable multiscale
modeling with an embedded microscale surrogate. In: AIAA scitech 2021 forum.
2021, p. 1963.
[64] Lefik M, Schrefler BA. Artificial neural network as an incremental non-linear
constitutive model for a finite element code. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg
2003;192(28–30):3265–83.
[65] Lefik M, Boso D, Schrefler B. Artificial neural networks in numerical modelling
of composites. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg 2009;198(21–26):1785–804.
[66] Unger JF, Könke C. Neural networks as material models within a multiscale
approach. Comput Struct 2009;87(19–20):1177–86.
[67] Le B, Yvonnet J, He Q-C. Computational homogenization of nonlinear
elastic materials using neural networks. Internat J Numer Methods Engrg
2015;104(12):1061–84.
[68] Lu X, Giovanis DG, Yvonnet J, Papadopoulos V, Detrez F, Bai J. A data-
driven computational homogenization method based on neural networks for the
nonlinear anisotropic electrical response of graphene/polymer nanocomposites.
Comput Mech 2019;64(2):307–21.
[69] Liu Z, Bessa M, Liu WK. Self-consistent clustering analysis: an efficient multi-
scale scheme for inelastic heterogeneous materials. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Engrg 2016;306:319–41.
[70] Bessa M, Bostanabad R, Liu Z, Hu A, Apley DW, Brinson C, Chen W,
Liu WK. A framework for data-driven analysis of materials under uncertainty:
Countering the curse of dimensionality. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg
2017;320:633–67.
X. Liu et al.
[71] Yan W, Lin S, Kafka OL, Lian Y, Yu C, Liu Z, Yan J, Wolff S, Wu H,
Ndip-Agbor E, et al. Data-driven multi-scale multi-physics models to derive
process–structure–property relationships for additive manufacturing. Comput
Mech 2018;61(5):521–41.
[72] Li H, Kafka OL, Gao J, Yu C, Nie Y, Zhang L, Tajdari M, Tang S, Guo X,
Li G, et al. Clustering discretization methods for generation of material
performance databases in machine learning and design optimization. Comput
Mech 2019;64(2):281–305.
[73] Wang K, Sun W. A multiscale multi-permeability poroplasticity model linked
by recursive homogenizations and deep learning. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Engrg 2018;334:337–80.
[74] Wang K, Sun W. Meta-modeling game for deriving theory-consistent,
microstructure-based traction–separation laws via deep reinforcement learning.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg 2019;346:216–41.
[75] Wang K, Sun W, Du Q. A cooperative game for automated learning of
elasto-plasticity knowledge graphs and models with AI-guided experimentation.
Comput Mech 2019;64(2):467–99.
[76] Vlassis N, Ma R, Sun W. Geometric deep learning for computational mechanics
Part I: Anisotropic hyperelasticity. 2020, arxiv preprint arXiv:2001.04292.
[77] Koeppe A, Bamer F, Markert B. An intelligent nonlinear meta element for
elastoplastic continua: deep learning using a new time-distributed residual
U-Net architecture. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg 2020;366:113088.
[78] Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A, Bengio Y. Deep learning, Vol. 1.
Cambridge: MIT press; 2016.
[79] Li B, Zhuang X. Multiscale computation on feedforward neural network and
recurrent neural network. Front Struct Civ Eng 2020;14(6):1–14.
[80] Liu Z, Wu C, Koishi M. A deep material network for multiscale topology learn-
ing and accelerated nonlinear modeling of heterogeneous materials. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Engrg 2019;345:1138–68.
[81] Liu Z, Wu C. Exploring the 3D architectures of deep material network in
data-driven multiscale mechanics. J Mech Phys Solids 2019;127:20–46.
[82] Liu Z, Wu C, Koishi M. Transfer learning of deep material network for seamless
structure–property predictions. Comput Mech 2019;64(2):451–65.
[83] Liu Z. Deep material network with cohesive layers: Multi-stage train-
ing and interfacial failure analysis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg
2020;363:112913.
[84] Liu Z, Wei H, Huang T, Wu C. Intelligent multiscale simulation based on
process-guided composite database. 2020, arxiv preprint arXiv:2003.09491.
[85] Wu L, Zulueta K, Major Z, Arriaga A, Noels L. Bayesian inference of non-linear
multiscale model parameters accelerated by a deep neural network. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Engrg 2020;360:112693.
