Original article

Journal of Reinforced Plastics and

Composites
Experimental analysis and numerical 0(0) 1–21
! The Author(s) 2019
modelling of dry carbon woven Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
reinforcement preforming DOI: 10.1177/0731684419859071
journals.sagepub.com/home/jrp

W Najjar1 , X Legrand2, D Soulat2 and P Dal Santo3

Abstract
In this paper, an experimental and numerical study of the preforming process of the G1151 carbon woven fabric
reinforcement is presented. The experimental analysis was based on tensile and shear tests. These tests were important
to analyse the behaviour of this particular woven reinforcement and to figure out some key phenomena related to its
deformation process. The numerical modelling is implemented in the commercial FEM software (Abaqus) using a
discrete finite element approach. The model is built using the concept of a “unit cell” formulated with a Hencky
linear elastic shell/membrane elements coupled with axial connectors. The connectors replace bar and beam elements
used in previous works and can have a linear or a non-linear behaviour. Shell finite elements are chosen to describe the
in-plane shear stiffness and to manage contact phenomena. The model parameters identification technique is based on
experimental constitutive tests and an inverse optimisation procedure. The model has been experimentally validated for
the case of hemispherical single layer preforming of the G1151 woven fabric.

Keywords
Woven carbon fabric, forming simulation, G1151 reinforcement

Introduction to predict the fibre directions in the composite compo-

To improve the integrity and the lightening of aeronau-
tical structures, the use of composite materials
with textile reinforcement is becoming an interesting
substitute for metallic materials in manufacturing of
structural and non-structural components of aircrafts.
The G1151 woven carbon fabric is one of those rein-
forcements which currently receive a lot of attention
for potential use in aircraft structure. The main proc-
essing way of the G1151 reinforced composite is resin
transfer moulding (RTM) which is a popular
manufacturing processes for industrial composite
materials.1–3 The first step of the RTM process is dry
preforming of the fabric reinforcement sheet. During
this step, significant local deformations may occur,
especially in-plane shear strains,4 which result in local
variations of the textile reinforcement geometry. These
variations strongly decrease the permeability of the
reinforcement and consequently affect the resin flow
impregnation.5–7
The simulation of this preforming step becomes nec-
essary to decide the feasibility of the forming process,
nent and optimize process parameters during this step.
Finite element methods are commonly used to sim-
ulate the preforming process; these approaches consid-
er the physics and the mechanical behaviour of the
textile reinforcement.8 The fabric can be modelled as
continuum media with specific material behaviour.9–13
Recently, Denis et al.14 proposed a dissipative consti-
tutive model analogous to these used to model metal
plasticity. Another approach consists of using discrete
structural elements to describe the textile structure at
the mesoscopic scale.15–17 A semi-discrete method,
1
LMPE, Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Ingénieurs de Tunis (Tunis
University), Tunis, Tunisia
2
GEMTEX, Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Arts et Industries Textiles,
Roubaix Cedex, France
3
LAMPA, Arts et Métier ParisTech Angers, Angers Cedex, France
Corresponding author:
W Najjar, LMPE, Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Ingénieurs de Tunis (Tunis
University)-Avenue Taha Hussein Montfleury, Tunis 1008, Tunisia.
Email: walid.najjar.ensit@outlook.com
2 Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 0(0)

which is a compromise between the continuous and

discrete approaches, is also used for simulation.18
These numerical studies led to a good comprehension
of the effect of the material behaviour and the process
parameters on the formability of preforms especially
for the case of single layer forming.
In this paper, the behaviour of the G1151 reinforce-
ment and its constitutive yarn is experimentally ana-
lysed. An emphasis is given to the study of the shear
behaviour of this textile. This analysis leads among
others to a comprehensive understanding of the effect
of the loading rate on the deformability of the rein-
forcement. A numerical model based on phenomeno-
logical description of G1151 interlock has been
introduced in the previous papers by the authors,19,21,22
this model is used in the present work to numerically Figure 1. G1151 Reinforcement.
analyse the hemispherical preforming of the G1151.
The numerical study has demonstrated among others
the impact of taking into account the crimp exchange
effect on the results.

Material characterization
The material studied in this work is the carbon fibre
woven reinforcement G1151 (Figure 1). This reinforce-
ment, which is produced by HexcelVR 19–23 is a thin three-
layered powdered interlock in which the thickness is
relatively small (lesser than 1 mm). It is used in the
aeronautical industry.
A previous article by the authors has investigated
the frictional behaviour of this specific reinforcement.20
Figure 2. Response of G1151 single yarn in tension.
In the current paper, the behaviour of the G1151 rein-
forcement is experimentally analysed, and an emphasis
is given to the study of the shear behaviour of this
textile. This analysis leads to a phenomenological
description of G1151 interlock reinforcement behav-
iour. A numerical study of this reinforcement preform-
ing has been then carried out using a model which has
been previously introduced by the authors.19,21,22

Tensile analysis
Behaviour of a yarn. The first test which has been per-
formed is a tensile test of a single yarn of G1151, the
length of this yarn was 200 mm. According to the sup-
plier catalogue, the yarn is 6K.23 The result of this test
is presented in Figure 2. Figure 3. Fabric directions.
The curve shows two sectors, the first one is linear; it
starts from the beginning till a strain percentage equal Uniaxial tensile test of the G1151 fabric. Tensile tests of a
to 0.7%, and it describes the elastic extension of the specimen of G1151 have been done in both weft and
carbon fibre yarn. The second sector is characterized by warp direction (Figure 3).
the damage initiation and the stiffness loss of the yarn. A Zwick tensile test machine equipped by a force
The curve illustrates the very low ductility and the brit- sensor of 100 KN is used to perform the tests. To
tle character of the used carbon fibre yarns. avoid sliding during test, the fabric reinforcement
Najjar et al. 3

Figure 4. Tensile test configuration.

specimen, which the geometry is shown in Figure 5, has

been attached in both extremities to the grips of the
tensile machine through a clamping device (Figure 4).
The tensile velocity was 0.1 mm/s for both direc-
tions, and the load has been applied till the break of Figure 5. Tensile test specimen dimensions.
the specimen. Figure 6 presents the load/extension
curves showing:

• The response in the weft direction.

