JOURNAL OF

COMPOSITE
Article M AT E R I A L S
Journal of Composite Materials
0(0) 1–16
! The Author(s) 2017
A general micromechanical model to Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
predict elastic and strength properties DOI: 10.1177/0021998317716530
journals.sagepub.com/home/jcm
of balanced plain weave fabric composites

MM Shokrieh1, R Ghasemi1 and R Mosalmani2

Abstract
In the present research, a micromechanical-analytical model was developed to predict the elastic properties and strength
of balanced plain weave fabric composites. In this way, a new homogenization method has been developed by using
a laminate analogy method for the balanced plain weave fabric composites. The proposed homogenization method is a
multi-scale homogenization procedure. This model divides the representative volume element to several sub-elements,
in a way that the combination of the sub-elements can be considered as a laminated composite. To determine the
mechanical properties of laminates, instead of using an iso-strain assumption, the assumptions of constant in-plane strains
and constant out-of-plane stress have been considered. The applied assumptions improve the accuracy of prediction of
mechanical properties of balanced plain weave fabrics composites, especially the out-of-plane elastic properties. Also, the
stress analysis for prediction of strain–stress behavior and strength has been implemented in a similar manner.
In addition, the nonlinear mechanical behavior of balanced plain weave composite is studied by considering the inelastic
mechanical behavior of its polymeric matrix. To assess the accuracy of the present model, the results were compared
with available results in the literature. The results, including of engineering constants (elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio)
and stress–strain behavior show the accuracy of the present model.

Keywords
Balanced plain weave fabric composites, analytical model, micromechanics, homogenization

(based on the finite element method).5 The finite

Introduction
Low manufacturing costs, possibility of manufacturing
of complex surfaces, ease of implementation, better
out-of-plane properties and impact resistance in com-
parison with unidirectional fibers composites1,2 are
advantages of the use of woven fabrics composites.
However, complex geometry of woven fabrics imposes
many challenges in woven fabric composites analysis.
Methods of analysis and prediction of the properties of
this type of composite is less than unidirectional com-
posites.1 Therefore, development of efficient methods
for prediction of mechanical properties of woven
fabric composites is essential.
Modeling the elastic properties of woven fabric com-
posites has been studied by some researchers.2–15
Crookston et al.3 and Angioni et al.4 reviewed different
models for prediction of mechanical properties of
woven fabric composites. These models can be classi-
fied in two groups, analytical and numerical models
element-based models6–9 offer more accuracy due to less
simplifying assumptions and consideration of more
details, but implementation of these models is more
expensive and time consuming than the analytical models.
Analytical models for prediction of woven fabric
composites are usually based on multi-scale model-
ing,10,11 and known as the top-down-bottom-up
1
Composites Research Laboratory, Center of Excellence in Experimental
Solid Mechanics and Dynamics, School of Mechanical Engineering, Iran
University of Science and Technology, Tehran
2
Faculty of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Shahid
Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran
Corresponding author:
MM Shokrieh, Composites Research Laboratory, Center of Excellence in
Experimental Solid Mechanics and Dynamics, School of Mechanical
Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Narmak, Tehran
16846-1311, Islamic Republic of Iran.
Email: Shokrieh@iust.ac.ir
2 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)
methods.16 Analytical model consists of two steps.
The first step is determination of the representative
volume element (RVE). Description of the RVE geom-
etry and type of weave and calculation of fiber and
matrix volume fractions are done in the first step
(top-down). In this step, the RVE is divided into smal-
ler region named sub-elements. The sub-elements are
chosen in a way that each sub-element is considered
as a unidirectional or a laminated composite. In fact,
the first step can be considered as a discretization pro-
cess. In the second step (bottom-up), the RVE is homo-
genized, i.e. equivalent properties are calculated for
Inhomogeneous RVE. Homogenization process starts
by homogenization of sub-elements. In this level, uni-
directional and laminated composites are homogenized
by micromechanical model and lamination theories,
respectively. Lamination homogenization is usually
based on iso-strain assumption in the whole laminate.
In higher level of homogenization process, the whole
RVE properties are obtained by homogenization of
sub-elements. This level of homogenization is based
on the assumption of iso-stress or iso-strain or a com-
bination of iso-stress and iso-strain. These assumptions
are often made regardless of seriality (iso-stress
condition) or parallelity (iso-strain condition) of sub-
elements.5,12,13 These simplifying assumptions some-
times impose inaccuracy in equivalent properties of
the RVE. Therefore, the method of homogenization
can affect the model performance and its accuracy.
The developed model by Ishikawa and Chou14 is one
of the earliest analytical model for prediction of woven
fabric composites properties. In this model, called as
fiber undulation model, the selected RVE was divided
into some regions in a way that each segment was con-
sidered as a laminated composite. The equivalent prop-
erties of these segments are obtained by the CLT.
Then equivalent properties of the RVE are calculated
by integration of segments properties in the whole
RVE. Naik and Shembekar2 used a similar method
for analyzing woven fabric composites. They divided
the unit cell into several sub-elements which can be
considered as unidirectional or cross-ply laminated
composites. Homogenization of the RVE was done by
assembling of the stiffness matrix of sub-elements.
In this model, the basic assumption is constant strain
in all layers of a laminate. This assumption is appro-
priate for two-dimensional stress and strain conditions,
but this assumption can make inaccuracy in general
states of stress and strain.
Huang micromechanical model12 predicts the elastic
properties and strength of woven fabric composites.
In his model, the RVE is divided into sub-elements
and each sub-element is considered as a laminated com-
posite consisting of warp, weft and matrix layers.
The mechanical properties of each layer are calculated
by the bridging micromechanical model and sub-
element equivalent properties are calculated by using
the iso-strain assumption. Finally, the RVE equivalent
properties are determined by the assumption of equal
stress in sub-elements of the RVE, thus the compliance
matrix of the RVE is calculated by averaging of com-
pliance matrix of the sub-element. It should be noted
that the iso-strain assumption in sub-elements and in
the RVE is not physically correct assumptions in three-
dimensional states of strain and stress.
Adumitroaie and Barbero5 also used an analytical
model similar to the method developed by Huang.
After determination of the RVE, they divided it into
sub-elements as laminated composites and calculated
mechanical properties in each point of the RVE.
By integrating the mechanical properties in the whole
RVE, the equivalent properties of RVE were calcu-
lated. Sub-elements homogenization is done by iso-
strain assumption and the whole RVE homogenization
is done by both iso-stress and iso-strain assumptions,
separately.
Scida et al.15 presented an analytical model for pre-
diction of woven fabric composite properties called
MesoTex. Similar to previous models, MesoTex first
divided the RVE into regions in a way that can be con-
sidered as laminated composites. The stiffness matrix of
each region is calculated by using iso-strain assump-
tion. Integration of the stiffness matrix in the RVE by
iso-strain assumption, the RVE equivalent stiffness
matrix was determined. Iso-strain assumption was
chosen in both stages of homogenization process that
is not in accordance with the physics of the problem.
Sheng and Hoa13 developed a model based on a
three-dimensional geometry and variational approach
for prediction of properties of woven fabric composites.
In this model, the iso-strain assumption in a unit cell
was used for calculation of equivalent stiffness matrix
by potential energy method (PM) and iso-stress
assumption in the unit cell was used for calculation of
equivalent compliance matrix by complementary
energy method (CM). Using the PM and CM methods,
the upper and lower bounds of engineering constants
were determined, respectively.13
The applied assumptions in the homogenization
process can affect the accuracy of woven fabric
composite models. In the present study, an analytical-
micromechanical model for prediction of elastic properties
and strength of balanced plain weave fabric composites is
developed. This model uses the laminate analogy for hom-
ogenization of the RVE. The applied homogenization
method is a multi-scales procedure. The assumptions in
homogenization are consistent with the physics of a three-
dimensional state of stress. The predicted properties are
compared with the available experimental studies in litera-
ture to validate the present model.
Shokrieh et al.
Problem statement
The present study analyzes a balanced plain weave
fabric composite by using micromechanics principles.
A suitable homogenization process is an important
part of a micromechanical model. In most micromecha-
nical models developed for balanced plain weave fabric
composites, the homogenization assumptions dissatisfy
the equilibrium and continuity conditions. Therefore,
the goal of the present study is to develop a microme-
chanical model that uses an appropriate homogen-
ization approach with reasonable assumptions. This
model should be able to predict the elastic properties
and strength of balanced plain weave fabric composites
with different fiber volume fractions, warp and weft
undulation and different types of fiber and matrix.
The present model should also predict the stress–strain
behavior of balanced plain weave fabric composites and
its possible nonlinear mechanical behavior. Therefore,
the main idea in the present model is discretizing the
RVE into sub-elements which can be considered as a
laminated composite. The main assumptions in stiffness
and strength analyses of these laminates are constant in-
plane strains and constant out-of-plane stresses. Based
on these assumptions, the general micromechanical
model for prediction of properties of balanced plain
weave fabric composites will be presented in the follow-
ing. In development of the model, it was assumed that
the manufacturing process causes no imperfection in
composites. Therefore, non-uniform distribution of
undulation angle, shift and interlocking of individual
plies and porosity were neglected. Perfect bond between
fiber and matrix and neglecting the damage in RVE are
other assumptions in the present model.
General micromechanical model for
woven fabric composites
The present general micromechanical model for
balanced plain weave fabric composites has three
main sections. (1) Calculation of composites stiffness
and compliance matrix and thus engineering constants,
(2) determination of stresses in composites and its con-
stituents (fiber and matrix) and then predicting strength
of composites and (3) prediction of stress–strain behav-
ior by considering the nonlinear mechanical behavior of
polymeric matrix in composites. The details of the pre-
sent model are discussed in the following.
Composites compliance matrix calculation
Using the top-down-bottom-up approach, the homogen-
ization procedure is based on the laminated composite
analogy and by considering a multi-level homogen-
ization. The steps of homogenization are shown in
Figure 1. The model is started by introducing the
3
RVE
RVE selection
homogenization
RVE geometry Rows
Bottom-up
Top-down
description homogenization
RVE partition
and sub- Sub-element
elements homogenization
creation
Calculation of Layers (warp,
warp, weft and weft and matrix)
matrix volume in homogenization
sub-elements
Figure 1. Diagram of the RVE homogenization steps.
geometry of the RVE. In the next step, the RVE is
divided into N  N sub-elements. Each sub-element
can be considered as a laminated composite consisting
of warp yarn layer, weft yarn layer and matrix layer as a
unidirectional composite. The homogenization process is
conducted in four levels (bottom-up). At the first level,
layers in each sub-element are homogenized as a unidir-
ectional composite. The mechanical properties of each
layer is calculated by using the bridging micromechani-
cal model developed by Huang for unidirectional com-
posites.17 In the second level, each sub-element is
homogenized as a laminated composite. In the third
level, the sub-elements (placed in a row) are homoge-
nized as a laminated composite and the equivalent stiff-
ness matrix is calculated for N sub-elements in each row.
Finally, in the fourth level, the whole RVE is homoge-
nized as a laminated composite consists of rows.
It should be noted that the iso-stress assumption in the
whole RVE or iso-strain in a laminate, generally used
for homogenization of the RVE and laminated compos-
ites,12,13,18 can cause an inaccuracy in results. These
assumptions are more critical in through the thickness
direction. In this study it is assumed that in-plane strains
and out-of-plane stresses are constant in a laminated
composite. This assumption satisfies the equilibrium
equations and continuity assumption in the whole RVE.
The details of each block of Figure 1 are explained in
the following sections.
RVE selection
The micromechanical model is started by selection
of the RVE. Figure 2(a) shows the fabric geometry
and the warp and weft directions for a plain weave
fabric composites. In this figure, repeating unit cell
4 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

