13 tayangan

Diunggah oleh RabindraSubedi

airbag delation

- Yarn Specs - USTER
- RadialReturn-Brannon
- HW#3
- 10.2307@52200
- Lecture 8
- [2012] a New Bond-slip Model for Adhesive in CFRP-steel Composite System - Dehghani, Daneshjoo, Aghakouchak, Khaji
- Formulating Equation to Calculate ‘Fibre Percentages’ in Weft Knitted Fabric
- Chap6 Mechanical Properties
- Notice: Textile and apparel categories: Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement; commercial availability— Woven fabrics
- Elasticity,Shrinkage and Creep
- 2D Cohesive Elements Abaqus
- Discussion
- 10
- 1st Semester
- Pol Izz Otto
- 26
- Battered Piles Rev2
- Computational Modeling of Interfacial Behaviors in Nanocomposite Materials
- ex1[1]
- Zarnani & Bathurst CGJ v46 2009

Anda di halaman 1dari 133

by

B.Sc., Villanova University, 2008

in

(Materials Engineering)

(Vancouver)

December 2010

Steven Edward Zacharski, 2010

Abstract

Abstract

Over the past two decades, the airbag has become an essential safety device in automobiles. The

airbag cushion is composed of a woven fabric which is rapidly inflated during a car crash. The

airbag dissipates the passengers kinetic energy thereby reducing injury through biaxial

stretching of the fabric bag and escaping gas through vents. Therefore, the performance of the

airbag is greatly influenced by the mechanical properties of the fabric. Unlike traditional

engineering materials, airbag fabrics are composed of discrete constituents and have highly

nonlinear mechanical behavior that arises from both geometric deformations and material

nonlinearity. Henceforth, airbag designers are forced to make simplified assumptions regarding

the mechanical behavior of the fabric cushion. This incontrovertibly limits designers in taking

advantage of the full potential of the fabric system. In order to optimize the airbag design,

improve deployment simulations and overall dependability, a more sophisticated approach is

needed.

In this study, a simple unit cell model representing a single crossover of two orthogonal woven

yarns is developed to simulate the in-plane mechanical behavior of both coated and uncoated

plain weave airbag fabrics under multiple states of stress. Since the structural analysis of the

deployment of the airbag is performed using the finite element method, the proposed mechanistic

model is implemented as a User-Material-Model in the commercial code LS-DYNA. Here, the

unit cell model represents the constitutive behavior of a continuum membrane. The approach

results in capturing, in detail, the discrete nature of the fabric while retaining the computational

efficiency of simple membrane formulation compared to explicitly modeling each yarn within

the fabric.

The procedure to calibrate the model inputs, namely the yarn geometric and mechanical

properties for a given fabric is detailed. The sensitivity of the unit cell model and verification of

the finite element implementation is discussed. A series of experiments were performed to

validate the in-plane behavior of the model. The proposed model can be adopted by designers to

better represent the nonlinear mechanical behavior of the fabric. It can also be used as a tool to

design novel fabrics that are optimized for a particular application.

ii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents........................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi

Nomenclature............................................................................................................................... viii

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... x

Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Motivation............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Goals and objectives ............................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Outline .................................................................................................................................. 4

Chapter 2 Background ................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Overview of airbag fabric technology .................................................................................. 6

2.2 Airbag fabric research........................................................................................................... 9

2.2.1 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 14

2.3 Modeling of the mechanical behavior of fabrics ................................................................ 15

2.3.1 Representative mechanistic models ............................................................................. 15

2.3.2 Continuum approaches................................................................................................. 19

2.3.3 Current state-of-the-art................................................................................................. 20

2.3.4 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 21

Chapter 3 - Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration ........................... 22

3.1 Background and approach .................................................................................................. 22

3.2 Unit cell definition .............................................................................................................. 24

3.3 Deformational mechanisms and constitutive relationship .................................................. 29

3.3.1 Yarn axial extension .................................................................................................... 29

3.3.2 Yarn bending................................................................................................................ 30

3.3.3 Coating extension......................................................................................................... 33

3.3.4 Unit cell in-plane shear behavior ................................................................................. 34

3.4 Numerical procedure........................................................................................................... 37

3.5 Characterization of constituent properties .......................................................................... 39