• The response in the warp direction.

The curves are illustrative of the classical behaviour

of woven fabric in tension, induced by the mutli-scale
aspect of the material. The responses of G1151 show
two different modes of behaviour. The first one is non-
linear, it presents the response of the well-known un-
crimping phenomenon, and the second one illustrates
the linear response of yarns. In addition, Figure 6
shows that for the non-linear sectors of the curves,
the response in the weft direction is slightly different
from this in the warp direction, this can be likely
explained by the small difference of the weaving archi-
tecture of G1151 between the weft and the warp direc-
tion.22 However, the linear response has almost the
same slope in both directions.
Shear analysis
Bias test. In order to characterise the G1151 woven
reinforcement in shear, bias tests have been done
(Figures 8 and 9). Considering the low values of
forces involved in a shear test of a woven fabric, con-
trary to the case of tensile test in yarn directions, the
bias test has been performed in a tensile machine
equipped with a 1 KN force sensor. The tested speci-
men geometry is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 10 shows the results for three bias tests
with different loading velocities (v1 ¼ 10 mm/min,
v2 ¼ 25 mm/min, v3 ¼ 50 mm/min).
Figure 6. Behaviour of G1151 in tension.
According to Figure 10, the three curves have almost
the same shape below a displacement of about 50 mm
(which roughly corresponds to the shear locking initia-
tion of the specimen). Beyond this, the first curve, corre-
sponding to a 50 mm/min velocity is broken. The one
corresponding to a velocity of 25 mm/min continues to
smoothly deform (post buckling deformation) until a
displacement of 69 mm. The specimen can even deform
until a distance higher than 90 mm before breaking up,
when the used velocity is 10 mm/min. One can then con-
clude that the deformability of the woven structure
improves for low loading speed. For this low velocity,
the yarns and even the filaments get enough time to reor-
ganize and accommodate in a very slow shear deforma-
tion process. However, in case of high speed testing,
accommodation occurs only partially, at both levels of
yarns and filaments. Therefore, the crack occurs prema-
turely at the time of locking initiation due to the high
4 Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 0(0)
Figure 7. Bias test: Specimen before deformation.
Figure 8. Bias test: Deformed specimen.
local stress concentration in the contact areas. This result
is interesting for preforming process optimization, and it
shows that low loading speeds induce additional post-
buckling ductility of the fabric subjected to shear, and
thus it improves the formability of the stamped preforms.
An intermediate velocity of 25 mm/min was then
chosen for the bias test characterization of G1151 rein-
forcement. This speed seems to be the most consistent
to investigate the deformability behaviour in case of
preforming. To verify the repeatability of the test,
three tests on three samples of identical size
Figure 9. Bias test: Specimen dimensions.
Figure 10. Evolution of the force versus displacement in bias
test for different loading velocities.
(60 mm  200 mm) have been performed, Figure 11
clearly shows that the test is repeatable. The curves
are almost identical especially for the phases corre-
sponding to pre-breaking deformation.
The curve in Figure 12 presents the evolution of the
shear angle as a function of the load in the central zone
of the specimen (useful area).
This curve shows a locking angle of G1151 of
about 48 .
Modelling of the G1151 fabric
In this section, the concept of the phenomenological
model and the principal used assumptions will be
illustrated.
Najjar et al.
Figure 11. Repeatability of the force versus displacement
curves in bias test for the 25 mm/min velocity.
Figure 12. Evolution of the force versus shear angles in
bias test.
The main phenomenological assumptions used in
order to develop the discrete model are:
(i) During the preforming process, carbon fibre rein-
forcement shows a very small yarn extension.24
The experimental analysis presented in the previ-
ous part of this paper confirms this fact.
(ii) For this kind of high strength fibre fabric, the sliding
between yarns during preforming is not significant.8
(iii) The shear and tension stiffness are considered
weakly coupled.
(iv) Although the G1151 is an interlock, its small
thickness (<1 mm) and tiny flexural stiffness24,25
allow us to consider it as a 2D fabric. The flexural
stiffness is neglected in this study.
(v) Even though the tensile test results (Figure 6)
show a slight difference between tensile responses
in each direction (weft and warp) for the non-
linear initial stage, in the present work, this small
difference will be neglected and the material will
be considered as a balanced fabric especially that
5
the same slope reflecting the material response of
yarns has been found for both curves. In the
remaining of this paper, the response along the
weft direction is retained.
(vi) The objective of the model is to predict quickly
and accurately the shear angles of the preformed
dry woven fabric. The prediction of the “stress
state” which is an ambiguous concept and does
not actually make direct physical sense in a fibrous
highly multi-scale non-continuous structure like
the woven fabric G1151 is out of the scope of
the developed model.
Modelling strategy and choices
To meet the objectives of the established model (accu-
racy and simplicity), the developments have been per-
formed within the concept of the discrete approach.
This approach was initially introduced by Cherouat
and Billo€et26 and Sidhu et al.27 The works of Sharma
et al.28 and Skordos et al.15 were remarkable in this
field. Some important developments were also pro-
posed by the team of Sherwood.16,29,30 Harrison pro-
posed a version of this model which takes into account
the bending stiffness of the reinforcement.31
This family of models has these advantages:
• It can be easily integrated into a general finite ele-
ment code.
• The number of parameters to be identified is rela-
tively small.
• The computation times are reasonable.
This approach is based on a description at the meso-
scopic scale, not only of the physical entities associated
to this scale but also the actual specific deforma-
tion mechanisms.
The main feature of the present model is the numer-
ical unit cell. This cell does not necessarily describe a
“physical” unit cell the so called REV, but actually the
behaviour of an equivalent portion of fabric media.
The proposed numerical unit cell is a hybrid-element
built up using a continuous quadrangular entity, with
four 1D elements located along its edges (Figure 13).
Assumption (iv) allows us to associate this unit cell
to a 2D entity (Figure 13). According to assumptions
(i) and (iii), this unit cell is a finite strain (rotation)
element in shear and an infinitesimal strain entity in
tension. The continuous element of the unit cell is a
quadrangular shell or membrane; it allows taking into
account the in-plane shear stiffness. It also manages
contact interactions with tools and any other addition-
al layer of woven fabric. The four 1D elements of the
unit cell establish the tensile stiffness of the equivalent
physical entity. In previous studies,16,29,31 truss and
6 Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 0(0)
Figure 13. The unit cell modelling.
Figure 14. The use of “axial” connectors in the unit cell.
beam elements have been used to model the 1D tensile
entities, and a material behaviour and inertial cross
section characteristics have to be identified, to describe
correctly the mechanical responses and represent the
tension stiffness of these 1D elements.
The software Abaqus offers a comprehensive library
of special elements to model connections. These con-
nectors give the possibility to apply kinematic or kinet-
ic constraint, and to define specific behaviour of
interaction between two nodes.32
An axial connector (Figure 14) is used to define the
axial force–displacement relationship between the two
nodes. The behaviour of the connector can be also
complex to describe physical non-linearities. This ele-
ment type is used to materialize the 1D element in the
developed model.
This choice has many advantages:
• Using the connectors, only few parameters
have to be identified. Actually only the local
(Force ¼ f (displacement)) behaviour of the connec-
tor has to be determined.
• Reduced calculation cost. Indeed the connector is
not an actual finite element which the response has
to be calculated in the finite element solving process
but an additional constraint between the corner
nodes of the membrane element.
• The use of connectors allows simulating the forming
of several layers. Connectors do not involve in the
interface contact, only the (shell/membrane) ele-
ments will be involved in the contact calculation
Finally, it is important to mention that in the pro-
posed approach, the mesh using the hybrid element has
to be aligned with the fibre directions.
Analysis of unit cell behaviour
In this section, the proposed hybrid unit cell mechani-
cal behaviour is analytically analysed in both tension
Najjar et al. 7