[86] Rocha I, Kerfriden P, van der Meer F. Micromechanics-based surrogate models
for the response of composites: A critical comparison between a classical
mesoscale constitutive model, hyper-reduction and neural networks. Eur J Mech
A Solids 2020;82:103995.
[87] Mozaffar M, Bostanabad R, Chen W, Ehmann K, Cao J, Bessa M. Deep learning
predicts path-dependent plasticity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2019;116(52):26414–20.
[88] Nguyen-Thanh VM, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. A deep energy method for finite
deformation hyperelasticity. Eur J Mech A Solids 2020;80:103874.
[89] Yang H, Guo X, Tang S, Liu WK. Derivation of heterogeneous material laws via
data-driven principal component expansions. Comput Mech 2019;64(2):365–79.
[90] Sagiyama K, Garikipati K. Machine learning materials physics: Deep neural
networks trained on elastic free energy data from martensitic microstructures
predict homogenized stress fields with high accuracy. 2019, arxiv preprint
arXiv:1901.00524.
[91] Fritzen F, Kunc O. Two-stage data-driven homogenization for nonlinear solids
using a reduced order model. Eur J Mech A Solids 2018;69:201–20.
[92] Im S, Kim H, Kim W, Cho M. Neural network constitutive model for crystal
structures. Comput Mech 2021;67(1):185–206.
[93] Yuan M, Paradiso S, Meredig B, Niezgoda SR. Machine learning–based reduce
order crystal plasticity modeling for ICME applications. Integr Mater Manuf
Innov 2018;7(4):214–30.
[94] Chung I, Im S, Cho M. A neural network constitutive model for hyperelasticity
based on molecular dynamics simulations. Internat J Numer Methods Engrg
2021;122(1):5–24.
[95] Rahman A, Deshpande P, Radue MS, Odegard GM, Gowtham S, Ghosh S,
Spear AD. A machine learning framework for predicting the shear strength of
carbon nanotube-polymer interfaces based on molecular dynamics simulation
data. Compos Sci Technol 2021;207:108627.
[96] Oishi A, Yagawa G. Computational mechanics enhanced by deep learning.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg 2017;327:327–51.
[97] Capuano G, Rimoli JJ. Smart finite elements: A novel machine learning
application. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg 2019;345:363–81.
[98] Wei H, Zhao S, Rong Q, Bao H. Predicting the effective thermal conductivities
of composite materials and porous media by machine learning methods. Int J
Heat Mass Transfer 2018;127:908–16.
13
Composites Part B 224 (2021) 109152
[99] Rong Q, Wei H, Huang X, Bao H. Predicting the effective thermal conductivity
of composites from cross sections images using deep learning methods. Compos
Sci Technol 2019;184:107861.
[100] Liu X, Peng B, Yu W. Multiscale modeling of the effective thermal conductivity
of 2d woven composites by mechanics of structure genome and neural networks.
Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2021;179:121673.
[101] Yang H, Qiu H, Xiang Q, Tang S, Guo X. Exploring elastoplastic constitu-
tive law of microstructured materials through artificial neural network—A
mechanistic-based data-driven approach. J Appl Mech 2020;87(9).
[102] Zhang A, Mohr D. Using neural networks to represent von Mises plasticity with
isotropic hardening. Int J Plast 2020;132:102732.
[103] Wu L, Kilingar NG, Noels L, et al. A recurrent neural network-accelerated multi-
scale model for elasto-plastic heterogeneous materials subjected to random
cyclic and non-proportional loading paths. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg
2020;369:113234.
[104] Stoffel M, Bamer F, Markert B. Artificial neural networks and intelli-
gent finite elements in non-linear structural mechanics. Thin-Walled Struct
2018;131:102–6.
[105] Stoffel M, Bamer F, Markert B. Neural network based constitutive modeling of
nonlinear viscoplastic structural response. Mech Res Commun 2019;95:85–8.
[106] Ghavamian F, Simone A. Accelerating multiscale finite element simulations of
history-dependent materials using a recurrent neural network. Comput Methods
Appl Mech Engrg 2019;357:112594.
[107] Stoffel M, Bamer F, Markert B. Deep convolutional neural networks in structural
dynamics under consideration of viscoplastic material behaviour. Mech Res
Commun 2020;103565.
[108] Shen Y, Chandrashekhara K, Breig W, Oliver L. Finite element analysis of V-
ribbed belts using neural network based hyperelastic material model. Int J
Non-Linear Mech 2005;40(6):875–90.