3.5.1 Microscopy .................................................................................................................. 39

3.5.2 Yarn extension test....................................................................................................... 42

3.5.3 Coating characterization .............................................................................................. 47

3.5.4 In-plane shear calibration............................................................................................. 48

3.6 Results................................................................................................................................. 50

3.7 Sensitivity analysis ............................................................................................................. 51

3.8 Summary............................................................................................................................. 54

Chapter 4 Implementation and verification ............................................................................... 56

4.1 Background and approach .................................................................................................. 56

4.2 Explicit dynamic finite element analysis ............................................................................ 60

4.3 Implementation of unit cell based UMAT for FE shells .................................................... 61

4.3.1 Continuum formulation................................................................................................ 61

4.3.2 Special considerations yarn separation, failure and element erosion ....................... 65

4.4 Verification ......................................................................................................................... 66

4.5 Summary............................................................................................................................. 68

Chapter 5 Validation .................................................................................................................. 70

iii

Table of Contents

5.2 Experimental evaluation ..................................................................................................... 70

5.2.1 Uniaxial extension ....................................................................................................... 70

5.2.2 Biaxial extension.......................................................................................................... 72

5.2.3 Bias extension .............................................................................................................. 78

5.3 Comparison of UC, FE-UC and experiments ..................................................................... 85

5.3.1 Uniaxial results ............................................................................................................ 85

5.3.2 Biaxial results............................................................................................................... 88

5.3.3 Bias results ................................................................................................................... 94

5.4 Summary............................................................................................................................. 99

Chapter 6 - Conclusion and recommendations ........................................................................... 100

6.1 Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 100

6.2 Recommendations and future work .................................................................................. 101

6.3 Summary........................................................................................................................... 102

References................................................................................................................................... 103

Appendix A UMAT *MAT card documentation..................................................................... 109

Appendix B UMAT pseudo code ............................................................................................ 117

Appendix C Justification of the selection of a linear unit cell over sinusoidal geometry ....... 120

Appendix D Conversion of membrane stress into specific stress............................................ 123

iv

List of Tables

List of Tables

Table 3-1: Existing center-line unit cell models vs. proposed model........................................... 23

Table 3-2: Unit cell configuration conditions............................................................................... 28

Table 3-3: Geometric properties of coated and uncoated airbag fabric as determined from

microscopy.................................................................................................................................... 42

Table 5-1: Test methods in the literature for evaluating the biaxial behavior of fabrics............. 73

Table 5-2: Biaxial extension of coated fabric experiment vs. simulation.................................. 91

Table 5-3: Biaxial extension of uncoated fabric experiment vs. simulation.............................. 92

Table 5-4: Comparison of bias deformation of coated sample: experiment vs. simulation ......... 97

Table 5-5: Comparison of bias deformation of uncoated sample: experiment vs. simulation ..... 98

v

List of Figures

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Biaxial extension of airbag fabric vs. current linear elastic assumption...................... 3

Figure 1-2: Overview of the scope of this study............................................................................. 4

Figure 2-1: Pierce's unit cell (1937).............................................................................................. 16

Figure 2-2: Kawabata's unit cell (1973)....................................................................................... 18

Figure 3-1: Simple unit cell geometry in initial and deformed states.......................................... 24

Figure 3-2: Procedure for generating stress-strain behavior of fabric under multiple states of

stress using the unit cell approach ................................................................................................ 27

Figure 3-3: Bending geometry of an elastica................................................................................ 30

Figure 3-4: Typical shear stress-strain curve for single-coated and uncoated fabric .................. 35

Figure 3-5: Shear model behavior a) secant shear modulus as a function of strain b) regions in

the shear stress-strain curve .......................................................................................................... 36

Figure 3-6: Plain weave of a) single-coated fabric and b) uncoated fabric ................................. 40

Figure 3-7: Cross section of 350dtex coated airbag fabric a) warp direction and b) fill direction

....................................................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 3-8: Cross section of 350dtex uncoated airbag fabric a) warp direction and b) fill

direction ........................................................................................................................................ 41

Figure 3-9: Yarn specimen preparation procedure ...................................................................... 43

Figure 3-10: KES-G1 microtensile tester with loaded yarn sample ............................................. 44