and shear loading. As it was already mentioned

(hypothesis vi), the classical concept of stress in contin-
uum does not actually make direct physical sense in the
fibrous highly non-continuous structure of the dry
woven fabric G1151. Our choice is then to formulate
the behaviour of the unit cell and then the whole mod-
elled fibrous material as force as a function of displace-
ment (Force ¼ fðdisplacementÞÞ.
Figure 15. Unit cell in tension.
Tension analysis
According to the hypothesis (i), the extension of the We can consider that
hybrid element is very small. This hypothesis allows
us to study the extension of the unit cell within the exx  0 (6)
infinitesimal strain concept. The tensile behaviour of
the hybrid element is considered to be elastic linear. ryy becomes then
An analytical study is done concerning a unit cell sub-
mitted to a tensile loading along the y axis as it is E
shown in Figure 15. ryy ¼  eyy (7)
ð1   2 Þ
The total force of the unit cell in tension can be
written as follows
Fmembrane can be written as
Ftotal ¼ Fconn þ Fmembrane (1)
Fmembrane ¼ ryy t0 Dl (8)

where Fconn is the load supported by the connectors,

where t0 is the thickness of the membrane t0 . In term of
Fmembrane is the force supported by the membrane.
material elastic properties, Fmembrane can be computed as
The mechanical behaviour of the linear connector is
written as
E:t0
Fmembrane ¼ Dl (9)
F ¼ K0 Dl (2) ð1   2 Þ

The unit cell contains two connectors aligned with The total force can be then expressed as a function
the direction of loading. The load taken by connectors of the extension Dl and material parameters
is then:
E  t0
Ftotal ¼ ð2:K0 þ ÞDl (10)
Fconn ¼ 2K0 Dl (3) ð1   2 Þ

In the other hand, the plane stress state of the elastic The ratio between the total force and the force car-
membrane can be written in case of infinitesimal strain ried out by the connectors can also be calculated
as follows
Ftotal
2 3 ¼1þa (11)
2 3 2 3 Fconn
rxx 1  0
6 7 exx
6 7 E 6 1 0 7 6 7
4 ryy 5 ¼ :6 7:4 eyy 5 (4) with
ð1   2 Þ 4 ð1  Þ 5
rxy 0 0 2exy
2 E:t0
a¼ (12)
K0  2 ð1   2 Þ
Then
where a is the contribution of the membrane in the
E E
ryy ¼  exx þ  eyy (5) general tensile stiffness of the hybrid element.
ð1   Þ
2 ð1   2 Þ It depends mainly on the ratio Et K0 . This ratio is,
0

à priori, very small because E and t0 reflect the stiffness

The connectors in the transverse direction make the in shear which is small and K0 reflects the stiffness in
strain in that direction of the unit cell very insignificant. tension which has to be very high according to the
8 Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 0(0)

hypothesis (i). This statement will be confirmed later on Let’s consider c as a shear angle, and c can be
when E; t and K0 values will be identified. The factor expressed as follows
a is then small too; the ratio FFconn
total
is then almost equal to
1 which means that the tension stiffness can be consid- p
c¼ h (13)
ered as totally carried out by the connectors. 2