[109] Hambli R, Katerchi H, Benhamou C-L. Multiscale methodology for bone remod-
elling simulation using coupled finite element and neural network computation.
Biomech Model Mechanobiol 2011;10(1):133–45.
[110] Settgast C, Hütter G, Kuna M, Abendroth M. A hybrid approach to simulate the
homogenized irreversible elastic–plastic deformations and damage of foams by
neural networks. Int J Plast 2020;126:102624.
[111] Fernández M, Rezaei S, Mianroodi JR, Fritzen F, Reese S. Application of
artificial neural networks for the prediction of interface mechanics: a study on
grain boundary constitutive behavior. Adv Model Simul Eng Sci 2020;7(1):1–27.
[112] Jabbar H, Khan RZ. Methods to avoid over-fitting and under-fitting in su-
pervised machine learning (comparative study). Comput Sci Commun Instrum
Devices 2015;163–72.
[113] Nielsen MA. Neural networks and deep learning, Vol. 2018. San Francisco, CA,
USA: Determination press; 2015.
[114] D Systemes. Abaqus user subroutines reference guide, version 6.14. Providence,
RI, USA: Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp.; 2014.
[115] Raissi M, Perdikaris P, Karniadakis GE. Physics-informed neural networks: A
deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving
nonlinear partial differential equations. J Comput Phys 2019;378:686–707.
[116] Tao F, Liu X, Du H, Yu W. Physics-informed artificial neural network ap-
proach for axial compression buckling analysis of thin-walled cylinder. AIAA J
2020;58(6):2737–47.
[117] Zhang R, Liu Y, Sun H. Physics-informed multi-LSTM networks for meta-
modeling of nonlinear structures. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg
2020;369:113226.
[118] Masi F, Stefanou I, Vannucci P, Maffi-Berthier V. Thermodynamics-based
artificial neural networks for constitutive modeling. J Mech Phys Solids
2021;147:104277.
[119] Liu Z, Fleming M, Liu WK. Microstructural material database for self-consistent
clustering analysis of elastoplastic strain softening materials. Comput Methods
Appl Mech Engrg 2018;330:547–77.
[120] Rocha I, van der Meer F, Sluys L. An adaptive domain-based POD/ECM hyper-
reduced modeling framework without offline training. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Engrg 2020;358:112650.
[121] Michel J-C, Suquet P. Non-uniform transformation field analysis: a reduced
model for multiscale non-linear problems in solid mechanics. In: Multiscale
modeling in solid mechanics: Computational approaches. World Scientific; 2010,
p. 159–206.
[122] Liu D, Wang Y. Multi-fidelity physics-constrained neural network and its
application in materials modeling. J Mech Des 2019;141(12).
[123] Yoo K, Bacarreza O, Aliabadi MF. A novel multi-fidelity modelling-based
framework for reliability-based design optimisation of composite structures. Eng
Comput 2020;1–14.
[124] Tian K, Ma X, Li Z, Lin S, Wang B, Waas AM. A multi-fidelity competitive sam-
pling method for surrogate-based stacking sequence optimization of composite
shells with multiple cutouts. Int J Solids Struct 2020;193:1–12.
[125] Meng X, Karniadakis GE. A composite neural network that learns from multi-
fidelity data: Application to function approximation and inverse PDE problems.
J Comput Phys 2020;401:109020.
X. Liu et al.
[126] Yao H, Gao Y, Liu Y. FEA-Net: A physics-guided data-driven model for
efficient mechanical response prediction. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg
2020;363:112892.
[127] Gao Y, Yao H, Wei H, Liu Y. Physics-based deep learning for probabilistic
fracture analysis of composite materials. In: AIAA scitech 2020 forum. 2020,
p. 1860.
[128] Zobeiry N, Reiner J, Vaziri R. Theory-guided machine learning for damage
characterization of composites. Compos Struct 2020;112407.
[129] Bisagni C, Lanzi L. Post-buckling optimisation of composite stiffened panels
using neural networks. Compos Struct 2002;58(2):237–47.
[130] Abouhamze M, Shakeri M. Multi-objective stacking sequence optimization of
laminated cylindrical panels using a genetic algorithm and neural networks.
Compos Struct 2007;81(2):253–63.
[131] Marín L, Trias D, Badalló P, Rus G, Mayugo J. Optimization of composite stiff-
ened panels under mechanical and hygrothermal loads using neural networks
and genetic algorithms. Compos Struct 2012;94(11):3321–6.
