Fibers and Polymers 2020, Vol.21, No.

3, 590-603 ISSN 1229-9197 (print version)

DOI 10.1007/s12221-020-9425-7 ISSN 1875-0052 (electronic version)

Surface Parameter Measurement of Braided Composite Preform

Based on Faster R-CNN
Zhitao Xiao1,2, Lei Pei1, Lei Geng1,2*, Ying Sun3, Fang Zhang1,2, and Jun Wu1,2
1
School of Electronics and Information Engineering, TianGong University, Tianjin 300387, China
2
Tianjin Key Laboratory of Optoelectronic Detection Technology and System, Tianjin 300387, China
3
Institute of Textile Composites, TianGong University, Tianjin 300387, China
(Received April 26, 2019; Revised August 19, 2019; Accepted August 25, 2019)

Abstract: Pitch length and surface braiding angle are two important parameters of braided composite preforms. In this paper,
a method based on Faster R-CNN is proposed to measure the two parameters. First, after image acquisition, a fabric image
database including initial cropped images, augmented images, and target images is established. Then, the target images are
classified into four categories according to the gray change characteristics. Third, a Faster R-CNN fabric detection model is
trained on the fabric image database. Fourth, targets are detected by the trained network, and corners are detected based on
the detected targets. Finally, pitch lengths and surface braiding angles are measured based on the detected corners.
Experimental results show that the proposed method achieves the automatic measurement of pitch lengths and surface
braiding angles of 2D and 3D braided composite preforms with high accuracy.
Keywords: Braided composite preform, Pitch length, Surface braiding angle, Deep learning, Faster R-CNN

Introduction [8]. Two-dimensional braided structures can be classified as

Fiber-reinforced/braided composites are increasingly used
in the fields of aerospace, automotive, military, energy,
sports, etc. due to their advantageous features, such as high
shear and torsional strength and stiffness, high transverse
strength and modulus, damage tolerance and fatigue life, and
notch insensitivity [1-5]. Braided composites are produced
from fibrous architectures developed by braiding technology
[6,7]. Braided structures are produced by intertwining two or
more yarns and are distinguished from other fibrous
architectures by the yarns being aligned diagonally to the
structure axis [2]. Braided structures are mainly separated
into two categories according to how fibrous reinforcements
are interlaced in spatial directions, i.e., 2D (two-
dimensional) and 3D (three-dimensional) braided structures
diamond (1/1 repeat), regular (2/2 repeat) and Hercules (3/3
repeat) based on the weave pattern [9]. Three-dimensional
braided structures can be classified as 3D, four-directional,
3D, five-directional and 3D, six-directional structures
according to the reinforced yarns added in different
directions.
The surface braiding angle θ is defined as the angle
between the surface braiding yarn axis and the fabricated
direction [10], and the pitch length h is the length that yarns
expand along the braiding direction in each carrier motion
step [11] (see Figure 1). Surface braiding angle and pitch
length are important parameters of braided composites
because the mechanical properties of braided composites
can be affected by the parameters [10,12-15].
However, in the industry, manual measurement of surface

Figure 1. Pitch length and surface braiding angle; (a) in ideal scenario, (b) in practical scenario (2D fabric), and (c) in practical scenario (3D
fabric).

*Corresponding author: genglei@tjpu.edu.cn

590
Braided Parameter Measurement Using Faster R-CNN Fibers and Polymers 2020, Vol.21, No.3 591

braiding angle and pitch length is still the main method,

which is time-consuming and manpower-wasting. Thus, it is
desirable to develop a method for objective, automatic, and
accurate measurement of the two parameters.
Several measurement techniques of 3D braided composite
preforms based on image processing have been proposed as
a solution. In the study of Wan et al. [16], an approach based
on curve fitting was proposed to measure the surface
braiding angle. Gong et al. [17] proposed an automatic
method based on multi-resolution analysis of a wavelet
transform to measure the pitch length. Wan et al. [18]
developed an algorithm that measures the average surface
braiding angle based on mathematical morphology and the
Fourier transform. It is noteworthy that these methods are
more applicable to measuring the average values of the two
parameters than to measuring each individual surface
braiding angle and pitch length. Fewer methods have been
reported for the two-parameter measurement of 2D braided
composite preforms.
Recently, with the development of deep convolutional
neural networks (CNNs), many tasks in computer vision
have been dominated by them [19,20]. For object detection,
region-based CNN detection methods are now the main
paradigm. It is such a rapidly developing area that three
generations of region-based CNN detection models, from R- Figure 2. Braided composite preform samples; (a) 2D biaxial
carbon-fiber (3k) braided composite preform sample and (b) 3D,
CNN [21], to Fast R-CNN [22], and finally Faster R-CNN,
4-directional braided composite preform samples.
were proposed by Girshick et al. [23] in 2015, with
increasingly better accuracy and faster processing speed. In
recent years, Faster R-CNN has been used in many fields of
image processing, such as medical fields [24-28], intelligent
transportation and monitoring fields [29-33], textile fields
[34-36], etc.
In this paper, we propose a new method based on a deep
learning net: Faster R-CNN to measure the surface braiding
angle and pitch length of 2D and 3D braided composite
preforms.

