pubs.acs.

org/IECR Article

Multiscale Model of the RTM Process: From Mesoscale Anisotropic

Permeability of Woven Structures to Macroscale Resin Impregnation
Yang Xiao, Junbo Xu,* Min Wang, Bingyin Wang, Shaojun Yuan, and Chao Yang*

Cite This: Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 8269−8279 Read Online

ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations

See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
Downloaded via VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTER on January 24, 2024 at 07:24:25 (UTC).

ABSTRACT: It is critical to figure out permeability characteristics

of different woven structures for better understanding the resin
impregnation and the formation of dry spot defects during the
resin transfer molding (RTM) process. In this work, we proposed a
multiscale model in which the permeability was derived by
mesoscale simulation of the resin flow in the channel within 3D/
2.5D fiber-woven composites, and then, the obtained anisotropic
permeability was used as the resistance parameter of the porous
model for the RTM process at the macroscale. The proposed
method was validated by a consistency test. The results show that
the in-plane permeability of the woven structures is greater than
the lateral permeability, and it is easier for the 3D woven structure
to impregnate the whole module than the 2.5D woven structure in the RTM process. The multiscale model proposed is expected to
guide the design and optimization of the RTM process for high-performance fiber-reinforced composites.

1. INTRODUCTION plane performance, highly automated technology, and possible

Due to the advantages of low density, high strength, and good
heat resistance, fiber-reinforced composites are widely used in
aerospace, automotive applications, sports goods, and other
fields.1,2 The main commonly employed molding techniques of
composites include hand lay-up, filament winding, vacuum bag
molding, pultrusion, resin transfer molding (RTM), and so
forth. Among them, RTM is widely used in various fields owing
to its excellent characteristics.3 In the RTM process, the resin is
injected into the closed cavity where the reinforcement material
(fiber preform) is placed, and the resin is slowly impregnated
with the reinforcement until the entire cavity is filled and finally
solidified. After filling the mold, the resin is cured, and the final
part is demolded to obtain the finished product.4,5 The
impregnation of resin in the preform can be regarded as a
phenomenon of flowing through the porous medium. The
permeability of the preform is a critical parameter in the RTM
process because it reflects the difficulties for the resin flow to
pass through the fiber reinforcement materials, the development
of the resin flow, and the filling time of the mold. Therefore,
deep insights into the permeability of reinforced materials are of
great significance to optimize the RTM process in the industries.
The permeability of the preform is mainly a function of the
woven structure and its fiber volume fraction (Vf).6 Depending
on the weaving technology, the fiber-reinforced materials can be
in the form of random mats, knits, unidirectional, or non-crimp
stitched fabrics, braids, or woven fabrics.7 The woven fabrics
made by these different technologies can be divided into three
categories: 2D, 2.5D, and 3D. 2D woven is good in terms of in-
overall woven shapes. 2.5D woven fabrics show the advantages
of low cost, short production cycle, and easy preparation of
rotating parts.8,9 Compared with traditional 2D fabrics, 3D
woven composites with internally entangled fiber yarns have
many outstanding mechanical properties, including excellent
delamination resistance, low thermal expansion, and structural
adaptability.10−12 The 2.5D woven composites have excellent
mechanical properties both in and out of the plane. Due to the
application conditions and the superiority of the woven
structure, 2.5D and 3D fiber-woven structures which have
been widely used in the RTM process13,14 were selected in this
study.
The permeability of the preform structure can be determined
by theoretical models, experiments, and numerical methods.
Theoretical models, such as the Gebart model,15 Kozeny−
Carman relationship,16 and Advani model,17 correlated
permeability with the fiber volume fraction of the fabric preform.
These models are effective when the fiber distribution is uniform
and unidirectional. Due to the complexity of the preform
structure, the analytical models used for permeability prediction
Received: April 3, 2021
Revised: May 13, 2021
Accepted: May 18, 2021
Published: May 28, 2021

© 2021 American Chemical Society https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01290