Figure 2. (a) RUC and RVE in a plain weave fabric composite, (b) 3-D view of RVE and (c) A-A cross section of RVE.12

(RUC) and representative volume element (RVE) have sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

 2  2
been shown by dotted and dashed lines, respectively. It t2 2x2 t1 2y2
Zlower
2 ¼ 1  1 ð3Þ
should be mentioned that one quarter of RUC can be 2 a2 2 a1 þ g1
chosen as RVE due to the similarity of undulation of
warp and weft yarns, equal warp and weft fiber volume sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2  2
fraction and similar mechanical behavior for each t2 2x2 t1 2y2
Zupper
2 ¼ 1  1 ð4Þ
quarter. 2 a2 2 a1 þ g1

RVE geometry description

where ai is the yarn spacing (width) and gi is the inter-
Figure 2(b) and (c) shows a three-dimensional view of a yarn gap size and ti is the yarn thickness.12 Also, xi is
chosen RVE and its cross section, respectively. the coordinate in plane of the yarn cross section and yi
Equations (1) to (4) describe the upper and lower sur- is the variant in the direction of yarn undulation.
faces of the warp (yarn 1 by subscript 1) and the weft Moreover, a2 , g2 , t1 and t2 are shown in Figure 2(c).
(yarn 2 by subscript 2). In these equations, the first term Also, a1 and g1 can be recognized in similar way and by
represents yarn cross section and the second term rep- creating a section perpendicular to section A-A in this
resents the yarn undulation12 figure. In Figure 2(c), hm represents the thickness of the
resin layer on sub-elements.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2  2
t1 2x1 t2 2y1 RVE partitioning and sub-elements creation
Zlower
1 ¼ 1 þ 1 ð1Þ
2 a1 2 a2 þ g2
The present model discretizes the RVE into M ¼ N  N
sub-elements according to Figure 3. This figure shows
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi that each sub-element is divided into four layers, the
 2  2 upper matrix layer, the warp (yarn 1) layer, the weft
t1 2x1 t2 2y1
Zupper
1 ¼ 1 þ 1 ð2Þ (yarn 2) layer and the lower matrix layer. In fact,
2 a1 2 a2 þ g2
these layers in each sub-element are unidirectional
Shokrieh et al. 5

Figure 3. Sub-element creation and layers stacking in sub-elements.