Experimental

Materials
The materials include 2D and 3D fabrics. The 2D fabrics
are biaxial braided by carbon-fiber (6k, 6,000 filaments),
carbon-fiber (3k, 3,000 filaments), glass-fiber and aramid-
fiber, separately, which are braided tubes provided by
Shuomin Technology Co. Ltd., China (see Figure 2(a)). The
3D fabrics are 3D, four-directional braided by carbon-fiber
(12k, 12,000 filaments), and carbon-fiber (24k, 24,000
filaments), separately, supplied by the Institute of Textile
Composites of Tianjin Polytechnic University (see Figure
2(b)). The average diameters of the 2D braided carbon-,
glass- and aramid-fiber filaments are, respectively, 5.70 µm,
7.91 µm and 11.02 µm, tested by the College of Textiles of
Tianjin Polytechnic University using the fiber fineness
analyser.
Figure 3. Image acquisition system.
Image Acquisition
The original images are acquired by the image acquisition
system displayed in Figure 3. First, the fabric is put on the
surface of the measurement platform with micrometer on
one side of the fabric, keeping the surface of the fabric and
micrometer on the same horizontal plane. Second, the CCD
camera (Vieworks VA-8MC-M16AO) with a camera lens
(Nikkor 28 mm f/2.8D) and circular polarizing filter (CPF)
(NiSi CPL 52 mm) attached is vertically installed above the
fabric, and the dome light source (DLS) (OPT-RID180-
592 Fibers and Polymers 2020, Vol.21, No.3
RGB) is put on the surface of the fabric, making the
camera’s optical centre go through the central axis of the
DLS light hole and the centre of the fabric surface. Finally,
the camera exposure value and the rotated angle of CPF are
adjusted, and a clear image shown on the computer screen is
selected.
The image acquisition system can obtain clear and
accurate gray-level fabric images. The reasons are described
as follows: first, the CCD camera is an industrial black-and-
white CCD camera with a high resolution of 3296×2472
pixels, which has less distortion and clearer image quality
than normal cameras. Second, the DLS can uniformly
illuminate the fabric surface [37], and the CPF can filter
reflections with certain vibration directions [38,39], which
are helpful to reduce the reflection on the fabric image
surface.
Corner Detection based on Faster R-CNN
The acquired images are then processed by corner
detection based on Faster R-CNN.
Faster R-CNN [23] contains the Zeiler and Fergus (ZF)
model [40] and VGG-16 model [41] pre-trained with
Figure 4. Original training sample images; (a) F dc1
2
(6k), (b) F
2 dc2
F dc (24k).
3 3
Zhitao Xiao et al.
specific image datasets and corresponding annotations, such
as the Microsoft COCO dataset [42] and Pascal VOC dataset
[43]. Faster R-CNN is composed of RPN (Region Proposal
Network) and Fast R-CNN modules. The RPN module,
which is a deep fully convolutional network, proposes
regions, and Fast R-CNN module uses the proposed regions.
The detailed steps of corner detection based on Faster R-
CNN are described as follows.
Step 1: Establish the fabric image database, including
initial cropped images, augmented images and target images.
Step 1.1: Crop initial fabric images from the original
images acquired in the Image Acquisition Section. The
cropped initial fabric images contain eight types of fabrics,
as shown in Figure 4; Figure 4(a) to (c) are, respectively, 2D
carbon-fiber (6k), carbon-fiber (3k) and carbon-fiber (3k)
fabrics with different of pitch lengths and surface braiding
angles; Figure 4(d) to (e) are respectively, 2D glass- and
aramid-fiber fabrics; and Figure 4(f) to (h) are, respectively,
3D carbon-fiber (12k), carbon-fiber (24k) and carbon-fiber
(24k) fabrics with different of pitch lengths and surface
braiding angles.
Step 1.2: Augment the initial fabric images by image
(3k), (c) F
2 dc3 (3k), (d) F dg, (e) F da, (f) F3dc (12k), (g) F
2 2 3 3 dc3 (24k), and (h)
Braided Parameter Measurement Using Faster R-CNN Fibers and Polymers 2020, Vol.21, No.3 593