Shear analysis The kinematic relationship allows us to write c as a

function of d
The behaviour of the hybrid element is then studied in
case of pure shear (frame picture kinematic). This is pffiffiffi !
p 1 d þ 2l0
actually the principal deformation mode to which is c ¼  2cos (14)
submitted the numerical unit cell. Considering the 2 2l0
hypothesis (i and iii), the shear analysis is performed
within the frame of finite strain (rotation). In this Fs is the shear force which is written as follows
paper, the large rotation, corresponding to the pure
shear deformation of the continuous element will be F F
FS ¼ ¼ c (15)
described by a Hencky elasticity model. Xiao and 2cosðh2Þ 2cosðp4  2Þ
Chen39 have demonstrated that this particular model
is a finite strain hyperelastic approach.
Considering equation (14), FS can be written as
In the continuous non-orthogonal approaches, cal-
culations have to be done within a material updated Fl0
coordinate system which is linked to the yarn directions FS ¼ pffiffiffi (16)
d þ 2l0
in order to accurately calculate stresses and describe
fabric behaviour.
In the present approach, the calculation is done The shear stress r12 , induced by FS is expressed
within the local orthogonal Green-Naghdi frame, (E ~i as follows
basis in Figure 16(b)) which rotates with the material,32
Fs
the track of the material directions (fibre directions) r12 ¼ (17)
came naturally via the particular structure of the l0 t
hybrid element constrained by the very stiff connectors
which guaranties a large shear strain combined to a If one assumes the hypothesis of volume preserving,
very small extension of the membrane/shell element. the thickness evolution of the continuous element can
However, the stresses calculated in the continuous ele- be calculated as a function of d and the initial thick-
ment do not have an actual physical sense. ness t0
Nevertheless, the behaviour of the hybrid element has
t0 t0
to be tuned, by calibrating the elastic parameters, to t¼ ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffi pffiffi (18)
have a force–displacement behaviour in agreement with sinh 1ð dþ 2l0 2 dþ 2l0
Þ
2l0 l0
experimental data of a bias test.

Figure 16. The unit cell shear analysis. (a) The unit cell in its actual environment. (b) Stress state of the unit cell and the different
coordinate systems which can be affected to the element. (c) Simplified equivalent model which the behaviour can be expressed as
F ¼ f(d).
Najjar et al. 9

Taking into account equations (16) and (17), the

shear stress can be expressed as follows
0 1
pffiffiffi !2
F @ d þ 2 l0 A
r12 ¼ 1 (19)
t0 l 0 2l0

On the other hand if the hypothesis of the finite

shear strain is adopted, the Hencky shear behaviour
~2 Þ as
is written in the coordinate system ðE~1 ; E

r12 ¼ GcL (20)

where G ¼ 2ð1þÞ
E ðshear modulusÞ and cL the
logarithmic-Hencky finite shear strain which is
expressed as
  
p c Figure 17. Simulation of unit cell in pure shear.
c ¼ ln tan
L
 (21)
4 2

cL can be written as a function of d

pffiffiffi !!!
1 d þ 2l0
c ¼ ln tan cos
L
(22)
2l0

Then
0rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1
 pffiffi 2
B 1  dþ2l 2l0 C
B C
r12 ðdÞ ¼ G  ln@ A
0
pffiffi (23)
dþ 2l0
2l0

Figure 18. Numerical evolution of shear force for different K0

The force as a function of the displacement “d” can
then be written as follows
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Gl0 t0 :ln 1X2
FðdÞ ¼
X
(24)
ð 1  X2 Þ
pffiffi
With X ¼ dþ2l02l0
Numerical simulations of the unit cell shear test ana-
lysed above have been then performed. The configura-
tion of the test is presented in Figure 17. The used shell
parameters are (E ¼ 20 Mpa; ð ¼ 0:5 to ensure the
volume preservingÞ; t0 ¼ 0:1 mm) the connector length
l0 is 1 mm.
The stiffness of connectors K0 , has been varied from
5000 N/mm to 100,000 N/mm. Numerical responses
presenting the force as a function of displacement
and the analytical result according to equation (24)
are shown in Figure 18.
Figure 18 shows that the numerical results are in
agreement with the analytical calculation, and it also
value comparing to the analytical response.
shows that the variation of the connector stiffness has a
little impact on the response. This demonstrates that, in
coherence with hypothesis iii, the shear behaviour of
the unit cell is weakly dependent on the stiff connec-
tor behaviour.
Unit cell shear parameters sensitivity
Figure 19 shows results for K0 ¼10,000 N/mm,
E ¼ 20 Mp, t0 ¼ 0:1 mm; and for different Poisson
coefficient () values.
This figure illustrates that the variation of  has a
very little impact on the response.
Figure 20 shows the results for K0 ¼ 10,000 N/mm,
 ¼ 0:3, t0 ¼ 0:1 mm and for different
Young modulus E.
Figure 21 shows the results for K0 ¼ 10,000 N/mm,
 ¼ 0:3, E ¼ 20 MPa, t0 ¼ 0.1 mm and for different
shell thickness
10
Figure 19. Numerical evolution of shear force for different
v values.
Figure 20. Numerical evolution of shear force for different
E values.
Figure 21. Numerical evolution of shear force for different
t0 values.
According to the figures above, one can conclude
that the shear behaviour of the unit cell is very sensitive
to the Young modulus and shell thickness and weakly
dependent on the Poisson ratio.
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 0(0)
Modelling of the tensile stiffness
It has been already introduced that the tensile stiffness
of the woven fabric is modelled by means of connec-
tors. However, when using connectors two major
options exist:
• One can use linear connectors, in this case, only
linear response of the fabric, corresponding to
the stiffness of yarns is considered. This stiffness
coincides with the slope of the linear stage of the
experimental tensile load/displacement curve. This
choice allows a simple and fast way to model the
tensile behaviour of fabric, but it has the drawback
of not taking into account the crimp
exchange phenomenon.
• The second option consists in using non-linear con-
nectors. This makes it possible to model the actual
tensile behaviour of woven reinforcement including
the initial non-linear response caused by yarn un-
crimp effect.
In this paper, both options have been used
and analysed.
Case of linear connector
In this case, the connector behaviour is only character-
ized by the stiffness K0 , and the mechanical response of
the connector can be then written as F ¼ K0 Dl, where
K0 is the connector linear stiffness modulus and Dl is
the connector extension.
Identification of tensile parameters in case of
linear connector
To identify the tension parameter K0 , the experimental
uniaxial tensile test result has been used (Figure 22).
Only the linear part of the tensile response, for which
the slope is called Kfabric , has been considered.
The connector stiffness K0 is calculated by consider-
ing a geometrically equivalent tensile specimen, built by
connectors (Figure 23). N ¼ lL0 is the number of connec-
tors along the specimen length and n ¼ lb0 is the number
of connectors along the specimen width.
In the previous section of this paper, it has been
already shown that the tensile load is mostly carried
by the connectors. In case of the tensile test, the load
is taken by the connectors aligned with the loading
direction. Those connectors are indicated by the red
arrows in Figure 23.
If one considers every red line corresponding to a
serial association of N connectors as a single spring for
which the stiffness is equal to Kspring , Figure 23 shows
that the global structure of the modelled specimen is
Najjar et al. 11