Fiber volume fraction of these layers, which named

fiber packing density, VY
f , is calculated by the following
( ) P ( )
equation12

P P V
VY
f ¼ Vf PM PM ð7Þ
 ðL Þ V ðYL2Þ
( ) ( ) L¼1 VY1 þ L¼1
P

Figure 4. Local coordinate system in one sub-element. The fiber volume fraction in warp and weft layer are
the same and equal to VYf .

composites at their local coordinate system where the

fiber volume fraction for matrix layers is equal to zero.
Layers (warp, weft and matrix) homogenization
As mentioned before, the present model is based on the
Calculation of warp, weft and matrix volumes discretization of the RVE into sub-elements in a way
that these sub-elements can be considered as a fictitious
in sub-elements laminated composite. In this level that sub-elements
The volumes of warp and weft layers in Lth sub-element consists of warp yarn, weft yarn and matrix layers as
are calculated using equations
  (5)
 and (6), respect- unidirectional fiber composites, the bridging microme-
ively,12 where x1L , y1L , x2L , y2L , x2L , y2L and x4L , y4L chanical model has been used for prediction of each
are coordinates of Lth sub-element corners shown in layer properties in sub-elements. The compliance
Figure 4 matrix of thewarp
 and weft yarns in their local coord-
inate system Sij is calculated by equation (8)12
Z x2L Z y2L  
V ðYL1Þ ¼ Zupper ðx, yÞ  Zlower ðx, yÞ dydx ð5Þ   Yh f i h i 

x1L y1L
1 1
Sij ¼ Vf Sij þ ð1  VY m
f Þ Sij Aij
  1 ð8Þ
Z x2L Z y2L   VY Y
f ½I þ ð1  Vf Þ Aij

V ðYL2Þ ¼ Zupper
2 ðx, yÞ  Zlower
2 ðx, yÞ dydx ð6Þ h i h i
x1L y1L where Sfij and Sm ij are the compliance matrices of
the fiber and matrix, respectively,
 and ½I is the unit
matrix. Moreover, Aij is a 6  6 matrix named brid-
In above equations, subscripts 1 and 2 have been ging matrix where its components are introduced in
used for the warp yarn (yarn 1) and the weft yarn Appendix 1. h i
(yarn 2), respectively. It should be noted that fiber The global compliance matrix of yarns SG ij is cal-
volume fractions in warp and weft yarn layers are dif- culated by equation (9). This matrix has different values
ferent from the composites’ volume fraction because for the different sub-elements due to the variation of
there are regions in RVE which have only resin, e.g.
their yarns’ orientation12
gap cells in the corner of the RVE and matrix layers
in the top and bottom of the RVE. For this reason, h iðLÞ   ðLÞ    T
ðLÞ
fiber volume fraction in wrap and weft layer is greater SG
ij ¼ Tij s Y
Sij Tij s , Y ¼ Y1 , Y2 ð9Þ
Y Y
than the overall fiber volume fraction of composites.
6 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

where Ts is the transformation matrix and determined

by equation (10)

2 3
l21 l22 l23 l2 l3 l3 l1 l1 l2
6 m2 m22 m23 m2 m3 m3 m1 m1 m2 7
6 1 7
6 7
6 n21 n22 n23 n2 n3 n3 n1 n1 n2 7
Ts ¼ 6
6 2m n
7 ð10Þ
6 1 1 2m2 n2 2m3 n3 m2 n3 þ m3 n2 m1 n3 þ m3 n1 m1 n2 þ m2 n1 77
6 7
4 2n1 l1 2n2 l2 2n3 l3 l2 n3 þ l3 n2 l1 n3 þ l3 n1 l1 n2 þ l2 n1 5
2l1 m1 2l2 m2 2l3 m3 l2 m3 þ l3 m2 l1 m3 þ l3 m1 l1 m2 þ l2 m1

The components of the transformation matrix have matrix are zero.

been determined in Appendix 2.
Ck Ck45

0k ¼ 44 ð13Þ
Sub-element homogenization Ck54 Ck55
Each sub-element can be considered as a fictitious
laminated composite consisting of a warp layer, weft In above equations, Ckij is ijth component of the stiff-
layer and a resin layer which layers are stacked in the ness matrix of the kth layer in the Lth sub-element and
z direction (Figure 3). The constant in-plane strains and this stiffness matrix
h iis inverse
 of compliance matrix of
1
constant out-of-plane stresses assumption in the whole th
the k layer k
Sij . As mentioned above Skij is
laminate are a common assumption for homogeniza-
tion of a laminated composite. It must be noted that calculated by bridging micromechanical model (equa-
the out-of-plane direction is the layer’s stacking direc- tion (8)) at the local coordinate system and transformed
tion and in-plane and out-of-plane conditions are into global coordinate system by equation (9).
defined according to this assumption. In this step,
sub-elements are homogenized by the assumption that
the strain components of "1 , "2 and "6 and stress com-
ponents of 3 , 4 and 5 are the same for all layers. So,
Rows homogenization
the Lth sub-element stiffness matrix (CLij ) is determined In this step, it is considered that N sub-elements placed
by equations (11) and (12) for each sub-element.19 It in a row to make a fictitious laminated composite which
must be noted that  fdi g ¼ fd1 , d2 , d3 , d4 , d5T, x is the stacking direction (Figure 5). Each row is homo-
d6 gT is equal to dxx , dyy , dzz , dyz , dxz , dxy genized by the assumption that strain components of "2 ,
and
 fd"i g ¼ fd"1 , d"2 , d"3 , d"4 ,d"5 , d"6 gT is equal to "3 and "4 and stress components of 1 , 5 and 6 are the
T
d"xx , d"yy , d"zz , d"yz , d"xz , d"xy same for all layers of the row. So, row stiffness matrix
(Crij ) is determined by equations (14) and (15).
2 P Vq Cq3j 3
X Cki3 Ck3j Cki3 q¼m, Y1 , Y2 Cm 2 3
CLij ¼ Vk 4Ckij  þ P 33 5 PrN Vq Cq3j
q X
rN CLi3 CL3j CLi3
Ck33 Ck33 q¼m, Y1 , Y2 CVq Crij ¼
6
VL 4CLij 
q¼ðr1ÞNþ1 Cq 7
33
5
k¼m, Y1 , Y2 33 þ P
L¼ðr1ÞNþ1
CL33 CL33 rN Vq
q¼ðr1ÞNþ1 Cq
ði, j ¼ 1, 2, 3, 6Þ 33

ð11Þ ði, j ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4Þ
ð14Þ
P Vk
k¼m, Y1 , Y2 0k Ckij
CLij ¼ P P  k q  PrN VL
Vk Vq
C44 C55  Ck45 Cq54 ð12Þ L¼ðr1ÞNþ1 0L CLij
k¼m, Y1 , Y2 q¼m, Y1 , Y2 0k 0q Crij ¼ PrN PrN  L q 
L¼ðr1ÞNþ1 q¼ðr1ÞNþ1
VL Vq
0L 0q C44 C55  CL45 Cq54 ð15Þ
ði, j ¼ 4, 5Þ
ði, j ¼ 5, 6Þ
where 0k introduced in equation (13) and Vk is the
ratio of volume of kth layer to volume of sub-element. where 0L is introduced in equation (16) and VL is the
It must be noted that other components of the stiffness ratio of volume of Lth sub-element to the volume of the
Shokrieh et al. 7

Figure 5. The layers stacking in a row.