8269 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 8269−8279
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 1. Multiscale models of the preform: (a) preform structure, (b) woven structure, and (c) fiber structure.
Figure 2. Fiber-woven structures: (a) 3D and (b) 2.5D.
are limited even for very simple cases.18 Therefore, many
researchers relied on data obtained from experiments to
calculate permeability. In order to obtain reliable data, they
need to use a large number of flow meters, pressure sensors,
optical sensors, and digital cameras,19 which are often
complicated and costly.20 Besides, due to the lack of a unified
testing method and possible human error in the material
handling process, the results may show a great difference. An
international benchmark study on the permeability of woven
structures was conducted for the first time in 2011, but the
difference in the measured permeability values exceeded an
order of magnitude because the test samples and test methods
were not unified.16 Subsequently, the second and third
international benchmark experiments were carried out. After
the sample parameters and test methods were specified, some
ideal in-plane permeability data were obtained.21 However, due
to the difficulty in determining the flow front along the thickness
direction,22 the measurement of transverse permeability is
particularly important in the manufacture of thick composite
components and newly developed 3D fabric reinforcements. In
the numerical method, a geometrical structure model needs to
be constructed. In the past few decades, researchers have spent a
lot of efforts on geometrical modeling of 3D and 2.5D weave
composite structures.23,24 The conventional woven structure has
a continuous and repetitive architecture, and a cell or
representing volume element (RVE)8,25,26 is selected to describe
the characteristics of the entire structure. There are several
software to realize the modeling of woven structures. The most
common used software is WiseTex27 or TexGen.28 In recent
years, numerical methods have been used to solve the multiscale
permeability of different fibrous media.29,30 A large number of
studies used experimental measurement methods to obtain
permeability as a simulation parameter for numerical simulation
of the RTM process. Unfortunately, the anisotropy of
permeability was not fully considered.31,32 Through the in-
plane virtual permeability characterization of the 3D woven
8270
pubs.acs.org/IECR Article
fabrics, it is concluded that the z-binder yarn constitutes the
main obstacle to the in-plane flow.33 Xiao et al. studied the
through-thickness permeability of orthogonal and angular
interlocking woven fabrics, and it was found that the equivalent
permeability of inter-yarn gaps accounts for approximately 90%
of the through-thickness permeability for the analyzed fabrics.34
However, most of the data presented in these studies are often
permeable to a single direction and only at the mesoscopic scale.
In addition, these studies focus on 2D and 3D fabrics, which
have been reported in the research papers on resin flow of 2.5D
woven structures.
The main difficulty is the complex hierarchical structure to
predict the performance of fibrous composites, especially for 3D
and 2.5D woven reinforced materials. In this work, we proposed
a multiscale model that couples the mesoscale RVE model and
the macroscale porous model to predict the permeability of the
3D and 2.5D fiber preform in the RTM process. Based on these
models, the numerical simulations were used to predict the
anisotropic permeabilities of reinforced composites, which were
used as the resistance parameter of the RTM process. In
addition, the effects of fiber structures, feed pressure on resin
flow time, and mass flow rates were also studied. Our findings are
expected to be helpful to the permeability prediction of the
RTM process and the design of the preform structure.
2. GEOMETRICAL AND PERMEABILITY MODELING
2.1. Multiscale Geometrical Model. The multiscale
structural characteristics of the fabric preform have a great
impact on the RTM process, affecting the mechanical properties
of the final product. For example, the multiscale flow of the resin
inside the preform is likely to cause bubble defects. Therefore, in
order to realize the accurate analysis of the RTM process, we first
established a multiscale geometrical model of the preform. The
mutual coupling relationship between different dimensions of
the preform structure is shown in Figure 1.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01290
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 8269−8279
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research pubs.acs.org/IECR Article

For the preform structure, its pore size spans several orders of
magnitude. The gaps between the fibers in the fiber bundle and
the fiber diameter are usually in the micron level, which can be
regarded as a microscopic level. The inter-bundle area (the
distance between the fiber bundles) is generally below the
millimeter level and can be regarded as the meso level. The pores
between the fiber bundles of the woven structure studied in the
article are measured with an average value of 0.2 and 0.15 mm.
The entire fabric mold is usually regarded as the macrolevel.35
Compared with the pores between the fiber bundles, the
influence of the pore flow among the fibers inside the fiber
bundles on the RTM process is tiny. For most fiber-reinforced
composite systems, the resin flow of pores within the fiber
bundle can be ignored.36 The geometries of 3D/2.5D woven
structure were generated by the open-source software TexGen,
as shown in Figure 2. Using the software, different woven
structures can be generated by independently defining the yarn
path and yarn cross section.
Before the resin injection, the preform structure needs to
undergo high pressure to achieve a target fiber volume fraction.
This does cause changes in the weave structure, such as fiber
bundle size (shape, width, and height) and pore size. In this Figure 3. Fiber-woven RVE structures: (a) RVE selection method, (b)
study, these geometrical dimensions are listed in Table 1, which 3D RVE, and (c) 2.5D RVE.