augmented fabric images. First, click corner points of the

fabric images shown on the computer screen, obtaining the
coordinates of the clicked corners. Second, compute the
upper-left and lower-right coordinates in (2m+1)×(2n+1)
neighborhoods centered at the clicked corners. For example,
let A(x0, y0) be one clicked corner; then the upper-left and
lower-right coordinates in the m×n neighborhoods centered
at A are (x0−m, y0−n) and (x0+m, y0+n), respectively. We can
thus obtain the target images of (2m+1)×(2n+1) size centered
at the clicked corners.
Figure 6 shows fabric images and related target images;
for example, Figure 6(a-1) and (a-2) are target images
matted from Figure 6(a) of the area labeled by the blue
rectangle centered at the blue labeled corner, and the yellow
rectangle centered at the yellow labeled corner, respectively.
Similarly, other target images can be matted from Figure
6(a) and from other fabric images (see Figure 6(b) to (h)).
Step 1.4: Classify the target images into four categories
based on gray changes of the target images. As shown in
Figure 5. Training image and related augmentation; (a) image Fori, Figure 6, target images matted from Figure 6(a) to (c) are
(b) horizontal mirror of Fori, (c) vertical mirror of Fori, and (d) L classified into class one and class two, target images matted
image of (a). from Figure 6(d) and (e) are classified into class three, and
target images matted from Figure 6(f) to (h) are classified
into class four.
rotation, horizontal mirroring (see Figure 5(b)), vertical The screening mechanism of target images is described as
mirroring (see Figure 5(c)) and enhancement (see Figure follows. Firstly, for 2D carbon-fiber fabrics, as shown in
5(d)). Here, we use L channel image abstracted from the Lab Figure 6(a), (a-1), (a-2), (b), (b-1), (b-2), (c), (c-1) and (c-2),
transform [44] as image enhancement. the gray change characteristic of the target images centered
CIE Lab was developed by CIE (Commission Internationale at corners is that they all include areas with good contrast
de L'Eclairage) in 1976; it first converts the R, G and B between light and dark. The difference between Figure 6(a-
channels of the original image to X, Y and Z space and then 1), (b-1) and (c-1), and Figure 6(a-2), (b-2) and (c-2) is that
converts them to L, a and b space, as calculated by [44] the former have a greater proportion of dark areas than light
areas, while the latter have the opposite characteristic. Thus,
⎡0.412453 0.357580 0.180423 ⎤ they are classified into class one and class two. Second,
⎢ ⎥ target images cropped from glass-fiber and aramid-fiber
[ X , Y , Z ] = ⎢0.212671 0.715150 0.072169 ⎥ [ R, G, B] (1)
fabric (see Figure 6(d), (d-1), (d-2), (e), (e-1) and (e-2)) have
⎢⎣0.019334 0.119193 0.950227 ⎥⎦ similar gray change characteristics with no significant
contrast between light and dark areas. Thus, they are
⎧ classified into class three. Finally, the target images of 3D
⎪ carbon-fiber fabric (see Figure 6(f), (f-1), (f-2), (g), (g-1), (g-
⎪ L = 116 f (Y ) − 16 2), (h), (h-1) and (h-2)) have similar gray change
⎪
⎪ ⎡ ⎛ X ⎞ ⎤ characteristics with weak significant contrast between light
⎨a = 500 ⎢ f ⎜ ⎟ − f (Y ) ⎥ (2)
⎪ ⎣ ⎝ 0.9504 ⎠ ⎦ and dark areas. Thus, they are classified into class four.
⎪ Thus, the fabric images database, including initial fabric
⎪b = 200 ⎢⎡ f (Y ) − f ⎛ Z ⎞ ⎥⎤ images, augmented fabric images, and target images, is
⎪⎩ ⎜ 1.0887 ⎟
⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎦ established. Table 1 shows the image numbers of the
training, validating, testing and target sets of the fabric
⎧ ⎛ 6 ⎞
3 images database, where the proportion of images in training,
⎪ x1/3 , x>⎜ ⎟ validating and testing sets is 3:1:1.
⎪ ⎝ 29 ⎠
f ( x) = ⎨ (3) Step 2: Train the Faster R-CNN fabric detection model on
2 3
⎪ 1 ⎛ 29 ⎞ 4 ⎛ 6 ⎞ the established database, where the ZF net trained with the
⎪ ⎜ ⎟ x + , x≤⎜ ⎟
⎩3 ⎝ 6 ⎠ 29 ⎝ 29 ⎠ Pascal VOC dataset (2007) is used as the pre-trained
network. For comparison with the VGG-16 net, the depth
Step 1.3: Mat the target images from the initial and configuration of the ZF net is shallower (see Figure 7), and
594 Fibers and Polymers 2020, Vol.21, No.3 Zhitao Xiao et al.