Figure 6. The layers stacking in the RVE.

corresponding row. It must be noted that other com- PN Vr

ponents of the stiffness matrix are zero. r¼1 0r Crij
CRVE
ij ¼ PN PN   ði, j ¼ 4, 6Þ

CL

r¼1
Vr Vq
q¼1 0r 0q Cr44 Cq55  Cr45 Cq54
CL56
0L ¼ 55 ð16Þ
CL65 CL66 ð18Þ

In above equations CLij is the ijth component of where 0r introduced in equation (19) and Vr is the ratio
the stiffness matrix of the Lth sub-element which of volume of rth row to the volume of the RVE. It must
placed in the rth row. In this way, an equivalent element be noted that other components of the stiffness matrix
is obtained for each row. are zero.
r
C Cr46
RVE homogenization 0r ¼ 44 ð19Þ
Cr64 Cr66
In this step, it is considered that N rows make a ficti-
tious laminated composite, where y is the stacking dir- In above equations Crij is the ijth component of the
ection (Figure 6). In this step, the whole RVE is stiffness matrix of the rth row in the RVE and r ¼ 1, 2. . . N.
homogenized by the assumption that the strain compo- At the end of this step, the homogenization process is
nents of "1 , "3 and "5 and stress components of 2 , 4 finished and the stiffness and the compliance matrices
and 6 are the same for all rows in the RVE. So, the of balanced plain weave composites are determined.
RVE stiffness matrix (CRVE ij ) is determined by equations
(17) and (18)
Stress analysis of constituents
2 3
r
P q
N V C3j
q
In this section, the general micromechanical method for
X
N
r6
Cri3 Cr3j Ci3 q¼1 Cq 7
CRVE
ij ¼ V 4Crij  þ r P 33
5 balanced plain weave fabric composites is developed to
Cr33 C33 N Vq
ð17Þ
r¼1 q¼1 Cq
33 predict the strength of balanced plain weave compos-
ði, j ¼ 1, 2, 3, 5Þ
ites. The strength analysis is done by calculation of the
average stress in the constituents of composites
8 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

Average stress of
fiber in the RVE

Average stress of
fiber in layers

Average stress Average stress Average stress Average stress of

of the RVE of rows of sub-elements layers

Average stress of
matrix in layers

Average stress of
matrix in the
RVE

Figure 7. Stress analysis of the RVE.

including the fiber and resin In addition, it is assumed of this procedure in the RVE is explained step by step in
that failure of composites occurs when the maximum the following.
principal stress of the fiber or matrix exceeds their 2 3 2 3
ultimate strength. C11 C12 C16 C13 C14 C15
To calculate the constituents stress, an inverse 6 7 6 7
C1 ¼ 4 C21 C22 C26 5, C2 ¼ 4 C23 C24 C25 5,
method is considered in comparison with the method
C61 C62 C66 C63 C64 C65
of predicting the elastic constants. The method of pre- 2 3 2 3
diction of the fiber and matrix average stress in the C31 C32 C36 C33 C34 C35
RVE has been shown in Figure 7. First, a global 6 7 6 7
C3 ¼ 4 C41 C42 C46 5, C4 ¼ 4 C43 C44 C45 5
stress iRVE is applied at the boundaries of the RVE. C51 C52 C56 C53 C54 C55
Then the average stress of row elements is calculated
from iRVE . Then, the sub-element stress is determined ð22Þ
from the stresses of rows, and layers’ stresses are calcu-
lated from the stresses of sub-elements. In the next step,
the fiber and matrix stresses in warp, weft and matrix
Calculating the row stress (Step 1)
layers in each sub-element are determined. Averaging
the transformed constituent stress in the global coord- In this step, it is assumed that  RVE is applied to the
inate system leads to average fiber and matrix stresses RVE. According to the homogenization assumptions,
in the RVE. These values are used for predicting the out-of-plane stress and in-plane strain for the whole
the strength. Detail of stress analysis is presented in RVE and its rows are the same, so it can be shown in
the following. equation (23) that:
The main task for stress analysis is separation of in-
plane and out-of-plane components of stress and strain r
out ¼ iRVE ði ¼ 2, 4, 6Þ & "rin ¼ "RVE
i ði ¼ 1, 3, 5Þ
tensor. The in-plane stresses and out-of-plane strains ð23Þ
are expressed in term of out-of-plane stresses and in-
plane strains according to equations (20) and (21)20 where ir and "ri are stress and strain of the rth row. The
  strain of "rin is calculated by equation (24)
in ¼ C1  C2 C1 1
4 C3 "in þ C2 C4 out ð20Þ
"RVE
i ¼ SRVE
ij iRVE ði, j ¼ 1, . . . , 6Þ ð24Þ
"out ¼ C1 1
4 out  C4 C3 "in ð21Þ

where  in ,  out , "in , and "out are in-plane stress, out-
of-plane stress, in-plane strain, and out-of-plane
strain, respectively. Moreover, C1 , C2 , C3 and C4 are
calculated according to equation (22). Implementation
where SRVE
ij is the compliance matrix of the RVE. The
unknown components of stress and strain tensors of
rows, including in-plane stress and out-of-plane strain
components, are calculated by equations (25) and (26)
Shokrieh et al.
which are obtained by rewriting equations (20) and (21)
 1
 1 r uted to the matrix, warp and weft layers.
inr ¼ Cr1  Cr2 Cr4 Cr3 "rin þ Cr2 Cr4 out ð25Þ
 1 r  1
"rout ¼ Cr4 out  Cr4 Cr3 "rin ð26Þ
where Cr1 , Cr2 , Cr3 , and Cr4 are introduced in Appendix 3.
Sub-element stress calculation (Step 2)
In this step, it is assumed that  r is applied to all
sub-elements in the corresponding row. According
to the previous assumption, the out-of-plane stress
9
where Ck1 , Ck2 , Ck3 and Ck4 are introduced in Appendix 3.
It should be noted that k in each sub-element is attrib-
Constituents stress calculation (Step 4)
For this purpose, stresses at layers in each sub-element
are transformed into the local coordinate system and
then the fiber and matrix stresses in each layer can be
determined by using bridging micromechanical model.
The fiber stress in warp (yarn1) and weft (yarn2) and
matrix stress in the Lth sub-element can be expressed in
form of equations (31) to (33), respectively12
 ðLÞ  
ðLÞ    T
ðLÞ
and in-plane strain are the same for the row and
dif Y1
¼ Tij c Y
Bij Tij s fdi gðLÞ
Y1 ð31Þ
its sub-elements. By implementation of previous 1 Y1
approach, in-plane stress and out-of-plane strain com-
 ðLÞ  
ðLÞ    T
ðLÞ
ponents of sub-elements stress and strain tensor are dif ¼ Tij Bij Tij s fdi gðLÞ ð32Þ
Y2 c Y Y1
calculated by equations (27) and (28), respectively. 2 Y2