Table 1. Fiber Volume Fraction and Thickness of the Samples

Equations 1 and 2 are called Stokes equations, which can be
yarn width yarn height yarn gap number of yarn
woven (mm) (mm) (mm) layers valid for flows with Reynolds number less than 1, where v is the
3D woven (Vf = 54%)
velocity vector, ρ is the fluid density, μ is the fluid viscosity, and P
weft 0.8 0.1 0.2 5
is the fluid pressure. Equation 1 is the law of conservation of
warp 0.8 0.1 0.15 4
mass, and eq 2 is the law of conservation of momentum.
binder 0.4 0.05 0.15
The velocity and pressure can be obtained by numerically
2.5D woven (Vf = 60%)
solving eqs 1 and 2. Darcy’s law can be used to describe the resin
weft 0.8 0.1 0.2 5
flow through porous media, and the permeability of the preform
warp 0.8 0.1 0.2 4
can be calculated from the CFD simulations
K
q = ·∇p
μ (3)
result in a volume fraction of 54−60% and can meet the In eq 3, K is the permeability tensor of the preform, and q is
requirements of the RTM process. Here, we used a 3D the volume-averaged Darcy velocity. In the Cartesian coordinate
orthogonal carbon fabric with an areal density of 3260 g/m2. system when the coordinate axis coincides with the principal
The fabric has four layers of 12 k carbon fiber warp tows, five direction of a porous body, the second-order permeability tensor
layers of weft tows, and 6 k through-thickness z-yarns acting as reduces to a diagonal matrix as K = diag (Kxx, Kyy, and Kzz).13
binder yarns. For 2.5D fabric, there are four layers of 12 k carbon We used the commercially available CFD software of Fluent
fiber warp tows and five layers of weft tows. 2020R2 to simulate different working conditions. There are
The channel structure of the preform is usually very three commonly used two-phase flow models: mixture, volume
complicated, and it is impossible to simulate the resin of fluid (VOF), and Eulerian. Among these, Euler is more
impregnation flow inside the entire module at one time. suitable to simulate the resin-impregnated preform process. In
However, the entire preform structure can be regarded as a the discrete solution of partial differential equations, the least-
combination of periodic woven structures, as shown in Figure squares cell-based method is used for the gradient term, the
3a. The smallest RVE37 can be identified from the actual second-order method for the pressure term, the second-order
structure to simulate the resin flow. The way to select the upwind method for the momentum term, and the first-order
corresponding RVE and the digitized models for 3D and 2.5D upwind method for the volume fraction term. The coupled
woven structures of the preforms are shown in Figure 3. method is adopted to solve the coupled equation of pressure and
2.2. Permeability Modeling. The Navier−Stokes equation velocity.
was used to solve the velocity flow field in the fiber-woven 2.3. Multiscale Coupling Model Simulation Method. As
structure. In the RTM process, the fluid velocity is very low and shown in Figure 4, we first selected the RVE model in the fiber
the viscosity is high, resulting in a low Reynolds number (Re < perfume to calculate the permeability through single-phase flow
1). At this time, the viscous force controls the inertial force. In simulations. The calculated permeability was introduced in the
this case, the steady-state Navier−Stokes equation can be porous media model. Here, for the proposed multiscale coupling
simplified as follows method, we associated the meso-RVE scale with the macro-
∇·v = 0 (1) preform scale. The coupling method includes three main steps:
(i) simulating resin flow at the RVE scale to obtain anisotropy of
μ∇2 v − ∇P = 0 (2) permeability, (ii) verifying the consistency of the porous media
8271 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01290
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 8269−8279
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the multiscale coupling method.
model, and (iii) simulating RTM using a coupled model. The
following sections describe this method in detail.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Grid Independency Verification. The resin flow was
simulated by CFD simulations, and the number of meshes in the
watershed has a great influence on the accuracy of the simulation
results.38 In order to determine the most suitable number of
meshes, the mesh independence was studied through numerical
simulation under different grid numbers. For the RVE model,
the gaps between fiber bundles represent the main flow area for
resin flow and usually have complex geometric shapes. In order
to be more consistent with the real structure, an unstructured
grid was chosen. The grid was generated with ANSYS integrated
software, and the grid independence was verified. The
relationship between the mass flow rate of the 3D/2.5D RVEs
in the y-direction and the number of grids is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Variation of the mass flow rate with the number of meshes.
With the increase of mesh number, the mass flow rate is less
sensitive. Considering the accuracy and computing resources,
the number of meshes is 200 k for the 3D structure and 300 k for
the 2.5D structure in the subsequent simulation.
3.2. Flow Field Analysis of the RVE Model. To obtain the
permeability of the preform, we first investigated the flow field
distributions of the RVE model extracted from the preform with
steady-state saturated flow. In the simulation model, the density
8272
pubs.acs.org/IECR Article
of the phenolic resin is 1200 kg/m3, and the viscosity is 0.3 Pa·s.
The research mainly focused on the anisotropy of the
permeability of the RVE structure. The pressure difference Δp
= 1 atm is applied on the plane perpendicular to the i-axis (i = x,
y, and z). The yarn is considered as solid with no-slip wall