Figure 6. Training sample images and related target images; (a) F2dc (6k) with labeled corners and cropped rectangular box, (a-1) target
1

image of (a) (Class one), (a-2) target image of (a) (Class two), (b) F2dc (3k), (b-1) target image of (b) (Class one), (b-2) target image of (b)
2

(Class two), (c) F2dc (3k), (c-1) target image of (c) (Class one), (c-2) target image of (c) (Class two), (d) F2dg (3k), (d-1) target image of (d)
3

(Class three), (d-2) target image of (d) (Class three), (e) F2da (3k), (e-1) target image of (e) (Class three), (e-2) target image of (e) (Class
three), (f) F3dc (12k), (f-1) target image of (f) (Class four), (f-2) target image of (f) (Class four), (g) F3dc (24k), (g-1) target image of (g)
1 2

(Class four), (g-2) target image of (g) (Class four), (h) F3dc (24k), (h-1) target image of (h) (Class four), and (h-2) target image of (h) (Class
3

four).

Table 1. Number of images in the training, validating, testing and target sets of the fabric images database
Image number F dc
2 1
F dc
2 2
F dc
2 3
F dg
2
F da
2
F3dc1
F3dc2
F3dc3

Total set 800 800 800 800 800 700 700 700
Training set 3,660
Validating set 1,220
Testing set 1,220
Target set 388,026
Braided Parameter Measurement Using Faster R-CNN
Figure 7. Depth configurations of the ZF and VGG-16 nets; (a)
ZF net and (b) VGG-16 net.
Figure 8. PR curves; (a) PR curve of class 1, (b) PR curve of class 2, (c) PR curve of class 3, and (d) PR curve of class 4.
Fibers and Polymers 2020, Vol.21, No.3 595
Table 2. Testing results with the ZF and VGG pretrained nets
AP AP AP AP
mAP
(Class 1) (Class 2) (Class 3) (Class 4)
ZF net 0.882 0.887 0.866 0.897 0.883
VGG net 0.865 0.865 0.857 0.896 0.871
the target samples are not complex, so the shallower pre-
trained network, i.e., the ZF net is more suitable. As shown
in Table 2, the AP (Average Precision) and mAP (Mean
Average Precision) values tested in the validating set by the
trained Faster R-CNN fabric detection model with the ZF
pre-trained network are higher than those for the VGG-16
pre-trained network, where the AP and mAP are usually
used to evaluate the trained model.
Figure 8 is the PR (Precision-Recall) curve tested in the
validating set by the trained Faster R-CNN fabric detection
model with the ZF pre-trained network. It can be seen that
the AP values of classes 1 to 4 are high, so the trained
network exhibits good performance. Figure 9 shows partial
results tested by the trained model in the testing set (1,220
testing sample images). From Figure 9 and other images
tested in the testing set, no false targets are detected, and
several targets near the image edges are missed because the
sizes of missing targets are smaller than the sizes of targets
596 Fibers and Polymers 2020, Vol.21, No.3 Zhitao Xiao et al.

Figure 9. Partial tested results; (a) tested results of F dc (2D, 6k, carbon-fiber), (b) tested results of F dc (2D, 3k, carbon-fiber), (c) tested
2 1 2 2

results of F dc (2D, 3k, carbon-fiber), (d) tested results of F dg (2D, glass-fiber), (e) tested results of F da (2D, aramid-fiber), (f) tested results
2 3 2 2

of F3dc (3D,12k, carbon-fiber), (g) tested results of F dc (3D, 24k, carbon-iber), and (h) tested results of F dc (3D, 24k, carbon-fiber).
3 3 3 3 3