[132] Fu X, Ricci S, Bisagni C. Minimum-weight design for three dimensional woven
composite stiffened panels using neural networks and genetic algorithms.
Compos Struct 2015;134:708–15.
[133] Yazdi MS, Rostami SL, Kolahdooz A. Optimization of geometrical parameters in
a specific composite lattice structure using neural networks and ABC algorithm.
J Mech Sci Technol 2016;30(4):1763–71.
[134] Garmsiri K, Jalal M. Multiobjective optimization of composite cylindrical shells
for strength and frequency using genetic algorithm and neural networks. Sci
Eng Compos Mater 2014;21(4):529–36.
[135] Gomes GF, Diniz CA, da Cunha SS, Ancelotti AC. Design optimization of
composite prosthetic tubes using ga-ann algorithm considering tsai-wu failure
criteria. J Fail Anal Prev 2017;17(4):740–9.
[136] Abueidda DW, Koric S, Sobh NA. Topology optimization of 2D structures with
nonlinearities using deep learning. Comput Struct 2020;237:106283.
[137] Wilt JK, Yang C, Gu GX. Accelerating auxetic metamaterial design with deep
learning. Adv Energy Mater 2020;22(5):1901266.
[138] Nie Z, Jiang H, Kara LB. Stress field prediction in cantilevered structures using
convolutional neural networks. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 2020;20(1).
[139] Banga S, Gehani H, Bhilare S, Patel S, Kara L. 3D topology optimization using
convolutional neural networks. 2018, arxiv preprint arXiv:1808.07440.
[140] Gu GX, Chen C-T, Buehler MJ. De novo composite design based on machine
learning algorithm. Extreme Mech Lett 2018;18:19–28.
[141] Chen C-T, Gu GX. Generative deep neural networks for inverse materials design
using backpropagation and active learning. Adv Sci 2020;7(5):1902607.
[142] Bassir DH, Guessasma S, Boubakar L. Hybrid computational strategy based
on ANN and GAPS: application for identification of a non-linear model of
composite material. Compos Struct 2009;88(2):262–70.
[143] Komninelli F, Iliopoulos A, Michopoulos JG. Towards identification of lower
scale composite material properties from higher scale experimental data via
inverse analysis of coupled multiscale models. In: ASME 2015 international
design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in
engineering conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital
Collection; 2015.
[144] Surjadi JU, Gao L, Du H, Li X, Xiong X, Fang NX, Lu Y. Mechani-
cal metamaterials and their engineering applications. Adv Energy Mater
2019;21(3):1800864.
[145] Tao R, Ji L, Li Y, Wan Z, Hu W, Wu W, Liao B, Ma L, Fang D. 4D printed
origami metamaterials with tunable compression twist behavior and stress-strain
curves. Composites B 2020;201:108344.
[146] Osman MM, Shazly M, El-Danaf EA, Jamshidi P, Attallah MM. Compressive
behavior of stretched and composite microlattice metamaterial for energy
absorption applications. Composites B 2020;184:107715.
[147] Wang Q, Li Z, Zhang Y, Cui S, Yang Z, Lu Z. Ultra-low density architec-
tured metamaterial with superior mechanical properties and energy absorption
capability. Composites B 2020;202:108379.
[148] van Bree S, Rokoš O, Peerlings R, Doškář M, Geers M. A Newton solver
for micromorphic computational homogenization enabling multiscale buckling
analysis of pattern-transforming metamaterials. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Engrg 2020;372:113333.
[149] Tan X, Zhu S, Wang B, Yao K, Chen S, Xu P, Wang L, Sun Y. Mechanical
response of negative stiffness truncated-conical shell systems: experiment,
numerical simulation and empirical model. Composites B 2020;188:107898.
[150] Essassi K, Rebiere J-l, El Mahi A, Souf MAB, Bouguecha A, Haddar M.
Experimental and analytical investigation of the bending behaviour of 3D-
printed bio-based sandwich structures composites with auxetic core under cyclic
fatigue tests. Composites A 2020;131:105775.
[151] Yu H, Liang B, Zhao Z, Liu P, Lei H, Song W, Chen M, Guo X. Metama-
terials with a controllable thermal-mechanical stability: mechanical designs,
theoretical predictions and experimental demonstrations. Compos Sci Technol
2021;108694.