 1
 1 L  m ðLÞ  m ðLÞ ðLÞ  
m ðLÞ
inL ¼ CL1  CL2 CL4 CL3 "Lin þ CL2 CL4 out ð27Þ di ¼ VðLÞ
Y1 di Y1 þVY2 di Y2
 ðLÞ ð33Þ
þ ð1  VðYL1Þ  VðYL2Þ Þ dim m
 1 L  1 L L
"Lout ¼ CL4 out  CL4 C3 "in ð28Þ
where

2 3
l21 l22 l23 2l2 l3 2l3 l1 2l1 l2
6 m2 m22 m23 2 m2 m3 2m3 m1 2m1 m2 7
6 1 7
6 n2 n22 n23 2n2 n3 2n3 n1 2n1 n2 7
Tc ¼ 6 1
6 m1 n1 7 ð34Þ
6 m 2 n2 m 3 n3 m2 n3 þ m3 n2 m1 n3 þ m3 n1 m1 n2 þ m2 n1 7
4 n1 l 1 l2 n3 þ l3 n2 l1 n3 þ l3 n1 l 1 n2 þ l 2 n1 5
n2 l 2 n3 l3
l1 m1 l2 m2 l3 m3 l2 m3 þ l3 m2 l1 m3 þ l3 m1 l1 m2 þ l2 m1

    1
where CL1 , CL2 , CL3 and CL4 are introduced in Bij ¼ VY Y
f ½I þ ð1  Vf Þ Aij ð35Þ
Appendix 3.
 m ðLÞ  
ðLÞ     T
ðLÞ
di m ¼ Tij c Aij Bij Tij s fdi gðLÞ
ðkÞ ð36Þ
Layers stress calculation (Step 3) ðkÞ ðkÞ

In this step, it is assumed that  L is applied to all layers
in the corresponding sub-element. It was assumed
that the out-of-plane stress and in-plane strain of
a sub-element and its layers are the same, therefore
in-plane stress and out-of-plane strain components of
layers are calculated by equations (29) and (30),
respectively.
 1
 1 k ultimate strength value.
ink ¼ Ck1  Ck2 Ck4 Ck3 "kin þ Ck2 Ck4 out ð29Þ
In above equations defined as V ðYLiÞ =VðLÞ , where
VðLÞ
Yi
th
VðLÞ is the volume of the L sub-element. Finally, the
fiber and matrix average stresses in the RVE are calcu-
lated by equations (37) and (38), respectively.12 These
values are used for strength prediction of composites.
As mentioned before, in this study, it is assumed that
the failure of composites occurs when the maximum
principal stress of the fiber or matrix exceeds their

 1 k  1   1
"kout ¼ Ck4 out  Ck4 Ck3 "kin ð30Þ dif ¼
2ða1 þ g1 Þða2 þ g2 ÞH
10 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

X2 
M¼N ðLÞ  f ðLÞ
L
 dif Y1
þ di Y2 V ð37Þ START
L¼1

2
 m 1 X
M¼N ðLÞ L
di ¼ dim V ð38Þ
2ða1 þ g1 Þða2 þ g2 ÞH L¼1
Stress–strain curve prediction
The present model can predict the stress–strain behav-
ior of balanced plain weave fabric composites. It is
assumed that the matrix has a nonlinear behavior and
the fiber has a linear behavior until the final rapture.
The nonlinearity of the matrix is due to the inelastic
strain of the polymeric matrix. This effect is considered
in the present model by the Goldberg constitutive
model for polymers.21 It should be noted that other
sources of nonlinearity, such as damage induced stiff-
ness degradation, are neglected.
Goldberg constitutive model for polymers
The polymeric matrix has a nonlinear behavior. In this
study, the nonlinear behavior of polymeric matrix is
considered by Goldberg constitutive model.21 Using
the Goldberg constitutive model, the inelastic strain is
calculated by solving the following differential equation
" of the matrix is calculated from the stress–strain curve
  # 
1 Z 2n Sij
"_Iij ¼ 2D0 Exp  pffiffiffiffiffi þ ij ð39Þ
2 e 2 J2
where Sij is the component of the deviatoric stress
tensor, J2 is the second invariant of deviatoric stress
tensor, Z is the isotropic state variable, D0 and n are
material constants and e is the effective stress.
Moreover,  is the parameter which controls the effects
of hydrostatic stresses in the inelastic potential function
and ij is the Kronecker delta. The Goldberg model can
predict the stress–strain relation at different strain rates.
The definition of used parameters in Goldberg model and
the solving method were explained in Shokrieh et al.22 It
should be mentioned that the Runge–Kutta method is
used for determination of the inelastic strain through
solving equation (39) as a differential equation.22 In add-
ition, it should be noted that in this study the quasi-static
strain rate (104 s1 ) has been considered.
Flowchart of the model
Figure 8 shows the flowchart of general micromechani-
cal model for balanced plain weave fabric composites.
According to this flowchart, first the stress–strain curve
of polymeric matrix is plotted by using Goldberg
Input matrix and fiber
properties, volume fraction and
geometrical parameters of RVE
Plotting of Stress-strain curve of resin by Goldberg model
Resin tangent modulus calculation
Composite stiffness matrix calculation
Updating of stress in composite, fiber and resin
NO
YES
END
Figure 8. Flowchart of the model.
constitutive model. This step is done before starting
the micromechanical model. Then the tangent modulus
of the polymeric matrix. In fact, the Goldberg model is
used to obtain the stress–strain curve of polymer before
analysis. In each increment, the average stress in the
matrix in the RVE is calculated and then according to
the value of the stress in matrix, tangent modulus of
matrix is calculated from the pre-created stress–strain
curve of the polymer and it is used as the matrix modu-
lus in the next increment. This value is used to calculate
the stiffness and compliance matrices of composites.
It should be noted that the average stress of the
matrix is set to zero in the first increment. Then the
stresses in the composite and their constituents includ-
ing fiber and matrix are updated. These updated values
are used to check the failure condition. If failure has
been occurred, the model stops, otherwise the tangent
modulus of the polymeric matrix is updated by a new
average stress of the matrix and then the tangent modu-
lus and stresses of composite are updated.
In Figure 8,  fp and pm are the principal stress of
fiber and matrix, respectively. Also, uf and um are the
ultimate strengths of fiber and matrix, respectively.
Results assessment and discussion
The present general micromechanical model for
balanced plain weave fabric composites can predict the
Shokrieh et al. 11

Table 1. The geometrical parameters of the RVE.

a1 ðmmÞ a2 ðmmÞ g1 ðmmÞ g2 ðmmÞ t1 ðmmÞ t2 ðmmÞ H ðmmÞ vf composite

13
Case 1 1.10 0.96 0.011 0.1510 0.075 0.075 0.16 0.44
Case 213 0.5 0.5 0.23 0.23 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.25
Case 315 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.80
Case 423 0.7 0.7 0.32 0.32 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.35
Case 524 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.043 0.043 0.086 0.28
Case 624 0.96 1.1 0.18 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.44
Case 712 2.22 2.22 0 0 0.0867 0.0867 0.1734 0.6

Table 2. Mechanical properties of fibers.