in the non-marginal region, so the characteristics of the x = x +w

missing targets are not significant enough to be detected.
Step 3: Detect initial corners based on the detected targets.
Step 3.1: Crop the final test image into small blocks FBi
(i=1, 2, ..., 9) (see Figure 10(b)) that are overlapping so as
not to miss targets near image edges.
Step 3.2: Test the block images FBi using the trained Faster
R-CNN fabric detection model, obtaining images FTi with
detected targets (see Figure 10(c)).
Step 3.3: In FTi, calculate the center point coordinates of
each detected target as the original corners, yielding the
corner map FCi (see Figure 10(d)). For example, let A(xul, yul)
and B(xlr, ylr) be, respectively, the upper-left and lower-right
coordinates of one known detected target, so the center point
C(xo, xo) can be calculated by
o ul
(4)
y = y +r
o ul
(5)
where w=(xlr−xul)/2 and r=(ylr−yul)/2. Similarly other corners
of FTi can be calculated.
Step 3.4: Merge FCi based on the positions where they are
cropped form the original image FOr, yielding the corner
map FOrC (see Figure 10(e) and (f)).
From Figure 10(e) and (f), the corner map FOrC has false
corners caused by the overlapping areas of adjacent image
blocks, so false corners will be removed in the following
step.
Step 3.5: Remove false corners of FOrC. First, compare all
corner gray values of the original image FOr in certain
Braided Parameter Measurement Using Faster R-CNN
Figure 10. Process of initial corner detection; (a) original image
FOr, (b) block images FBi cropped from (a), (c) block images FTi
with detected targets, (d) block images FCi with detected corners,
(e) merged original corner map FOrC, (f) part of (e) in the white
square frame, (g) corner map FC, and (h) part of (g) in the white
square frame.
Figure 11. Process of initial corner detection; (a) FCOj, (b) FBM3Dj, (c) Fpcj, (d) FBj, and (e) adjusted corner.
Fibers and Polymers 2020, Vol.21, No.3 597
neighborhoods, and then only reserve these corners with
minimum gray values, yielding the initial corner map FC
(see Figure 10(g) and (h)).
Step 4: Adjust corner position based on phase congruency.
Step 4.1: Calculate the minimum moments of the phase
congruency covariance [45] of FBM3D in (2R+1)×(2R+1)
neighborhoods centered at the detected corners, yielding
FPCj (j=1, 2, ..., nc; nc is the corner number detected in FC)
(see Figure 11(c)), where FBM3D is the image FOr processed
by the L transform [44] and then by the BM3D filter [46];
R=(Thx/2)×(1/2), and Thx can be calculated by [47].
1. Calculate each row autocorrelation map Facxi of FL,
where i = 1, 2, ..., m; m is the row number of FL.
2. In the middle of Facxi, for each row, calculate the
average peak-to-peak value Vaci of three peaks and
denote the coordinates of the middle peaks by Vmpi; let
the maximum of Vaci be Txmax.
3. If three peaks are found in the interval [Vmpi−Txmax
Vmpi+Txmax], then reserve this Vaci.
4. Set Thx as the average of the reserved Vaci.
Step 4.2: Binarize image FPCj by a threshold T. Then
remove those corners whose distances to the image edges
are less than 3 pixels, yielding image FBj (see Figure 11(d)).
Finally, calculate the distance dccjk (k=1, 2, ..., nk, nk is the
number of corners in FBj) between the corners of FBj and the
center point coordinates (R, R) of FBj, and let the minimum
of dccjk be dminc. Label the corners with dminc; if the number of
the labeled corners with dminc is 1, then the labeled corner is
used as the adjusted corner, else if the number of the labeled
corners with dminc is more than 1, then compare the gray
values of these labeled corners in FL, reserving these corners
with minimum gray values as the adjusted corners.
As shown in Figure 11(e), the corner position processed
by corner adjustment is more accurate than before (see
Figure 11(a)).
Step 4.3: Remove those corners for which the distances to
image edges are less than q pixels. Then, further adjust the
corners: compare the gray values of FOr in 3×3
neighborhoods centered at the detected corners, and only
reserve these corners with minimum gray values.
Pitch Length and Surface Braiding Angle Measurement
The pitch lengths and surface braiding angles are
598 Fibers and Polymers 2020, Vol.21, No.3 Zhitao Xiao et al.

between corners Ai and Aj. Similarly, define dBiBj, dCiCj, dDiDj,

dEiEj and dFiFj. The pitch length dplA can be calculated by
dplA=dAiAj×dc, where dc is the true length per pixel according
to image calibration in image acquisition. Similarly, the
pitch lengths dplB, dplC, dplD, dplE and dplF can be calculated.
The surface braiding angle θ/2 is obtained by θ/2=
(θA2C1+θB1D2)/2, where θA2C1 and θB1D2 are the acute angle
between A2C1 and the horizontal direction, and the acute
angle between B1D2 and the horizontal direction, respectively.

Figure 12. Labeled corners and angle. Results and Discussion

In this section, eight types of sample images are tested

measured based on the corners detected above; the detailed
steps are described as follows:
Consider Figure 12, for example, let Ai, Bi, Ci, Di, Ei, and
Fi (i=1, 2, 3, 4) be the detected corners marked by white
points. Define dAiAj (j=i+1, i=1, 2, 3) as the pixel distance
using the proposed method, as shown in Figure 13, where
Figure 13(a)-(e) are 2D braided glass-fiber, aramid-fiber,
carbon-fiber (6k), carbon-fiber (3k) and carbon-fiber (3k)
composite preforms, respectively, and Figure 13(f)-(h) are,
respectively, 3D braided carbon-fiber (12k), carbon-fiber

Figure 13. Tested images with labeled angles; (a) image F with labeled angles and part corners, (b) image F with labeled angles, (c) image
1 2

F with labeled angles, (d) image F with labeled angles, (e) image F with labeled angles, (f) image F with labeled angles, (g) image F
3 4 5 6 7

with labeled angles, and (h) image F with labeled angles.

8
Braided Parameter Measurement Using Faster R-CNN Fibers and Polymers 2020, Vol.21, No.3 599

Figure 14. Pitch length and surface braiding angle measured by hand; (a) pitch length measured by hand, (b) part of (a), and (c) surface
braiding angle measured by hand.