14
Composites Part B 224 (2021) 109152
[152] Zheng X, Smith W, Jackson J, Moran B, Cui H, Chen D, Ye J, Fang N,
Rodriguez N, Weisgraber T, et al. Multiscale metallic metamaterials. Nature
Mater 2016;15(10):1100–6.
[153] Hu C, Dong J, Luo J, Qin Q-H, Sun G. 3D printing of chiral carbon fiber
reinforced polylactic acid composites with negative Poisson’s ratios. Composites
B 2020;201:108400.
[154] Sridhar A, Kouznetsova VG, Geers MG. A general multiscale framework for
the emergent effective elastodynamics of metamaterials. J Mech Phys Solids
2018;111:414–33.
[155] Xue T, Beatson A, Chiaramonte M, Roeder G, Ash JT, Menguc Y, Adri-
aenssens S, Adams RP, Mao S. A data-driven computational scheme for the
nonlinear mechanical properties of cellular mechanical metamaterials under
large deformation. Soft Matter 2020;16(32):7524–34.
[156] Kollmann HT, Abueidda DW, Koric S, Guleryuz E, Sobh NA. Deep learning for
topology optimization of 2D metamaterials. Mater Des 2020;196:109098.
[157] Wu W, Hu W, Qian G, Liao H, Xu X, Berto F. Mechanical design and
multifunctional applications of chiral mechanical metamaterials: A review.
Mater Des 2019;180:107950.
[158] Jiao P, Alavi AH. Artificial intelligence-enabled smart mechanical metamateri-
als: advent and future trends. Int Mater Rev 2020;1–29.
[159] Kessler SS, Spearing SM, Atalla MJ, Cesnik CE, Soutis C. Damage detec-
tion in composite materials using frequency response methods. Composites B
2002;33(1):87–95.
[160] McCrory JP, Al-Jumaili SK, Crivelli D, Pearson MR, Eaton MJ, Featherston CA,
Guagliano M, Holford KM, Pullin R. Damage classification in carbon fibre com-
posites using acoustic emission: A comparison of three techniques. Composites
B 2015;68:424–30.
[161] Ramasamy P, Sampathkumar S. Prediction of impact damage tolerance of drop
impacted WGFRP composite by artificial neural network using acoustic emission
parameters. Composites B 2014;60:457–62.
[162] Sony S, Dunphy K, Sadhu A, Capretz M. A systematic review of convolutional
neural network-based structural condition assessment techniques. Eng Struct
2021;226:111347.
[163] Modarres C, Astorga N, Droguett EL, Meruane V. Convolutional neural networks
for automated damage recognition and damage type identification. Struct
Control Health Monit 2018;25(10):e2230.
[164] Tabian I, Fu H, Sharif Khodaei Z. A convolutional neural network for im-
pact detection and characterization of complex composite structures. Sensors
2019;19(22):4933.
[165] Khan A, Ko D-K, Lim SC, Kim HS. Structural vibration-based classification and
prediction of delamination in smart composite laminates using deep learning
neural network. Composites B 2019;161:586–94.
[166] Yang Z, Yabansu YC, Al-Bahrani R, Liao W-k, Choudhary AN, Kalidindi SR,
Agrawal A. Deep learning approaches for mining structure-property linkages
in high contrast composites from simulation datasets. Comput Mater Sci
2018;151:278–87.
[167] Rao C, Liu Y. Three-dimensional convolutional neural network (3D-CNN) for
heterogeneous material homogenization. Comput Mater Sci 2020;184:109850.
[168] Dong H, Nie Y, Cui J, Kou W, Zou M, Han J, Guan X, Yang Z. A wavelet-
based learning approach assisted multiscale analysis for estimating the effective
thermal conductivities of particulate composites. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Engrg 2021;374:113591.
[169] Sorini A, Pineda EJ, Stuckner J, Gustafson PA. A convolutional neural network
for multiscale modeling of composite materials. In: AIAA scitech 2021 forum.
2021, p. 0310.
[170] Ye Z, Liu C, Tian W, Kan C. A deep learning approach for the identification of
small process shifts in additive manufacturing using 3D point clouds. Procedia
Manuf 2020;48:770–5.
[171] Sung DH, Kang G-H, Kong K, Kim M, Park HW, Park Y-B. Characteri-
zation of thermoelectric properties of multifunctional multiscale composites
and fiber-reinforced composites for thermal energy harvesting. Composites B
2016;92:202–9.