made by a parallel association of four springs. Kfabric are b ¼ 48 mmL ¼ 200 mm. The direction of the test
can be written as a function of Kspring was the weft direction. The result of this test is shown
X
nþ1 in Figure 22. Kfabric value calculated from the curve is
Kfabric ¼ Kspringi ¼ ðn þ 1ÞKspring (25) equal to 5508 N/mm.
i¼1 It is then possible to identify the stiffness value of
On the other hand, the spring (red line) is formed by the connector as a function of the selected mesh size
N serial connectors in which the elementary stiffness is using equation (28).
equal to K0 . As a function of K0 ; Kspring can be written as
Case of non-linear connector
K0
Kspring ¼ (26) The first approach considered a linear behaviour of the
N
fabric in tension. However, the actual tensile response of
According to equations (25) and (26), K0 can be then the reinforcement shows a significant non-linearity at
calculated as follows the start of loading. To account for this phenomenon,
N a non-linear (polynomial) model of the behaviour of
K0 ¼ Kfabric (27) connectors is used to describe the response of the fabric.
ðn þ 1Þ
As a function of the specimen dimensions and the
connector initial length l0 , K0 can be expressed as
Identification of the global behaviour
(specimen behaviour)
ðlL0 Þ The overall behaviour of the tensile test can be defined
K0 ¼ Kfabric (28)
ðlb0 þ 1Þ by two parts (Figure 24):

The tensile test used for the identification is the one • The first sector is associated with a polynomial
h i
presented in Figure 4, where the specimen dimensions defined within the interval 0; 4DL
5 mm .
• The second sector is a straight line, which starts at a
displacement equal to 4DL
5 mm.

where DL ¼ 2:5 mm is the total displacement of

the specimen.
A forth orders polynomial has been used to describe
h i
the behaviour within the interval l 0; 4Dl
5 mm

Fglobal ¼ a4 ðdglobal Þ4 þ a3 ðdglobal Þ3 þ a2 ðdglobal Þ2

þ a1 ðdglobal Þ1 þ a0
Figure 22. Uniaxial tensile test response in the weft direction. (29)

Figure 23. Tensile specimen modelling and unit cell configuration.

12 Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 0(0)

Table 1. Identified polynomial coefficients.

a4 a3 a2 a1 a0

3:22E2 1:08E3 7:90E2 1:85E2 31:3

Table 2. Identified linear coefficients.

a01 a00

5:5E3 5:78E3

And the global extension of the specimen dglobal can

Figure 24. Selected intervals to describe the speci- be expressed as a function of the local extension of the
men response. connector dlocal

The identified coefficients of this polynomial are pre-

sented in Table 1 dglobal ¼ N dlocal (32)
To model the linear behaviour of the specimen
(when the displacement d > 4Dl 5 mmÞ, the linear function Considering equations (31) and (32), equations (29)
formulated by the following equation is used and (30) can be re-written as follows
Fglobal ¼ a01  dglobal þ a00 (30)

8
> a4 a3 a2  
>
> Flocal ¼ ðNdlocal Þ4 þ  ðN  dlocal Þ3 þ  ðN  dlocal Þ2
>
> n þ 1 n þ 1 n þ 1 4Dl
>
< for dlocal 2 0; mm
a1 a0 5N
þ  ðN  dlocal Þ1 þ (33)
>
> nþ1 nþ1
>
> 0 0
>
> a1 a 4Dl
: Flocal ¼ ðNdlocal Þ þ 0 for dlocal > mm
nþ1 nþ1 5N

The identified parameters of this function are shown where

in Table 2.
Identification of the local behaviour
(connector behaviour)
The global behaviour of the specimen governed by
equations (29) and (30) induces a local response of
the connector. This response can be calculated based
on the tensile test specimen model presented in Figure
23. Actually according to this figure, Fglobal can be writ-
ten as a function of Flocal
Fglobal ¼ ðn þ 1ÞFlocal
• a0 ; a1 ; a2 ; a3 ; a4 are the coefficients of the polynomi-
al describing the non-linear behaviour of the ten-
sile response.
• a1 0 ; a0 0 are the coefficients of the linear part of
the response.
• N and n are the parameters defined previously.
Equation (33) expresses the local tensile behaviour
of the non-linear connector in a general case. For the
case of G1151, the tensile behaviour can be then writ-
ten as follows
(31)

8
>
> ð3:22E2Þ ð1:08E3Þ ð7:90E2Þ  
>
> Flocal ¼  ðN  dlocal Þ4 þ ðNdlocal Þ3 þ ðNdlocal Þ2
>
> n þ 1 n þ 1 n þ 1 2
>
< dlocal 2 0;
ð1:85E2Þ ð3:13E1Þ N
þ ðNdlocal Þ þ (34)
>
> nþ1 nþ1
>
>
>
> ð 5:5E3 Þ ð5:78E3Þ 2
>
: Flocal ¼ ðNdlocal Þ  ; dlocal >
nþ1 nþ1 N
Najjar et al. 13

Figure 25. Mesh 1, Nb of shell elements 266. Nb of connec-

tors 480 Figure 26. Mesh 2, Nb of shell elements 1012. Nb of connec-
tors 1920.

Shear parameters identification

The concept of the shear modelling for unit cell has
been shown in a previous section. The shear parameters
identification is based on a bias test and an inverse
method procedure allowing to approximate numerical
result of bias test to the experimental one.