Fiber type Ef11 ðGPaÞ Ef22 ðGPaÞ f

G12 ðGPaÞ f
G32 ðGPaÞ f12 u ðMPaÞ

Case 113 Carbon T300 230 40 24 14.3 0.26 –

Case 213 E-glass 72 72 27.7 27.7 0.3 –
Case 315 E-glass 73 73 30.4 30.4 0.2 –
Case 423 E-glass 73 73 30.4 30.4 0.2 –
Case 524 E-glass 72 72 27.7 27.7 0.3 1995
Case 624 Carbon T300 230 40 24 15.4 0.3 2475
Case 725 Graphite 221 13.8 13.8 5..5 0.2 3586

stress–strain behavior that consists of the elastic modu- Table 3. The mechanical properties of resin.
lus, ultimate strength and Poison’s ratio of balanced
Resin type Em
11 ðGPaÞ
m
G12 ðGPaÞ m
12
plain weave fabric composites. There are two sets of
input parameters to calculate the mechanical properties Case 113 Epoxy 3.5 1.3 0.35
of balanced plain weave fabric composites. The first set Case 213 Epoxy 3.5 1.3 0.35
is related to the geometrical parameters including a1 , a2 , Case 315 Vinyl ester 3.4 1.49 0.35
g1 , g2 , t1 , t2 , H and fiber volume fraction (Vf Þ. The Case 423 Epoxy 3.5 1.3 0.35
second set of input parameters includes mechanical Case 524 Epoxy 3.5 1.3 0.35
properties of constituents of composites (fiber and
Case 624 Epoxy 3.5 1.3 0.35
matrix). To validate the model accuracy, the assessment
Case 725 Epoxy 4.4 1.7 0.34
of results has been done in the two parts; elastic proper-
ties and ultimate strength. Seven available experimental
and numerical results in the literature13,15,23–25 are con-
sidered to evaluate the present model. micromechanical model for prediction of in-plane
properties. Also the magnitudes of out-of-plane proper-
ties predicted by the present model are in between the
Elastic mechanical properties
upper and lower values for corresponding engineering
In this section, the experimental results available in the constants. In Sheng and Hoa,13 the equivalent stiff-
literature were used for assessment of the present ness matrix is calculated by iso-strain assumption in
micromechanical model. Tables 1 to 3 show the geo- the whole RVE by the potential energy method (PM)
metrical properties, and the mechanical properties of and the equivalent compliance matrix is calculated by
fiber and matrix for these cases. the iso-stress assumption using the complementary
Table 4 shows the engineering constants energy method (CM). Sheng and Hoa13 have shown
calculated by Sheng and Hoa,13 the present model that PM and CM methods approximately determine
and experimental results. The carbon/epoxy woven the upper and lower values of the elastic engineering
fabric composite by plane weave fabrication was stu- constants.
died here. This table shows a good agreement between Table 5 shows engineering constants calculated by
experimental results and the present general Sheng and Hoa,13 the present model, and experimental
12 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

Table 4. A comparison of calculated woven fabric composite properties of Case 1 and Sheng and Hoa.13

Ex ðGPaÞ Ex ðGPaÞ Ez ðGPaÞ Gxy ðGPaÞ Gxz ðGPaÞ Gxz ðGPaÞ xy yz xz
26
Experment 60.3 (56–61) 49.3 (47–50) – – – – – – –
Sheng and Hoa13 PM 58.9 52.1 11.2 3.71 3.87 4.01 0.048 0.460 0.442
CM 8.41 8.16 6.85 2.60 2.55 2.55 0.277 0.369 0.366
Present model 60.13 53.76 9.35 3.58 2.62 2.69 0.056 0.4262 0.4289

Table 5. A comparison of calculated woven fabric composite properties of Case 2 and Sheng and Hoa.13

Ex ¼ Ey ðGPaÞ Ez ðGPaÞ Gxy ðGPaÞ Gxz ¼ Gyz ðGPaÞ xy xz ¼ yz

Experment26 14.5 (10–16) – – – – –

Sheng and Hoa13 PM 14.4 8.51 2.90 2.95 0.184 0.385
CM 5.05 4.87 1.8 1.8 2.55 0.351
Present model 14.67 6.29 2.60 1.84 0.1896 0.4137

Table 6. A comparison of calculated woven fabric composite properties of Case 3 and Scida et al.15

Ex ¼ Ey ðGPaÞ Ez ðGPaÞ Gxy ðGPaÞ Gxz ¼ Gyz ðGPaÞ xy xz ¼ yz
15
Experiment 24.8  1.1 8.5  2.6 6.5  0.8 4.2  0.7 0.1  0.01 0.28  0.07
MESOTEX model15 25.33 13.46 5.19 5.24 0.12 0.29
Present model 29.76 10.95 6.16 3.84 0.14 0.37

Table 7. A comparison of calculated woven fabric composite properties of Case 4 and Tabiei et al.23

Ex ¼ Ey ðGPaÞ Ez ðGPaÞ Gxy ðGPaÞ Gxz ðGPaÞ xy zy

Chung and Tamma27 18.634 8.346 3.190 2.422 0.1745 0.3720

Tabiei et al.23 15.569 7.398 3.485 2.712 0.1429 0.4206
Present model 18.933 7.685 2.9 2.322 0.14 0.40

results of glass/epoxy woven fabric composites.
As shown in Table 5, the results of the present model
for in-plane properties have good agreements with the
experimental results. Also, out-of-plane properties cal-
culated by the present model are located in between the
upper and lower values of corresponding engineering
constants.
Table 6 shows the engineering constants values
including the results of experiments and the MesoTex
model15 and the results of the present general micro-
mechanical model. This table shows that the present
model is more accurate than the MesoTex model for
Ez , Gxz and Gxy . However, the MesoTex prediction for
Ex and Poisson’s ratio is more accurate than the present
model. According to these three cases, the results of
the present model especially for out-of-plane and
shear properties show a good agreement with experi-
mental results.
In Table 7, the results of the present model have
been compared with results of literature.23,27 The first
row of Table 7 shows the results of the finite element
modeling presented by Chung and Tamma.27 The
second and third rows of Table 7 show results predicted
by Tabiei et al.23 and the present model for the same
RVE studied in Chung and Tamma,27 respectively.
Table 7 shows a good agreement between the present
model results and results of literature.23,27
Ultimate strength
The predicted stress–strain curve and ultimate strength
of the present general micromechanical model have
Shokrieh et al. 13

Figure 9. Normal stress and shear stress directions in cases 5, 6 and 7.

Table 8. The constants of the Goldberg equation.