condition. The surroundings are set as symmetry boundary
conditions.
Figure 6 shows the different flow directions of the 3D RVE
flow region and their respective velocity streamline distribution.
The main flow region of the 3D woven structure is shown in
Figure 6a. By changing the boundary conditions, we can get the
flow diagram of different flow directions. We can see from Figure
6b that when the resin is in the x-direction, the resin will flow
along the warp and the z-direction at the same time. At this time,
although the resin flow channel is narrowed, the resin flow is
relatively flat and the resin flow rate gradient is small. From
Figure 6c, we can find that the resin mainly flows along the weft
when the resin is in the y-direction. As the flow of the resin
reaches z-binder yarn, the resin will change its path to bypass
binder yarn, causing the local velocity to increase and the resin
flow rate gradient to be larger. At the same time, the pores along
the warp direction will also participate in the resin flow process.
In addition, for the in-plane flow, we find that the local velocity at
the upper and lower boundaries is significantly higher than that
at other regions. This is because the presence of the z-bonded
yarn makes the upper and lower local pores larger, and the resin
can pass through more easily. There is a narrow channel in the z-
direction because the weft and warp are woven together, as
shown in Figure 6d. Although the resin can pass through the
woven structure at high speed, there will be a large number of
unimpregnated areas. As expected, the z-direction permeability
is significantly less than the in-plane permeability, as listed in
Table 2. At the same time, we found that unidirectional flow
resin is more difficult to completely impregnate the woven
structure.
Figure 7 shows the different flow directions of the 2.5D RVE
flow region and their respective velocity streamline distribution.
Similarly, the lateral permeability of the 2.5D structure is less
than the in-plane permeability. There is no z-direction binder
yarn in the 2.5D structure compared to the 3D structure, which
leads to a significant difference in the flow between the 2.5D and
3D structure. Figure 7a shows the resin flow area of the 2.5D
woven structure. We can clearly see that for the 2.5D structure,
the warp is bent and the weft is straight, which results in the
different flow of resin in the x-direction and y-direction. It can be
seen from the streamline contours of Figure 7b,c that the resin
flow velocity in the y-direction is greater than that in the x-
direction. This is because the bending of the warp yarn will cause
more complicated flow channels and more difficult resin flow.
When the resin flows along the warp direction, that is, along the
x-direction, the resin needs to overcome a greater obstacle to
pass through.
To quantificationally investigate the anisotropy of perme-
ability of the woven structure, we calculated the permeability K
based on Darcy’s law as follows
μLyQ μLy x = Lx z = Lz
K yy =
LxLzΔP
= ∫ ∫z=0
L L ΔP x = 0
vy(x , z) dx dz
x z
(4)
where μ is the fluid viscosity, L is the size of the RVE, ΔP is the
pressure difference in the flow direction, and Q is the flow rate at
this time calculated by CFD simulations. The permeability Kyy
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01290
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 8269−8279
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 6. Numerical simulation of velocity contours in the 3D RVE structure: (a) 3D RVE flow region, (b) velocity distribution in the x-direction, (c)
velocity distribution in the y-direction, and (d) velocity distribution in the z-direction.
Table 2. Anisotropy of Permeability of Woven Structures
K (m2) 3D RVE 2.5D RVE
Kxx 1.2 × 10−9 1.5 × 10−9
Kyy 2.0 × 10−9 1.7 × 10−9
Kzz 2.4 × 10−10 1.4 × 10−10
can be calculated when the permeability is regarded as a diagonal
tensor because the main flow direction at this time is consistent
with the main direction of the woven structure. Similarly, we can
get the permeability Kxx and Kzz by changing the boundary
conditions. Compared with the reported permeability under
similar fiber volume fractions,33,39 the calculated permeability
values, as shown in Table 2, are in good agreement. At the same
time, we found that although 3D structure has a lower fiber
volume fraction than 2.5D, the Kxx of 3D is less than that of 2.5D.
This is because under the same pressure drop, the 3D structure
has a smaller velocity gradient, and the resin needs to pass
through a longer channel. It also confirms that the permeability
of the preform is affected by both the woven structure and the
fiber volume fraction. In addition, the importance of studying
the permeability anisotropy of the woven structure is clearly
shown.
3.3. Unit Cell Independence of RVE Structures. Figure 8
shows the effect of RVE unit cell size on the prediction of
anisotropic permeability. As shown in Figure 8a,b, a structural
calculation model composed of different unit cell repeat
numbers is extracted from the constructed model. For each
case, the same fluid properties, boundary conditions, and
pressure gradients are used to perform the simulation. Figure
8c,d shows the respective permeability of 3D and 2.5D
structures with different numbers of repeated units. From the
permeability values, as shown in Figure 8c,d, it can be seen that
using multiple unit structures does not affect the accuracy of the
anisotropic permeability.
8273
pubs.acs.org/IECR Article
3.4. Consistency Verification of the Multiscale
Method. The preform abovementioned has a very complicated
structure. Limited by the computation ability, it is impossible to
simulate the resin filling and purging process on the module