(24k) and carbon-fiber (24k) composite preforms cropped From Table 3, the standard deviations of pitch length and
from the original images acquired in the Image Acquisition surface braiding angle measured by hand are small. It is thus
Section. reasonable to use the manual measurement results to
With manual measurements, the pitch length dplm is benchmark the results of our proposed method.
measured by clicking the relevant points on the image, and Figure 15 shows the detected corner maps, pitch length
the surface braiding angle θm is measured by protractor. As relative errors, and surface braiding angle relative errors,
shown in Figure 14(a), for example, the coordinates of corner where the relative errors are arranged in ascending order.
C1(188, 238) and C2(190, 399) are acquired by clicking Table 4 is the average measurement values and relative
points on the image shown on the computer screen and the errors of pitch length and surface braiding angle, where d
pitch length is computed as d plm = dc (188 −190)2 + (238 − 399)2 , and θ denote the values of pitch length and surface braiding
where dc is the calibration value in image acquisition, the angle, respectively. The subscripts ah, adp, and aac denote
accuracy of the corner position can be the sub-pixel level, the average value measured by hand, by our method and by
and the corner points are clicked in the case of image auto-correlation (Thx; see the Corner Detection based on
magnification (see Figure 14(b)) to improve the accuracy of Faster R-CNN Section, Step 4), respectively. eddp, edac and
the corner positions. In Figure 14(c), the angle θ measured eθdp are relative errors calculated by:
by protractor is 49.2 o, so the surface braiding angle θm is
(1/2)θ=(1/2)49.2=24.6 o. Each pitch length and surface d ah − d adp
braiding angle measured by hand is the average value of ten eddp = ×100% (6)
d ah
measurements. The measured angles are labeled in Figure
13(a)-(h). In Figure 13(a), for example, the measured surface d ah − d aac
braiding angles are (1/2)θi (i=1, 2, 3, ..., 35), and the edac = ×100% (7)
d ah
measured pitch lengths are dAiAjpl=dc×dAiAj (i=1, 2, ...; j=i+1),
where dAiAj is the pixel distance between corners Ai and Aj. θ ah − θ adp
Similarly, the pitch length dBiBjpl, pitch lengths in other lines, eθ dp = ×100% (8)
θ ah
and pitch lengths in other images can be measured.

Table 3. Standard deviation of pitch length and surface braiding angle measured by hand
Standard deviation of pitch length Standard deviation of surface braiding angle
Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average
F 1
0.0072 0.079 0.021 0.25 0.78 0.52
F 2
0.0045 0.042 0.016 0.28 0.82 0.56
F 3
0.0084 0.035 0.018 0.30 0.75 0.52
F 4
0.0054 0.035 0.017 0.25 0.88 0.46
F 5
0.0054 0.040 0.014 0.17 0.62 0.40
F 6
0.011 0.093 0.041 0.22 0.77 0.53
F 7
0.016 0.089 0.042 0.14 0.77 0.53
F 8
0.015 0.096 0.048 0.24 0.77 0.53
600 Fibers and Polymers 2020, Vol.21, No.3 Zhitao Xiao et al.

Figure 15. Corner maps and relative errors; (a) corner map of F , (b) pitch length relative errors of F , (c) surface braiding angle relative
1 1

errors of F , (d) corner map of F , (e) pitch length relative errors of F , (f) surface braiding angle relative errors of F , (g) corner map of F ,
1 2 1 2 3

(h) pitch length relative errors of F , (i) surface braiding angle relative errors of F , (j) corner map of F , (k) pitch length relative errors of F ,
3 3 4 4

(l) surface braiding angle relative errors of F , (m) corner map of F , (n) pitch length relative errors of F , (o) surface braiding angle relative
4 5 5

errors of F , (p) corner map of F , (q) pitch length relative errors of F , (r) surface braiding angle relative errors of F , (s) corner map of F ,
5 6 6 6 7

(t) pitch length relative errors of F , (u) surface braiding angle relative errors of F , (v) corner map of F , (w) pitch length relative errors of
7 7 8

F , and (x) surface braiding angle relative errors of F .

8 8
Braided Parameter Measurement Using Faster R-CNN
Figure 15. Continued.
From Figure 15 and Table 4, some observations can be
made:
• Our method can not only measure individual pitch
lengths and surface braiding angles but also measure
average values of the two parameters, and it generally
Fibers and Polymers 2020, Vol.21, No.3 601
achieves smaller average relative errors than the existing
autocorrelation-based method. In particular, image F2, i.e.,
the aramid-fiber fabric image, has larger relative errors when
measured by autocorrelation than by our method, because
the aramid-fiber fabric image has weaker contrast in textile
602 Fibers and Polymers 2020, Vol.21, No.3 Zhitao Xiao et al.