D0 (1=s) 0 1 Q Z0 ðMPaÞ Z1 ðMPaÞ N

Case 5 and 6 106 0.368 0.526 400 396.09 753.82 1.03

Case 7 106 0.368 0.596 400 326.09 753.82 1.15

250
Table 9. Tensile strength prediction for Case 6.
200 Strength (MPa)

Experiment24
stress (MPa)

150 490
Tabiei et al.28 527
100 experiment [24]
present model
Present model 516
50 prediction of [28]

0 It was mentioned that the present model considers

0 0.005 0.01 0.015
strain
Figure 10. The tensile strain–stress curve prediction for
Case 5.
been considered in this section. The available results of
E-glass/epoxy24 and T300/epoxy24 woven fabric com-
posites under tension and E-glass/epoxy woven fabric
composite under shear loading25 are compared with
predicted results of the present model. The geometrical
parameters of studied RVEs and mechanical properties
of their fibers and polymeric resins have been shown in
Tables 1 to 3. As shown in Figure 9, in Case 5 and
Case 6, the tension load has been applied in the direc-
tion of x axis of the RVE and shear load has been
applied in x-y plane for Case 7.
0.02 0.025 the nonlinearity in woven fabric composites because of
inelastic mechanical behavior of polymeric resins. This
nonlinearity has been accounted for in the present
model through the Goldberg constitutive equation.
The constants of the Goldberg equation are not men-
tioned in the references,24,25 thus these constants are
chosen in a way that the elastic modulus and strength
of resin be equal to the elastic modulus and strength of
resin in the corresponding references. Table 8 shows the
Goldberg equation constants used in the present model.
In Table 8, Z1 and 1 are maximum values of Z and
, respectively. Also, Z0 and 0 are initial values of Z
and , respectively. These parameters are used in imple-
mentation of the Goldberg equation which explained in
Shokrieh et al.22 in detail.
Figure 10 compares the stress–strain curves of the
present model and experimental24 and numerical
14
160
140
In-plane shear stress (MPa)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.01
Figure 11. The shear strain–stress curve prediction for Case 7.
results28 for Case 5. This figure shows a good agreement
between the present model and experimental results.24
Moreover, it can be shown that in Figure 10 the present
model has a better prediction than Tabiei et al.28
Table 9 shows the experimental measured strength,24
prediction of Tabiei et al.28 and prediction of the pre-
sent model for Case 6. It must be noted that the term of
strength has been used for the maximum normal stress.
This table shows that the present model has a better
agreement with experimental result in comparison with
Tabiei et al.28 It should be mentioned that the experi-
mental strain–stress curve is not available for this case
and just the strength of woven fabric composite is
reported to be equal to 490 MPa.24
Finally, Figure 11 shows the prediction of the pre-
sent model for Case 7. This figure shows a relatively
good agreement between the present model and experi-
ment of Blackketter et al.25 The result of prediction of
in-plane shear stress–strain relation12 is also depicted in
this figure. Figure 11 shows that the prediction of non-
linear behavior of composite by the present model is
better than the prediction of Ming Huang.12
Ming Huang12 applies a bilinear plastic model for
prediction of nonlinearity of composites while the
present model uses the Goldberg nonlinear model for
considering of nonlinear behavior of composites. In the
present model, only inelastic strain of resin is con-
sidered and other source of nonlinearity such as
damage-induced stiffness degradation is neglected. By
considering the degradation effect of damage such as
matrix cracking, prediction of strain–stress curve can be
improved.
The comparison between predicted result of present
general micromechanical model and available experi-
mental results shows the accuracy of this micromecha-
nical model in prediction of balanced plain weave fabric
composites mechanical behavior. All of the validation
Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)
experiment [25]
present model
prediction I of ref.[12]
prediction II of ref. [12]
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
In-plane shear strain
cases proved the accuracy of the present model in pre-
diction of properties of balanced plain weave fabric
composites.
Conclusion
In this research, a general micromechanical model
based on the analytical model was developed for pre-
diction of balanced plain weave fabric composite mech-
anical behaviors. This model uses a multi-scale
homogenization approach for prediction of equivalent
properties of the RVE. This model divides the RVE
into sub-elements which can be considered as laminated
composites consisting of a warp yarn layer, a weft
yarn layer and a matrix layer. In the first level of hom-
ogenization, each sub-element is homogenized as a
laminated composite. Then, each row is homogenized
as a laminated composite and finally the whole RVE is
homogenized as a laminated composite. In each step,
homogenization of laminated composite has been done
with the assumption that in-plane strain components
and out-of-plane stress components are constant in
the laminate. Also, the stress analysis for prediction
of strain–stress behavior and strength has been imple-
mented in the same manner. To assess the accuracy of
the present model, the predicted results were compared
with available results in the literature. The validation
results, including validation of engineering constants
(elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio) and strain–stress
behavior show the accuracy of the present model in the
prediction of balanced plain weave fabric composites’
mechanical behavior.
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.
Shokrieh et al. 15

Funding materials. Part III: strength behavior. J Thermoplast

Compos Mater 2000; 13: 252–271.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article. 18. Barbero EJ. Finite element analysis of composite materials
using AbaqusTM. Boca Raton, Florida, US: CRC Press,
2013.
References 19. Chou PC, Carleone J and Hsu CM. Elastic constants of
layered media. J Compos Mater 1972; 6: 80–93.
1. Tanov R and Tabiei A. Computationally efficient micro-
20. Karayaka M and Kurath P. Deformation and failure
mechanical models for woven fabric composite elastic
behavior of woven composite laminates. J Eng Mater
moduli. J Appl Mech 2001; 68: 553–560.
Technol 1994; 116: 222–232.
2. Naik NK and Shembekar PS. Elastic behavior of woven
21. Goldberg RK, Roberts GD and Gilat A. Implementation
fabric composites: I-Lamina analysis. J Compos Mater
of an associative flow rule including hydrostatic stress
1992; 26: 2196–2225.
effects into the high strain rate deformation analysis of
3. Crookston JJ, Long AC and Jones IA. A summary
polymer matrix composites. J Aerosp Eng 2005; 18: 18–27.
review of mechanical properties prediction methods for
22. Shokrieh MM, Mosalmani R and Jamal Omidi M. Strain
textile reinforced polymer composites. Proc Inst Mech
rate dependent micromechanical modeling of reinforced
Eng Part L: J Mater Des Appl 2005; 219: 91–109.
polymers with carbon nanotubes. J Compos Mater 2014;
4. Angioni SL, Meo M and Foreman A. A comparison of
48: 3381–3393.
homogenization methods for 2-D woven composites.
23. Ivanov I and Tabiei A. Three-dimensional computational
Compos Part B Eng 2011; 42: 181–189.
micro-mechanical model for woven fabric composites.
5. Adumitroaie A and Barbero EJ. Stiffness and strength
Compos Struct 2001; 54: 489–496.
prediction for plain weave textile reinforced composites.
24. Naik NK and Ganesh VK. Failure behavior of plain
Mech Adv Mater Struct 2012; 19: 169–183.
weave fabric laminates under on-axis uniaxial tensile
6. Kowalczyk P. Enhanced geometric model for numerical
loading: I—analytical predictions. J Compos Mater
microstructure analysis of plain-weave fabric-reinforced
1996; 30: 1779–1822.
composite. Adv Compos Mater 2015; 24: 411–429. 25. Blackketter DM, Walrath DE and Hansen AC. Modeling
7. Komeili M and Milani AS. The effect of meso-level damage in a plain weave fabric-reinforced composite
uncertainties on the mechanical response of woven material. J Compos Technol Res 1993; 15: 136–142.
fabric composites under axial loading. Comput Struct 26. Naik NK. Woven fabric composites. Lancaster,
2012; 90: 163–171. Pennsylvania, US: Technomic Publishing Company, 1994.
8. Rao MP, Pantiuk M and Charalambides PG. Modeling 27. Chung PW and Tamma KK. Woven fabric compos-
the geometry of satin weave fabric composites. J Compos ites—developments in engineering bounds, homogeniza-
Mater 2009; 43: 19–56. tion and applications. Int J Numer Meth Eng 1999; 45:
9. Kowalczyk P. Parametric constitutive model of plain- 1757–1790.
weave fabric reinforced composite ply. Adv Compos 28. Tabiei A, Song G and Jiang Y. Strength simulation of
Mater 2016; 25: 287–303. woven fabric composite materials with material nonlinear-
10. Naik NK and Sridevi E. An analytical method for ther- ity using micromechanics based model. J Thermoplast
moelastic analysis of 3D orthogonal interlock woven Compos Mater 2003; 16: 5–20.
composites. J Reinf Plast Compos 2002; 21: 1149–1191.
11. Naik NK and Ganesh VK. An analytical method for
plain weave fabric composites. Composites 1995; 26:
281–289. Appendix 1
12. Ming Huang Z. The mechanical properties of composites  
reinforced with woven and braided fabrics. Compos Sci Aij is a 6  6 matrix named bridging matrix where its
Technol 2000; 60: 479–498. components are introduced in Ming Huang.12 The non-
13. Sheng SZ and Van Hoa S. Three dimensional micro- zero components of the bridging matrix are determined
mechanical modeling of woven fabric composites. by equations (40) to (43).12
J Compos Mater 2001; 35: 1701–1729.
14. Ishikawa T and Chou T-W. Stiffness and strength behav- Em
A11 ¼ ð40Þ
iour of woven fabric composites. J Mater Sci 1982; 17: Ef11
 