scale with the microfiber-woven structure. The simplification
method adopted in this study is to simplify the module into a
porous medium, and the anisotropic permeability obtained from
the meso-woven structure scale is introduced into the porous
model. The basic equation of the porous model is as follows
i y
Si = −jjjK iiμvi + C2 ρ|v|vi zzz
k {
1
2 (5)
where Si is the source term for the i (x, y, z) momentum
equation, |v| is the magnitude of the velocity, the viscous
resistance coefficient term Kii is equivalent to the anisotropic
permeability calculated in Section 3.2, and C2 is the inertial
resistance coefficient. In laminar flows through porous media,
the pressure drop is typically proportional to velocity, and the
constant C2 can be considered to be zero. The viscous resistance
coefficients of the preform in the radial, tangential, and axial
directions are, respectively, equivalent to the x-, y-, and z-
directions of the woven structure. A user-defined function is
written as the source term of the porous model at the module
scale.
The multiscale method proposed in this study is to calculate
the permeability of the preform at the mesoscale of the fiber
weaving structure first and then transfer it to the macroscale to
simulate the RTM process. Therefore, the choice of the
permeability model is particularly important. In order to validate
the multiscale method, we chose the 2.5D architecture as an
illustrative sample.
Flow comparison between the 2.5D woven structure and the
porous model is shown in Figure 9. In order to better present the
influence of the model on fluid flow, we added free-flow zones at
the entrance and exit, which is conducive to the fully developed
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01290
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 8269−8279
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 7. Numerical simulation of velocity contours in the 2.5D RVE structure: (a) 2.5D RVE flow region, (b) velocity distribution in the x-direction,
(c) velocity distribution in the y-direction, and (d) velocity distribution in the z-direction.
flow, as shown in Figure 9a. We use the same fluid properties,
boundary conditions, and pressure gradient for both the 2.5D
woven structure model and the porous model. Pressure is the
driving force of resin flow, and pressure loss can reflect the flow
resistance. Figure 9b shows their corresponding pressure
contours with a pressure difference of 0.5 MPa. We can find
that the pressure drop presents the same trend along the flow
direction quantitatively. On the other hand, we monitored the
mass flow rate at the exit with the variation of pressure difference
from 0.4−0.8 MPa, which is shown in Figure 9c. With the
increase in pressure difference, the mass flow rates from the 2.5D
woven structure model and the porous model are quantitatively
consistent with acceptable error. The results show that the
porous model can replace the RVE model.
3.5. RTM Process Simulation. Traditionally, the design
and optimization of RTM mold and process parameters are
achieved through multiple trials, and the results are analyzed to
get a better design. The above method requires high cost and
long experimental cycle, and it is difficult to obtain the optimal
parameters. Studying the filling process using the numerical
simulation technology, the pressure distribution, velocity
distribution, and flow front position in the mold cavity at any
time can be acquired, more over the force distribution and the
formation of dry spot defects can be predicted. These prediction
results will provide the important basis for optimizing the mold
structure, gate position, mold filling pressure, injection speed,
and other process parameters and can effectively reduce the cost,
shorten the cycle, and avoid defects.
8274
pubs.acs.org/IECR Article
Considering the symmetry of the prefabricated structure, as
shown in Figure 10, we choose the symmetrical inlet and outlet
in order to achieve better filling effects and reduce defects.
Figure 10a shows the physical structure of the fiber preform, and
Figure 10b shows the stereogram for RTM process simulation.
We added three feed ports on the side of the structure and three
discharge ports on the bottom, as shown in Figure 10b.
In the preform, the type of the fiber weave structure is one of
the main factors affecting resin permeability. It can be seen from
Table 2 that the permeability of 3D and 2.5D woven structures is
different. This will lead to different performances in the resin
impregnation process in the RTM process. In order to study the
influence of woven structures on the fluid flow in the preform,
the permeability values of the 3D and 2.5D fabricated structures
were used as the permeability parameters in the porous model to
simulate the RTM process. The porous medium used in this
study is carbon fiber, and the fluid is a gas−liquid two-phase
flow, in which the gas phase is air and the liquid phase is phenolic
resin. The simulation parameters were set as follows: the resin
density is 1200 kg/m3, the viscosity is 0.3 Pa·s, and the surface
tension coefficient between the two-phase fluid is 0.016 N/m.
The resin flow in the 3D and 2.5D woven preforms at different
times is shown in Figure 11. We can clearly see that due to the
anisotropy of permeability, the filling rate of the resin in different
directions is different at 1 s. For the resin flowing in the radial
direction of the preform corresponding to the wall thickness
impregnation, these two weaving methods can be fully
impregnated because the flow distance in the wall thickness
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01290
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 8269−8279
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research pubs.acs.org/IECR Article