Table 4. Average measurement values and relative errors of pitch length and surface braiding angle
dah (mm) dadp (mm) daac (mm) θah (°) θadp (°) eddp (%) edac (%) eθdp (%)
F 1
2.49 2.49 2.56 44.20 45.75 0 2.81 3.51
F 2
2.37 2.37 1.78 31.60 31.88 0 24.9 0.89
F 3
4.10 4.10 4.18 35.31 34.89 0 1.95 1.19
F 4
1.82 1.82 1.81 43.40 43.71 0 0.55 0.71
F 5
1.97 1.97 1.97 35.17 34.96 0 0 0.60
F 6
3.89 3.88 3.91 24.01 23.20 0.26 0.51 3.37
F 7
3.89 3.88 3.92 32.65 33.92 0.26 0.77 3.89
F 8
5.48 5.47 5.58 24.48 24.02 0.18 1.82 1.88

edges than other types of images, and the autocorrelation-
based method is sensitive to image contrast.
• Our method achieves higher accuracy for pitch length
than surface braiding angle, and the reasons for this are as
follows: first, the individual pitch length depends on two
corners, while the individual surface braiding angle depends
on four corners, which adds to the affecting factors. Second,
the influence of corner position changes on angle is greater
than that on distance.
• Our method achieves higher accuracy for pitch length
and surface braiding angle of 2D braided fabrics than 3D
braided fabrics because the fabric bundle crimp of 3D
braided fabrics is larger than that of 2D braided fabrics, and
thus the contrast of neighborhoods centered at the corners of
3D braided fabrics is weaker than that of 2D braided fabrics.
Conclusion
In this paper, we achieve the automatic measurement of
pitch length and surface braiding angle of braided composite
preforms based on Faster R-CNN. Various conclusions are
described as follows:
1. Our method has good robustness for luminance and
contrast, has good applicability for the automatic
measurement of pitch lengths and surface braiding angles
of 2D and 3D fabrics, and is also suitable for measuring
different fiber braided fabrics, such as carbon-, glass- and
aramid-fiber fabrics.
2. In the fabric database, the target matting method based on
the corner centered efficiently improved the accuracy of
the initial corner position.
3. The Faster R-CNN net used for initial corner detection
improves the applicability of the corner detection
algorithm for weak-contrast images, which efficiently
avoids missing corners.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Prof. Jae Ryoun Youn for
handling the review of the paper and the two anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments.
This work was supported by Applied Basic Research
Programs of China National Textile and Apparel Council
(No. J201509) and the Program for Innovative Research
Team in University of Tianjin (No. TD13-5034).
References
1. O. Bacarreza, P. Wen, and M. H. Aliabadi in “Micromechanical
Modelling of Textile Composites” (M. H. Aliabaki Ed.),
Computational and Experimental Methods in Structures,
Vol. 6, pp.1-74, Woven Composites, World Scientific
Publishing Co., Hackensack, 2015.
2. S. Rana and R. Fangueiro, “Advanced Composites in
Aerospace Engineering, Advanced Composite Materials
for Aerospace Engineering”, Woodhead Publishing, 2016.
3. A. Fouladi, R. J. Nedoushan, J. Hajrasouliha, M. Sheikhzadeh,
Y. M. Kim, W. J. Na, and W. R. Yu, Appl. Compos. Mater.,
26, 479 (2019).
4. X. Gao, B. Sun, and B. Gu, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 82, 46
(2018).
5. W. Ye, W. Li, Y. Shan, J. Wu, H. Ning, D. Sun, N. Hu, and
S. Fu, Compos. Part B-Eng., 156, 355 (2019).
6. S. Rana and R. Fangueiro, “Braided Structures and
Composites: Production, Properties, Mechanics and
Technical Applications”, Vol. 3, CRC Press, 2015.
7. S. Rana, S. Parveen, and R. Fangueiro in “Advanced
Carbon Nanotube Reinforced Multi-scale Composites”
(Bakerpur Ehsan Ed.), Advanced Composite Materials:
Manufacturing, Properties, and Applications, De Gruyter
Open, 2015.
8. G. Balokas, S. Czichon, and R. Rolfes, Compos. Struct.,
183, 550 (2018).
9. A. Rawal, H. Saraswat, and A. Sibal, Text. Res. J., 85,
2083 (2015).
10. Q. Guo, G. Zhang, and J. Li, Mater. Des., 46, 291 (2013).
11. J. Sun, Y. Wang, G. Zhou, and X. Wang, Polym. Compos.,
39, 1076 (2018).
12. H. Zhou, W. Zhang, T. Liu, B. Gu, and B. Sun, Compos.
Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf., 79, 52 (2015).
13. Y. Wang, Z. Liu, N. Liu, L. Hu, Y. Wei, and J. Ou, Compos.
Struct., 136, 75 (2016).