Bias test simulation: Mesh sensitivity analysis

To choose the convenient mesh density of the bias test
specimen and to analyse the sensitivity of the simula-
tion results to the element size (l), simulations have
been carried out using specimens having the same
dimensions (the same as the experimental sample) but
using two different mesh densities as shown in Figures
25 and 26. The parameters used to describe the shear Figure 27. Force against displacement for bias test simulation.
behaviour of the membrane are arbitrary but they are
invariant for both cases.
The curves of the numerical evolution of the force as
a function of the displament for both mesh densities are error in the load–displacement curve. The algorithm
shown in Figure 27. optimizes then the three freedom degrees of the
Figure 27 shows that the two curves are exactly the shear model:
same for both kind of mesh, and this proves that shear
response of the structure is independent of element size. • The Young modulus E.
The first mesh will be retained for the remaining of • The thickness t.
the study. • The Poisson ratio .

A simplified scheme of the optimization procedure is

Identification procedure presented in Figure 28.
The procedure uses an optimization loop based on the The identified parameters of G1151 have been shown
Trust Region algorithm.19 It reduces the quadratic in previous works by the authors (Table 3) .19–21
14
Figure 28. Identification procedure.
Table 3. Identified material parameters.
Eidentified ðMpaÞ tidentified ðmmÞ  identified
12.5 0.005 0.16
Model validation and analysis of the effect
of the tensile non-linearity
To validate the model, preforming experiments of
G1151 has been performed using a specific forming
machine (Figure 29) which has been developed in the
GEMTEX,19–22 and the obtained results using hemi-
spherical punch (Figure 30) has been compared to
numerical ones.
One of the main features of this machine is that the
blank holder and the die are transparent (Plexiglas
plates (Figure 31)) and this allows observing in-situ
the stamped reinforcement evolution. This solution is
suitable for room temperature preforming tests and
permits to directly measure the shear angles and the
draw-in profiles of the stamped G1151 reinforcement.
Processes parameters
The geometry of the performing process is presented in
Figure 32.
• The punch velocity is 5 mm/s.
• The blank holder force is 50 N.
Friction coefficient
A previous study by the authors on tribological behav-
iour of the G115122 showed that the friction coefficient
between reinforcement and Plexiglas is between 0.35
and 0.25 (for a pressure varying between 0.2 and 2
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 0(0)
bars). The same study has also showed a friction slight-
ly higher between aluminium and G1151 (for a pressure
varying between 0.2 and 2 bars).
For the analysed process in this paper, the binder is
made of Plexiglas and hemispherical punch is made of
aluminium. The shear angles and draw-in shapes are
more influenced by the friction between ply fabric and
blank holder where there is a sliding than by the one
between punch and reinforcement where the deforma-
tions are mainly governed by the shape of punch.
The friction coefficient adopted for the simulation is
then 0.3 which corresponds roughly to the experimental
friction coefficient between Plexiglas and
reinforcement.
Shear angle analysis
Analysis for (0 /90 ) oriented reinforcement. The first test
has been performed using an (0 /90 ) oriented G1151
sheet (as presented in Figure 33).
A simulation of this operation has been done using a
linear behaviour of the connectors. A friction coeffi-
cient of 0.3 is used. In coherence with the experiment
conditions, a binder force of 50 N and a stamping
velocity 5 mm/s are used.
Two kinds of continuum element have been tested
(shell elements and membrane elements).
Figures 35 and 36 present the shear angles obtained
for each case.
Figures 35 and 36 show that the shell and membrane
elements give almost the same result. The global shapes
of both simulated part are practically identical and
globally coherent with the experimental result (Figure
34). The maximal shear angle is almost the same for
both cases (44.6 for shells and 44.17 for membranes).
This result seems reasonable if we consider the weak
mechanical properties of the continuum element.
Najjar et al.
Figure 29. The GEMTEX stamping machine.
Figure 30. The hemispherical punch.
The process is then simulated using shell elements
and non-linear connectors where the identified behav-
iour is the following
(
Flocal ¼ 1:288E9d4local þ 4:32E7  d3local þ 3:16E5  d2local þ 7:4E2dlocal þ 1:25;
Flocal ¼ 2:2E4  dlocal  1:82 E2;
15
Figure 31. Reinforcement before stamping.
The simulation results obtained using linear connec-
tor and non-linear connector and experimental data are
presented in Figures 37 to 39.
Figures 37 to 39 show that both models seem to
correctly predict the shear angle contour. They also
prove that models predict correctly the critical shear
angle. However, it seems that the non-linear model is
dlocal 2 ½0; 0:02 mm
(35)
dlocal > 0:02 mm
16
Figure 32. The simulated process.
Figure 33. The woven fabric sheet ((0 /90 ) oriented)
before stamping.
Figure 34. The woven fabric sheet ((0 /90 ) oriented)
after stamping.
slightly closer to the experimental result (The maximal
measured angle is 43 , 44.6 for the angle obtained by
the linear model and 43.29 for the one obtained by
non-linear connector).
Furthermore, the non-linear model seems to better pre-
dict the non-sheared area (area where shear angle is 0 ).
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 0(0)
Figure 35. Shear angles results for shell elements.
Figure 36. Shear angles results for membrane elements.
Figure 37. Results for linear connectors.
Indeed, the linear model overestimates this area com-
pared to the experimental result. The non-linear model
predicts, however, a more realistic smooth transition
area, and a non-sheared area similar to the experimen-
tal one.
Najjar et al. 17

Figure 38. Results for non-linear connectors.

Figure 40. Experimental result (Global shape).

Figure 39. Experimental results. Figure 41. Experimental result (Measured angles).

Results for (45 /þ45 ) oriented reinforcement. The exper-

imental result obtained for a preform oriented 45 is
presented in Figures 40 and 41.
The shear angles obtained using simulations are pre-
sented in the figures below:

• Figure 42 shows the result using linear connectors.

• Figure 43 shows the result using non-linear connectors.