Figure 8. Independence of RVE structures with different numbers of units: (a) 3D RVE structures with different number of units, (b) 2.5D RVE
structures with different numbers of units, (c) permeability of different 3D structures, and (d) permeability of different 2.5D structures.

Figure 9. Comparison between the RVE model and porous model: (a) structure model, (b) pressure contours with a pressure difference of 0.5 MPa,
and (c) relationship between the mass flow rate and pressure.

direction is much smaller than that in the tangential and axial
directions. Therefore, the resin impregnation rate of the preform
is mainly controlled by Kyy and Kzz. It can be seen from Table 2
8275
that the Kyy and Kzz of 3D are greater than that of 2.5D, so the
2.5D woven preform has a longer immersion time in the RTM
process. The contours of the resin volume fraction in the
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01290
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 8269−8279
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 10. Structure drawing of the fiber preform: (a) 3D view of the
fiber preform structure and (b) simulation structure diagram.
preform show that the preform with the 3D woven structure can
be completely impregnated in a short time (200 s), while the
preform with the 2.5D woven structure still has an unfinished
impregnation area after 400 s. Unfortunately, we found that due
to the difference in resin flow in different directions, there is an
unimpregnated area on the top of the 2.5D woven structure
when the resin merges in the tangential direction. This will
reduce the performance of the composite material. Of course,
this can be avoided by adjusting some parameters, such as
changing the position of the inlet and outlet or optimizing the
structure of the preform. This is also the original intention of our
multiscale coupled numerical simulation.
In order to better understand the resin flow over time, we
monitored the resin mass flow rate at the outlet and the variation
of the resin volume fraction in the preform, which are shown in
Figure 11. Resin flow in the preform at different times.
8276
pubs.acs.org/IECR Article
Figure 12. Due to the large difference in density between air and
resin, the mass flow rate is mainly from resin.31 Here, we mainly
define two time points t1 and t2, where t1 is the flow time when
the resin first reaches the outlet, and t2 is the flow time when the
resin volume fraction reaches 99.5%. The process of resin
impregnation in the preform can be divided into three stages, as
shown in Figure 12a. In the first stage (0 − t1), the mass flow
measured at the outlet is the mass flow of the discharged air,
which is much smaller than the mass flow of the resin. The
second stage (t1 − t2) is that the resin can be detected at the
outlet, but the resin flow is failed to reach stability, and the mass
flow at the outlet is composed of air and resin. As the resin flow
out, the mass flow rate at the outlet increases rapidly. The third
stage (after t2) is the stable mass flow of resin. This stage is the
purge process of the difficult impregnation position in the
preform, and the outlet flow is mainly occupied by the resin.
After a period of time, the mass flow rate becomes stable. Figure
12b shows that the flow time t1 and t2 of the 3D preform are both
less than that of the 2.5D preform, which indicates that the 3D
preform is easier to impregnate. This is consistent with the
results, as shown in Figure 11.
To study the effect of permeability anisotropy on the RTM
process, we set 3D structures as an example for comparison. We
have constructed two models 3D (K1) and 3D (K2), where K1 =
(Kxx, Kyy, Kzz) and K2 = (Kzz, Kzz, Kzz). Similarly, we used the
same fluid properties, boundary conditions, and pressure
gradient for both the 3D (K1) and 3D (K2) in RTM process
simulation. As shown in Figure 13, we can clearly see that the
resin flow time and mass flow rate are both affected by the
anisotropy of permeability. Moreover, since both Kxx and Kyy are
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01290
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 8269−8279
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research pubs.acs.org/IECR Article

Figure 12. Changes in the resin volume fraction and mass flow rate of 3D and 2.5D preforms with flow time: (a) 3D flow and (b) comparison of 2.5D
and 3D flow.

significant effect on t2. With the increase of pressure, the

variation of t2 tends to slow down. The mass flow rate at the
outlet increases linearly, which is consistent with Darcy’s law of
porous model. According to the simulation results, we can
optimize the feed pressure and inlet position in the RTM
process.

4. CONCLUSIONS
In this work, we established 3D digital models of 3D and 2.5D
woven structures and investigate the effect of the permeability
on different woven structures under two flow conditions. The
main conclusions can be drawn as follows:
(1) The permeability of the 3D and 2.5D woven structures is
anisotropic, and the in-plane permeability is always
Figure 13. Changes in the resin volume fraction and mass flow rate in greater than the lateral permeability. The anisotropy of
3D (K1) and 3D (K2) preforms with flow time.
the permeability of the woven structure has a great
influence on the RTM process.
greater than Kzz, t1 and t2 of 3D (K2) are both smaller than that of
3D (K1). This illustrates the necessity of considering the (2) A multiscale model that couples the RVE model with the
anisotropy of permeability. porous model is proposed to predict the permeability
In order to study the effect of feed pressure on the resin flow in characteristics in the RTM process at macro- and
the preform, 10 feed pressures (1−10 atm) were selected to mesoscales.
model the RTM process, and the results are shown in Figure 14. (3) During the RTM process, the 3D woven structure is more
Similarly, we measured t2 and the mass flow rate at t2. Figure 14 easily impregnated than the 2.5D woven structure. The
shows that at a lower pressure (<4 atm), pressure variation has a infiltration time decreases with the increase of feed
pressure. In addition, the penetration time shows a
decreasing trend when the pressure increases. The mass
flow rates of resin increase linearly with the increase of
pressure.