[172] Tang T, Yu W. Variational asymptotic micromechanics modeling of
heterogeneous piezoelectric materials. Mech Mater 2008;40(10):812–24.
[173] Tang T, Yu W. Variational asymptotic homogenization of heterogeneous
electromagnetoelastic materials. Internat J Engrg Sci 2008;46(8):741–57.
[174] Ullah Z, Zhou X-Y, Kaczmarczyk L, Archer E, McIlhagger A, Harkin-Jones E.
A unified framework for the multi-scale computational homogenisation of
3D-textile composites. Composites B 2019;167:582–98.
[175] Patel DK, Waas AM, Yen C-F. Direct numerical simulation of 3D woven textile
composites subjected to tensile loading: An experimentally validated multiscale
approach. Composites B 2018;152:102–15.
[176] Zhang D, Waas AM, Yen C-F. Progressive damage and failure response of hybrid
3D textile composites subjected to flexural loading, part II: Mechanics based
multiscale computational modeling of progressive damage and failure. Int J
Solids Struct 2015;75:321–35.
X. Liu et al.
[177] Dixit A, Mali HS. Modeling techniques for predicting the mechanical prop-
erties of woven-fabric textile composites: a review. Mech Compos Mater
2013;49(1):1–20.
[178] Rahali Y, Assidi M, Goda I, Zghal A, Ganghoffer J-F. Computation of the
effective mechanical properties including nonclassical moduli of 2.5D and 3D
interlocks by micromechanical approaches. Composites B 2016;98:194–212.
[179] Zhai J, Zeng T, Xu G-d, Wang Z-h, Cheng S, Fang D-n. A multi-scale finite
element method for failure analysis of three-dimensional braided composite
structures. Composites B 2017;110:476–86.
[180] Hale R. An experimental investigation into strain distribution in 2D and 3D
textile composites. Compos Sci Technol 2003;63(15):2171–85.
[181] Zhang D, Waas AM, Yen C-F. Progressive damage and failure response of hybrid
3D textile composites subjected to flexural loading, part I: Experimental studies.
Int J Solids Struct 2015;75:309–20.
[182] Yan S, Zeng X, Long A. Experimental assessment of the mechanical behaviour
of 3D woven composite T-joints. Composites B 2018;154:108–13.
[183] Ahn H, Yu W-R. Mechanical analysis of 3D braided and woven composites using
fiber-based continuum analysis. Compos Struct 2017;160:1105–18.
[184] Kerber A, Gargano A, Pingkarawat K, Mouritz A. Explosive blast dam-
age resistance of three-dimensional textile composites. Composites A
2017;100:170–82.
[185] Artero-Guerrero J, Pernas-Sánchez J, Martín-Montal J, Varas D, López-Puente J.
The influence of laminate stacking sequence on ballistic limit using a combined
experimental/FEM/Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) methodology. Compos
Struct 2018;183:299–308.
15
Composites Part B 224 (2021) 109152
[186] Ang J, Majid MA, Nor AM, Yaacob S, Ridzuan M. First-ply failure prediction of
glass/epoxy composite pipes using an artificial neural network model. Compos
Struct 2018;200:579–88.
[187] El Said B, Hallett SR. Multiscale surrogate modelling of the elastic response of
thick composite structures with embedded defects and features. Compos Struct
2018;200:781–98.
[188] El Moumen A, Tarfaoui M, Lafdi K. Additive manufacturing of poly-
mer composites: Processing and modeling approaches. Composites B
2019;171:166–82.
[189] Penumakala PK, Santo J, Thomas A. A critical review on the fused deposition
modeling of thermoplastic polymer composites. Composites B 2020;108336.
[190] Council NR, et al. Integrated computational materials engineering: A trans-
formational discipline for improved competitiveness and national security.
National Academies Press; 2008.
[191] Karpatne A, Watkins W, Read J, Kumar V. Physics-guided neural networks
(pgnn): An application in lake temperature modeling. 2017, arxiv preprint
arXiv:1710.11431.
[192] García-Iruela A, Fernández FG, Esteban LG, de Palacios P, Simón C, Arriaga F.
Comparison of modelling using regression techniques and an artificial neural
network for obtaining the static modulus of elasticity of pinus radiata D. Don.
timber by ultrasound. Composites B 2016;96:112–8.
[193] Yang C, Kim Y, Ryu S, Gu GX. Prediction of composite microstruc-
ture stress-strain curves using convolutional neural networks. Mater Des
2020;189:108509.