Braided Parameter Measurement Using Faster R-CNN
14. X. Li, C. Chu, L. Zhou, J. Bai, C. Guo, F. Xue, P. Lin, and
P. K. Chu, Compos. Sci. Technol., 142, 180 (2017).
15. B. Shi, S. Liu, A. Siddique, Y. Du, B. Sun, and B. Gu, Int.
J. Damage Mech., 28, 404 (2019).
16. Z. Wan, J. Shen, and X. Wang, J. Text. Res. (in Chinese),
25, 42 (2004).
17. L. Gong and Z. Wan, Comput. Measurement Control (in
Chinese), 14, 730 (2006).
18. Z. Wan and J. Li, AUTEX Res. J., 6, 30 (2006).
19. M. Kang, X. Leng, Z. Lin, and K. Ji, International
Workshop on Remote Sensing with Intelligent Processing
(RSIP), IEEE, pp.1-4, 2017.
20. H. Jiang and E. Learned-Miller, arXiv preprint arXiv,
1606.03473 (2017).
21. R. B. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and J. Malik,
CVPR, pp.580-587, 2014.
22. R. B. Girshick, ICCV, pp.1440-1448, 2015.
23. S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun, NIPS, pp.91-99,
2015.
24. R. Sa, W. Owens, R. Wiegand, M. Studin, D. Capoferri, K.
Barooha, A. Greaux, R. Rattray, A. Hutton, J. Cintineo,
and V. Chaudhary, 39th Annual International Conference of
the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society
(EMBC), pp.564-567, 2017.
25. W. Fan, H. Jiang, L. Ma, J. Gao, and H. Yang, 10th
International Conference on Digital Image Processing
(ICDIP), Vol. 10806, p.108065A, 2018.
26. D. Zhang, W. Zhu, H. Zhao, F. Shi, and X. Chen, Medical
Imaging: Image Processing, International Society for
Optics and Photonics, Vol. 10574, p.105741U, 2018.
27. E. Yahalomi, M. Chernofsky, and M. Werman, Intelligent
Computing-Proceedings of the Computing Conference,
pp.971-981, Springer, Cham, 2019.
28. X. Gao, L. Peng, and M. Sun, J. Nucl. Med., 60, 284
(2019).
29. J. E. Espinosa, S. A. Velastin, and J. W. Branch, 9th
International Conference on Pattern Recognition Systems
(ICPRS), Valparaíso, Chile, 2018.
30. C. C. Tsai, C. K. Tseng, H. C. Tang, and J. I. Guo, Asia-
Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association
Annual Summit and Conference (APSIPA ASC), IEEE,
pp.1605-1608, 2018.
31. M. Zhang, C. Gao, Q. Li, L. Wang, and J. Zhang,
Fibers and Polymers 2020, Vol.21, No.3 603
Multimed. Tools Appl., 77, 3303 (2018).
32. L. Wu, H. Li, J. He, and X. Chen, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.,
1176, 032045 (2019).
33. H. Xie, Y. Chen, and H. Shin, Appl. Intell., 49, 1200
(2019).
34. D. Siegmund, A. Prajapati, F. Kirchbuchner, and A.
Kuijper, International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence
and Pattern Recognition, pp.77-84, Springer, Cham, 2018.
35. B. Wei, K. Hao, X.S. Tang, and L. Ren, International
Conference on Artificial Intelligence on Textile and
Apparel, pp.45-51, Springer, Cham, 2018.
36. Z. Lin, Z. Guo, and J. Yang, Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Machine Learning and
Computing, ACM, pp.429-433, 2019.
37. Opt Machine Vision Web. http://www.optmv.net/index.php/
Productionservice/pro_cdetail/pro_id/64 (Accessed July 18,
2019).
38. E. Liepinsh, J. Kuka, and M. Dambrova, J. Pharmacol.
Toxicol., 67, 98 (2013).
39. S. Umeyama and G. Godin, IEEE Transactions on Pattern
Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 26, 2338 (2004).
40. M. D. Zeiler and R. Fergus, European Conference on
Computer Vision (ECCV), p.818, 2014.
41. K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, International Conference on
Learning Representations (ICLR), 2015.
42. T. Y. Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D.
Ramanan, P. Dollár, and C. L. Zitnick, European
Conference on Computer Vision, p.740, 2014.
43. M. Everingham, L. Van Gool, C. K. I. Williams, J. Winn,
and A. Zisserman, Int. J. Comput. Vision, 88, 303 (2010).
44. J. J. Hernández-López, A. L. Quintanilla-Olvera, J. L.
López-Ramírez, F. J. Rangel-Butanda, M. A. Ibarra-
Manzano, and D. L. Almanza-Ojeda, Procedia Technology, 3,
196 (2012).
45. P. Kovesi, Australian Pattern Recognition Society
Conference: DICTA, p.309, 2003.
46. K. Dabov, A. Foi, V. Katkovnik, and K. Egiazarian,
Proceedings of SPIE, Image Processing: Algorithms and
Systems, Neural Networks, and Machine Learning, Vol.
6064, p.606414, 2006.
47. Z. Xiao, L. Pei, F. Zhang, L. Geng, J. Wu, J. Tong, J. Xi,
and P. O. Ogunbona, Text. Res. J., 88, 2641 (2018).