■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Authors
Junbo Xu − CAS Key Laboratory of Green Process and
Engineering, Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy
of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China; orcid.org/0000-0002-
7976-389X; Email: jbxu@ipe.cn
Chao Yang − CAS Key Laboratory of Green Process and
Engineering, Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy
of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China; School of Chemical
Engineering, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
100049, China; Dalian National Laboratory for Clean
Figure 14. Impregnation time t2 and the mass flow rate at different feed Energy, Dalian 116023, China; orcid.org/0000-0001-
pressures. 6067-7505; Email: chaoyang@ipe.ac.cn
8277 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01290
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 8269−8279
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Authors
Yang Xiao − College of Chemical Engineering, Sichuan
University, Chengdu 610065, China; CAS Key Laboratory of
Green Process and Engineering, Institute of Process
Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190,
China
Min Wang − Dynamic Machinery Institute of Inner Mongolia,
Hohhot 010010, China
Bingyin Wang − Dynamic Machinery Institute of Inner
Mongolia, Hohhot 010010, China
Shaojun Yuan − College of Chemical Engineering, Sichuan
University, Chengdu 610065, China; orcid.org/0000-
0002-3580-7977
Complete contact information is available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01290
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (22035007, 91934301, and 21878298),
DNL Cooperation Fund, CAS (DNL201902), and External
Cooperation Program of BIC, Chinese Academy of Sciences
(122111KYSB20190032).
■
REFERENCES
(1) Zheng, T.; Guo, L.; Huang, J.; Liu, G. A novel mesoscopic
progressive damage model for 3D angle-interlock woven composites.
Compos. Sci. Technol. 2020, 185, 107894.
(2) Ali, M. A.; Umer, R.; Khan, K. A.; Bickerton, S.; Cantwell, W. J.
Non-destructive evaluation of through-thickness permeability in 3D
woven fabrics for composite fan blade applications. Aerosp. Sci. Technol.
2018, 82−83, 520−533.
(3) Li, C.; Kang, N.-J.; Labrandero, S. D.; Wan, J.; González, C.; Wang,
D.-Y. Synergistic Effect of Carbon Nanotube and Polyethersulfone on
Flame Retardancy of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Epoxy Composites. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53, 1040−1047.
(4) Achim, V.; Ruiz, E. Guiding selection for reduced process
development time in RTM. Int. J. Material Form. 2009, 3, 1277−1286.
(5) Tan, H.; Pillai, K. M. Multiscale modeling of unsaturated flow in
dual-scale fiber preforms of liquid composite molding I: Isothermal
flows. Composites, Part A 2012, 43, 1−13.
(6) Di Fratta, C.; Klunker, F.; Trochu, F.; Ermanni, P. Character-
ization of textile permeability as a function of fiber volume content with
a single unidirectional injection experiment. Composites, Part A 2015,
77, 238−247.
(7) Michaud, V. A Review of Non-saturated Resin Flow in Liquid
Composite Moulding processes. Transport Porous Media 2016, 115,
581−601.
(8) Shi, D.; Teng, X.; Jing, X.; Lyu, S.; Yang, X. A multi-scale stochastic
model for damage analysis and performance dispersion study of a 2.5D
fiber-reinforced ceramic matrix composites. Compos. Struct. 2020, 248,
112549.
(9) Hang, C.; Cui, H.; Liu, H.; Suo, T. Micro/meso-scale damage
analysis of a 2.5D woven composite including fiber undulation and in-
situ effect. Compos. Struct. 2021, 256, 113067.
(10) Majumdar, A.; Laha, A.; Bhattacharjee, D.; Biswas, I. Tuning the
structure of 3D woven aramid fabrics reinforced with shear thickening
fluid for developing soft body armour. Compos. Struct. 2017, 178, 415−
425.
(11) Chen, X.; Taylor, L. W.; Tsai, L.-J. An overview on fabrication of
three-dimensional woven textile preforms for composites. Text. Res. J.
2011, 81, 932−944.
8278
pubs.acs.org/IECR Article
(12) Mouritz, A. P.; Bannister, M. K.; Falzon, P. J.; Leong, K. H.
Review of applications for advanced three-dimensional fibre textile
composites. Composites, Part A 1999, 30, 1445−1461.
(13) Liu, H. L.; Hwang, W. R. Permeability prediction of fibrous
porous media with complex 3D architectures. Composites, Part A 2012,
43, 2030−2038.
(14) Song, J.; Wen, W.; Cui, H. Fatigue behaviors of 2.5D woven
composites at ambient and un-ambient temperatures. Compos. Struct.
2017, 166, 77−86.
(15) Gebart, B. R. Permeability of Unidirectional Reinforcements for
RTM. J. Compos. Mater. 1992, 26, 1100−1133.
(16) Arbter, R.; Beraud, J. M.; Binetruy, C.; Bizet, L.; Bréard, J.;
Comas-Cardona, S.; Demaria, C.; Endruweit, A.; Ermanni, P.;
Gommer, F.; Hasanovic, S.; Henrat, P.; Klunker, F.; Laine, B.;
Lavanchy, S.; Lomov, S. V.; Long, A.; Michaud, V.; Morren, G.; Ruiz, E.;
Sol, H.; Trochu, F.; Verleye, B.; Wietgrefe, M.; Wu, W.; Ziegmann, G.
Experimental determination of the permeability of textiles: A
benchmark exercise. Composites, Part A 2011, 42, 1157−1168.
(17) Bruschke, M. V.; Advani, S. G. Flow of generalized Newtonian
fluids across a periodic array of cylinders. J. Rheol. 1993, 37, 479−498.
(18) Younes, R.; Karaki, M.; Hallal, A.; Trochu, F.; Lafon, P.; Hayek,
A.; Kobeissy, A. H.; Fayad, A. A comparative analytical, numerical and
experimental analysis of the microscopic permeability of fiber bundles
in composite materials. Int. J. Compos. Mater. 2017, 7, 82−102.
(19) Ali, M. A.; Umer, R.; Khan, K. A.; Samad, Y. A.; Liao, K.;
Cantwell, W. Graphene coated piezo-resistive fabrics for liquid
composite molding process monitoring. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2017,
148, 106−114.
(20) Swery, E. E.; Allen, T.; Comas-Cardona, S.; Govignon, Q.;
Hickey, C.; Timms, J.; Tournier, L.; Walbran, A.; Kelly, P.; Bickerton, S.
Efficient experimental characterisation of the permeability of fibrous
textiles. J. Compos. Mater. 2016, 50, 4023−4038.
(21) May, D.; Aktas, A.; Advani, S. G.; Berg, D. C.; Endruweit, A.;
Fauster, E.; Lomov, S. V.; Long, A.; Mitschang, P.; Abaimov, S.; Abliz,
D.; Akhatov, I.; Ali, M. A.; Allen, T. D.; Bickerton, S.; Bodaghi, M.;
Caglar, B.; Caglar, H.; Chiminelli, A.; Correia, N.; Cosson, B.; Danzi,
M.; Dittmann, J.; Ermanni, P.; Francucci, G.; George, A.; Grishaev, V.;
Hancioglu, M.; Kabachi, M. A.; Kind, K.; Deléglise-Lagardère, M.;
Laspalas, M.; Lebedev, O. V.; Lizaranzu, M.; Liotier, P.-J.; Middendorf,
P.; Morán, J.; Park, C.-H.; Pipes, R. B.; Pucci, M. F.; Raynal, J.;
Rodriguez, E. S.; Schledjewski, R.; Schubnel, R.; Sharp, N.; Sims, G.;
Sozer, E. M.; Sousa, P.; Thomas, J.; Umer, R.; Wijaya, W.;
Willenbacher, B.; Yong, A.; Zaremba, S.; Ziegmann, G. In-plane
permeability characterization of engineering textiles based on radial
flow experiments: A benchmark exercise. Composites, Part A 2019, 121,
100−114.
(22) Turner, D. Z.; Hjelmstad, K. D. Determining the 3D permeability
of fibrous media using the Newton method. Composites, Part B 2005,
36, 609−618.
(23) Zhou, Y.; Wen, W.; Cui, H. Spatial modelling of 3D woven
variable thickness composite plate at the mesoscopic scale. Compos.
Struct. 2020, 239, 111946.
(24) Gereke, T.; Cherif, C. A review of numerical models for 3D
woven composite reinforcements. Compos. Struct. 2019, 209, 60−66.
(25) Ivanov, D. S.; Lomov, S. V. Modelling the structure and
behaviour of 2D and 3D woven composites used in aerospace
applications. In Polymer Composites in the Aerospace Industry; Irving,
P.E.; Soutis, C.; Eds.; Ind. Woodhead Publishing, 2015, pp 21−52.
(26) Madke, R. R.; Chowdhury, R. A multiscale continuum model for
inelastic behavior of woven composite. Compos. Struct. 2019, 226,
111267.
(27) Swery, E. E.; Meier, R.; Lomov, S. V.; Drechsler, K.; Kelly, P.
Predicting permeability based on flow simulations and textile modelling
techniques: Comparison with experimental values and verification of
FlowTex solver using Ansys CFX. J. Compos. Mater. 2015, 50, 601−615.
(28) Zeng, X.; Brown, L. P.; Endruweit, A.; Matveev, M.; Long, A. C.
Geometrical modelling of 3D woven reinforcements for polymer
composites: Prediction of fabric permeability and composite
mechanical properties. Composites, Part A 2014, 56, 150−160.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01290
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 8269−8279
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research pubs.acs.org/IECR Article