These figures show that simulations predict well the

critical shear angles (42 for the experimental result,
42.22 for the linear model and 41.90 for the non-
linear connectors).
To better apprehend the distribution of the shear
angles and to understand the effect of the non-
linearity on shear angles, the shear angles along the Figure 42. Linear connectors.
18
Figure 43. Non-linear connectors.
Figure 44. The path where shear angles are measured and the
three area specific of a hemispherical preform.
path shown in the Figure 44 have been analysed for
both linear and non-linear model.
The curves of Figure 45 show the shear angle along
the path specified in Figure 44 for simulations using
both linear and non-linear connector behaviour.
These curves demonstrate that both simulations give
almost the same result in the spherical region under-
neath the tool where deformations are mainly governed
by the shape of the punch, and the same result has been
found by Komeili et al.33
Beyond this area, it seems that there is a deviance
between the two results. The non-linear model seems to
generate a smoother and more gradual profile compar-
ing with the linear model.
Some results in literature,34–36 which have been
reported in Haghi Kashania et al.37 indicate that
higher pre-tension (Which corresponds to the linear
model in case of the present work, in which the un-
crimping phase is omitted) level induces a higher
fabric shear resistance at low shear angles. However,
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 0(0)
Figure 45. Evolution of shear angles along the path.
for high shear angles, an opposite tendency can be
found, and in this case thepre-tensioned fabric has
lower shear stiffness.
These phenomena are quite noticeable in Figure 45,
where it can be seen that for a high shear angle range, the
linear model which omits the un-crumping non-linear
response and therefore coincide with a pre-tensioned
state, shows a lower shear resistance (corresponding to
higher shear angle value). However for low shear angles
(roughly angles below 12 ), the linear model generates a
significant shear angle resistance and consequently
lower shear angle values. This confirms the above indi-
cated result reported in the literature. In conclusion, the
results of Figure 45 clearly show the evident effect of
using non-linear connectors and therefore taking into
account the crimp exchange effect on shear angle distri-
butions in the area where the fabric deformations are
not governed by the punch shape.
Draw-in analysis
Figures 46 and 47 show a comparison between the sim-
ulated (both linear and non-linear) and experimental
result of one-fourth of the boundary curve of the
drawn-in for à 0/90 oriented reinforcement.
These figures indicate a global agreement between
numerical and experimental results. An insignificant
difference has been found between the linear and
non-linear model (Figure 46). However, a zoom of
the draw-in profiles (Figure 47) shows that the curve
obtained using linear connectors presents a hyperbolic
saturation shape composed by steep lower part and a
totally flat upper part, and this hyperbola is also char-
acterized by a sharp-turn. The non-linear tensile model
generates, however, a smoother quasi-parabolic curve
closer to the experimental result. The non-linear model
gives then a more realistic shape and describes well the
local geometry of the draw-in.
Najjar et al.
Figure 46. Boundary curve of the drawn-in part (0 /90 ).
Figure 47. Zoom of the surrounded area in Figure 46.
The shape of the preform oriented 45 directions is
also studied. Figures 48 and 49 show the simulated and
the experimental profiles. These figures illustrate that
the simulations predict well the global experimen-
tal profiles.
However, The zoom of the surrounded section in
Figure 48 (Figure 49) show, in coherence with the result
in the case of the (0, 90 ) oriented perform, that the
non-linear connector model gives a smoother profile
which is closer to the experimental profile than the
linear predicted profile.
Although these results show that the non-linear
model generates curves slightly closer locally to the
experimental profiles, it seems that there is no signifi-
cant impact of the non-linear connector on the global
draw-in shapes, and this conclusion is in agreement
19
Figure 48. Boundary curve of the drawn-in (þ45 /45 ).
Figure 49. Zoom of the surrounded area in Figure 48.
with Gong et al38 which demonstrated that the cou-
pling tension-shear has a little effect on the draw-in.
Conclusion
In this paper, an experimental and numerical analysis
of the preforming of woven carbon fibre has been con-
ducted. To better understand the behaviour of the spe-
cific reinforcement (G1151), some constitutive tests
have been realized, and it was particularly interesting
to show the effect of the shear deformation rate on the
deformability of this fabric. A numerical hybrid model
which was previously introduced19–21 has been used to
simulate the preforming operation, the results are then
compared to experimental data, and a good agreement
has been found. The tensile stiffness of reinforcement
has been modelled in two ways, the first considering in
a linear stiffness, and the second uses non-linear
20
connectors to model the un-crimping of the fabric.
Results clearly show that the non-linear
connectors have an impact on the shear angles distri-
bution, but a little effect on the shape and the draw-in
of the preformed part.
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank: OSEO for its financial support,
Airbus-France, LoireTech and EADS IW for provid-
ed facilities.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
thisarticle: This work has been financially supported by
OSEO within the frame of Défi Composite project.
ORCID iD
W Najjar https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1661-5264
D Soulat https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7911-4243
References
1. Potter KD. Resin transfer moulding. London: Chapman
& Hall, 1997.
2. Kruckenberg TM and Paton R (eds). Resin transfer
moulding for aerospace structures. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1998.
3. Parnas RS. Liquid composite moulding. Berlin: Hanser