3211–3220. Em
15. Scida D, Aboura Z, Benzeggagh ML, et al. A microme- A22 ¼ A33 ¼ A44 ¼ 0:5 1 þ f ð41Þ
E22
chanics model for 3D elasticity and failure of woven-fibre
 
composite materials. Compos Sci Technol 1999; 59: Gm
505–517. A55 ¼ A66 ¼ 0:5 1 þ f ð42Þ
G12
16. Angioni SL, Meo M and Foreman A. A critical review of
homogenization methods for 2D woven composites.  f 
S12  Sm ða11  a22 Þ
Compos Part B Eng 2011; 42: 731684411408158. A13 ¼ A12 ¼  f 12 m  ð43Þ
17. Huang Z-MM. A unified micromechanical model for the S11  S11
mechanical properties of two constituent composite
16 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

2 3
where Em and Gm are the Young’s modulus and shear Cr11 Cr13 Cr15
elastic modulus of the matrix, respectively. Also, Ef11 , 6 Cr35 7
Cr1 ¼ 4 Cr31 Cr33 5 ð51Þ
Ef22 and Gf12 are the longitudinal modulus, transverse
Cr51 Cr53 Cr55
modulus and in-plane shear modulus of fibers.
2 3
Cr12 Cr14 Cr16
Appendix 2 6 7
Cr2 ¼ 4 Cr32 Cr34 Cr36 5 ð52Þ
To determine the components of the transformation Cr52 Cr54 Cr56
matrix, the center of sub-elements faces should be cal- 2 3
culated.
 For this  purpose, the coordinates of point Cr21 Cr23 Cr25
P1 : xPL1 , yPL1 , zPL1 in Figure 4 are calculated by equation 6
Cr3 ¼ 4 Cr41 Cr43
7
Cr45 5 ð53Þ
(44) in local coordinate systems of yarn 1 and yarn 2,
Cr61 Cr63 Cr65
separately.12
2 3
    Cr22 Cr24 Cr26
xPL1 ¼ 0:5 x1L þ x2L , yPL1 ¼ 0:5 y1L þ y2L , 6 7
h  P1 P1   i ð44Þ Cr4 ¼ 4 Cr42 Cr44 Cr46 5 ð54Þ
zPL1 ¼ 0:5 Zupper
1 xL , y L þ Zlower P1 P1
1 xL , y L Cr62 Cr64 Cr66
  2 3
The coordinates of points P2 : xPL2 , yPL2 , zPL2 , CL22 CL23 CL24
 P3 P3 P3   P4 P4 P4 
P3 : xL , yL , zL and P4 : xL , yL , zL are also calcu- 6 7
CL1 ¼ 4 CL32 CL33 CL34 5 ð55Þ
lated in this manner. The components of the transfor- CL42 CL43 CL44
mation matrix are calculated by equations (45) to (47)12
2 3
CL21 CL25 CL26
xPL3  xPL1 yPL3  yPL1 zPL3  zPL1 L 6 L
C2 ¼ 4 C31 CL35
7
CL36 5 ð56Þ
l1 ¼ , m1 ¼ , n1 ¼
s s s CL41 CL45 CL46
ð45Þ
2 3
a1 a2 a3 CL12 CL13 CL14
l3 ¼ , m3 ¼ , n3 ¼ ð46Þ 6 7
s1 s1 s1 CL3 ¼ 4 CL52 CL53 CL54 5 ð57Þ
CL62 CL63 CL64
l2 ¼ m3 n1  n3 m1 , m2 ¼ l3 n1 þ n3 l1 , n2 ¼ l3 m1  m3 l1
2 3
ð47Þ CL11 CL15 CL16
6 7
CL4 ¼ 4 CL52 CL53 CL54 5 ð58Þ
where CL62 CL63 CL64
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2 3
 P3 2  2  2
s¼ xL  xPL1 þ yPL3  yPL1 þ zPL3  zPL1 ð48Þ Ck11 Ck12 Ck16
k 6 k 7
C1 ¼ 4 C21 Ck22 Ck26 5 ð59Þ
   
a1 ¼ m1 zPL4  zPL2  n1 yPL4  yPL2 , Ck61 Ck62 Ck66
   
a2 ¼ l1 zPL4  zPL2 þ n1 xPL4  xPL2 , ð49Þ 2 3
    Ck13 Ck14 Ck15
a3 ¼ l1 yPL4  yPL2  m1 xPL4  xPL2 6 7
Ck2 ¼ 4 Ck23 Ck24 Ck25 5 ð60Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Ck63 Ck64 Ck65
s1 ¼ ða1 Þ2 þða2 Þ2 þða3 Þ2 ð50Þ
2 3
Ck31 Ck32 Ck36
6 7
Ck3 ¼ 4 Ck41 Ck42 Ck46 5 ð61Þ
Appendix 3 Ck51 Ck52 Ck56
The parameters of Cri , CLi and Cki (where i ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4) 2 3
which are used in equation (25) to (30) are introduced Ck33 Ck34 Ck35
in this appendix. These parameters are determined by 6 7
Ck4 ¼ 4 Ck43 Ck44 Ck45 5 ð62Þ
rewriting of equation (22) according to the definition of
Ck53 Ck54 Ck55
in-plane and out-of-plane stresses and strains compo-
nents in each level of homogenization.