(29) Verpoest, I.; Lomov, S. Virtual textile composites software :

Integration with micro-mechanical, permeability and structural
analysis. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2005, 65, 2563−2574.
(30) Tahir, M. W.; Stig, F.; Åkermo, M.; Hallström, S. A numerical
study of the influence from architecture on the permeability of 3D-
woven fibre reinforcement. Composites, Part A 2015, 74, 18−25.
(31) Han, S. H.; Cho, E. J.; Lee, H. C.; Jeong, K.; Kim, S. S. Study on
high-speed RTM to reduce the impregnation time of carbon/epoxy
composites. Compos. Struct. 2015, 119, 50−58.
(32) Landi, D.; Vita, A.; Germani, M. Interactive optimization of the
resin transfer molding using a general-purpose tool: a case study. Int. J.
Interact. Des. Manuf. 2019, 14, 295−308.
(33) Ali, M. A.; Umer, R.; Khan, K. A.; Cantwell, W. J. In-plane virtual
permeability characterization of 3D woven fabrics using a hybrid
experimental and numerical approach. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2019, 173,
99−109.
(34) Xiao, X.; Endruweit, A.; Zeng, X.; Hu, J.; Long, A. Through-
thickness permeability study of orthogonal and angle-interlock woven
fabrics. J. Mater. Sci. 2014, 50, 1257−1266.
(35) Lomov, S.; Ivanov, D.; 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, 1870−
1891.
(36) Tahir, M. W.; Hallström, S.; Åkermo, M. Effect of dual scale
porosity on the overall permeability of fibrous structures. Compos. Sci.
Technol. 2014, 103, 56−62.
(37) Huang, W.; Causse, P.; Hu, H.; Trochu, F. Numerical and
experimental investigation of saturated transverse permeability of 2D
woven glass fabrics based on material twins. Polym. Compos. 2020, 41,
1341−1355.
(38) Wang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, Y. Experimental investigation
and CFD simulation of liquid−solid−solid dispersion in a stirred
reactor. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2010, 65, 5559−5572.
(39) Endruweit, A.; Long, A. C. Analysis of Compressibility and
Permeability of Selected 3D Woven Reinforcements. J. Compos. Mater.
2010, 44, 2833−2862.

8279 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01290
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 8269−8279