Gardner Publications, 2000.
4. Badel P, Vidal-Salle E and Boisse P. Computational
determination of in-plane shear mechanical behavior of
textile composite reinforcements. Comput Mater Sci
2007; 40: 439–448.
5. Bodaghi M, Vanaerschot A, Lomov SV, et al. On the
stochastic variations of intra-tow permeability induced
by internal geometry variability in a 2/2 twill carbon
fabric. Compos Part A 2017; 101: 444–458.
6. Arbter R, et al. Experimental determination of the per-
meability of textiles: a benchmark exercise. Composites
Part A 2011; 42: 1157–1168.
7. Vernet N, et al. Experimental determination of the per-
meability of engineering textiles: benchmark II.
Composites Part A 2014; 61: 172–184.
8. Boisse P. Finite element analysis of composite forming.
In: Long AC (ed) Composite forming technologies. UK:
Woodhead Publishing Limited and CRC press
LLC, 2007.
9. Xue P, Peng X and Cao J. A non-orthogonal constitutive
model for characterizing woven composites. Composites
Part A 2003; 34: 183–193.
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 0(0)
10. Zhang W, et al. A non-orthogonal material model of
woven composites in the preforming process. CIRP Ann
2017; 60: 257–260.
11. Charmetant A, Vidal-Sallé E and Boisse E. Hyperelastic
modelling for mesoscopic analyses of composite rein-
forcements. Compos Sci Technol 2011; 71: 1623–1631.
12. Liang B, Colmars J and Boisse P. A shell formulation for
fibrous reinforcement forming simulations, Composites
Part A 2017; 100: 81–96.
13. Khan MA, Mabrouki T, Vidal-Sallé E, et al. Numerical
and experimental analyses of woven composite reinforce-
ment forming using a hypoelastic behaviour. Application
to the double dome benchmark. J Mater Process Technol
2010; 210: 378–388.
14. Denis Y, Guzman-Maldonado E, Hamila N, et al.
A dissipative constitutive model for woven
composite fabric under large strain. Composites Part A
2018; 105: 165–179.
15. Skordos AA, Monroy Aceves C and Sutcliffe MPF.
A simplified rate dependent model of forming and wrin-
kling of preimpregnated woven composites. Composites
Part A 2007; 38: 1318–1330.
16. Jauffrès D, Sherwood JA, Morris CD, et al. Discrete
mesoscopic modeling for the simulation of woven-fabric
reinforcement forming. Int J Mater Form 2010;
3: 1205–1216.
17. D’Agostino MV, Giorgio I, et al. Continuum and
discrete models for structures including (quasi-) inexten-
sible elasticae with a view to the design and modeling of
composite reinforcements. Int J Solids Struct
2015; 59:1–17.
18. Hamila N, Boisse P, Sabourin F, et al. A semi-discrete
shell finite element for textile composite reinforcement
forming simulation. Int J Numer Meth Eng 2009;
79: 1443–1466.
19. Najjar W. Contribution to the simulation of composite
woven fabric reinforcements forming (in French). PhD
Dissertation, Arts et Métiers Paristech CER Angers,
France, 2012.
20. Najjar W, Legrand X, Pupin C, Boude S, et al. A simple
discrete method for the simulation of the preforming
of woven fabric reinforcement. Key Eng Mater 2012;
504–506: 213–218.
21. Najjar W, Legrand X, Dal Santo P, et al. Analysis of the
blank holder force effect on the preforming process using
a simple discrete approach. Key Eng Mater 2013; 554–
557: 441–446.
22. Najjar W, Pupin C, Legrand X, et al. Analysis of fric-
tional behaviour of carbon dry woven reinforcement.
J Reinf Plast Compos 2014; 33: 1037–1047.
23. Hexel fabrics data sheets website, http://hexply.com/hex
force/database/web/front/main/index.php (accessed 11
June 2019).
24. Allaoui S, Boisse P, et al. Experimental and numerical
analyses of textile reinforcement forming of tetrahedral
shape. Composite Part A 2011; 42: 612–622.
25. De Bilbao E, Soulat D, Hivet G, et al. Experimental
study of bending behaviour of reinforcements. Exp
Mech 2010; 50: 333–351.
Najjar et al.
26. Cherouat A and Billo€et JL. Impregnated woven fabric by
deep drawing and laying up processes. J Adv Mater 2000;
32: 42–53.
27. Sidhu RMJS, Averill RC, Riaz M, et al. Finite element
analysis of textile composite preforms stamping. Compos
Struct 2001; 52: 483–497.
28. Sharma SB and Sutcliffe MPF. A simplified finite element
model for draping of woven material. Composites Part A
2004; 35: 637–643.
29. Li X, Sherwood J, Liu L, et al. A material model for
woven commingled glass-propylene composite using a
hybrid finite element approach. Int J Mater Product
Technol 2004; 21: 59–70.
30. Jauffres D, Morris CD, Kremer J, et al. Simulation of the
thermostamping of woven composites: mesoscopic
modeling using FEA explicit codes. Int J Mater Form
2009; 2: 173–176.
31. Harrison P. Modelling the forming mechanics of engi-
neering fabrics using a mutually constrained pantograph-
ic beam and membrane mesh. Composites Part A 2016;
81: 145–157.
32. Dassault Systémes. Abaqus analysis user’s manual version
6.12. Providence, RI, USA , 2012.
33. Komeili M and Milani AS. On the effect of shear-tension
coupling in forming simulation of woven fabric reinforce-
ments. Composites Part B 2016; 99: 17–29.
21
34. Launay J, Hivet G, Duong A.V, et al. Experimental anal-
ysis of the influence of tensions on in plane shear behav-
iour of woven composite reinforcements. Compos Sci
Technol 2008; 68: 506–515.
35. Nosrat-Nezami F, Gereke T, Eberdt C, et al.
Characterisation of the shear–tension coupling of
carbon-fibre fabric under controlled membrane tensions
for precise simulative predictions of industrial preforming
processes. Composites Part A 2014; 67: 131–139.
36. Komeili M. Multi-scale characterization of shear-tension
interaction in woven fabrics for composite forming and
applications. PhD Dissertation, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 2014.
37. Haghi Kashania M, Hosseini A, Sassani F, et al.
Understanding different types of coupling in mechanical
behaviour of woven fabric reinforcements: a critical
review and analysis. Compos Struct 2017; 179: 558–579.
38. Gong Y, et al. An anisotropic hyperelastic constitutive
model with tension–shear coupling for woven composite
reinforcements. Int J Appl Mech 2017; 9:175083
(17 pages).
39. Xiao H and Chen L.S. Hencky’s elasticity model and
linear stress-strain relations in isotropic finite hyperelas-
ticity. Acta Mech 2002; 157: 51–60.