Figure 3-11: Procedure of obtaining "pure" yarn load-elongation response ................................ 45

Figure 3-12: Average force-elongation curve for 350dtex nylon 6,6 airbag yarn ........................ 46

Figure 3-13: KES-FB1 textile shear tester shown in a) and b) shear deformation adopted in the

KES-FB1 testing system ............................................................................................................... 48

Figure 3-14: Shear stress-strain behavior for 350dtex nylon airbag fabric ................................. 49

Figure 3-15: Membrane stress-strain curves for 350dtex fabric produced by the unit cell model

....................................................................................................................................................... 51

Figure 3-16: Crimp parameter sensitivity for a) 1:1 biaxial extension and b) uniaxial extension52

Figure 3-17: Yarn bending rigidity parameter sensitivity for a) 1:1 biaxial extension and b)

uniaxial extension ......................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 3-18: Coating thickness parameter sensitivity for a) 1:1 biaxial extension and b) uniaxial

extension ....................................................................................................................................... 54

Figure 4-1: Outline of the basic concept of the unit-cell-membrane ........................................... 58

Figure 4-2: Effect of curvature on the internal structure of woven fabric ................................... 59

Figure 4-3: Numerical procedure of LS-DYNA with user material model option...................... 60

Figure 4-4: Verifying modes of shear: a) pure shear and b) rail shear ........................................ 67

vi

List of Figures

Figure 4-5: Verifying shear deformation behaviors of a single element with varying shear

stiffnesses...................................................................................................................................... 68

Figure 5-1: Average uniaxial stress-strain of 350dtex fabric........................................................ 71

Figure 5-2: Biaxial tester at Drexel University............................................................................. 74

Figure 5-3: Biaxial specimen dimensions..................................................................................... 75

Figure 5-4: Biaxial testing specimen configuration...................................................................... 76

Figure 5-5: Average biaxial stress-strain curve for coated and uncoated samples ...................... 77

Figure 5-6: Photographs of biaxial extension at approximately 12% strain for a) uncoated and b)

coated fabrics ................................................................................................................................ 78

Figure 5-7: Heterogeneous deformation of fabric bias extension................................................. 79

Figure 5-8: Bias extension-apparent shear angle recording set-up ............................................... 80

Figure 5-9: Load-elongation of bias coated and uncoated airbag fabric ..................................... 81

Figure 5-10: Bias shear -- applied specimen end stress vs. center specimen shear angle ........... 82

Figure 5-11: Typical bias shear deformation sequence - 50mm x 100mm coated sample.......... 83

Figure 5-12: Typical bias shear deformation sequence - 50mm x 100mm uncoated sample...... 83

Figure 5-13: Detailed low shear angle plot of applied stress vs. center shear of bias sample..... 84

Figure 5-14: Uniaxial extension of coated airbag fabric - model vs. experiments ....................... 86

Figure 5-15: Uniaxial extension of uncoated airbag fabric - model vs. experiment..................... 86

Figure 5-16: Macroscopic strains of simulated uniaxial loaded coated airbag fabric at 30%

extension a) warp direction and b) fill direction........................................................................ 87

Figure 5-17: Yarn strains of simulated uniaxial loaded coated airbag fabric at 30% extension

a) warp direction and b) fill direction ........................................................................................... 88

Figure 5-18: Biaxial extension of coated airbag fabric - model vs. ex periments ........................ 89

Figure 5-19: Biaxial extension of uncoated airbag fabric - model vs. ex periments .................... 89

Figure 5-20: Simulated yarn strains at approximately 12% equal biaxial extension in the- a) warp

direction and b) fill direction ........................................................................................................ 93

Figure 5-21: Bias load-elongation for coated and uncoated fabric - simulation vs. experiment .. 95

Figure 5-22: Applied shear stress vs. measured shear angle - simulation and experiments......... 95

Figure 5-23: Detailed low level applied shear stress vs. measured shear angle - simulation and

experiments ................................................................................................................................... 96

Figure A1: Shear model behavior regions in the shear stress-strain curve ............................... 113

Figure A2: Secant shear modulus as a function of strain........................................................... 114

Figure C1: Approximation of yarn height by linear and sinusoidal unit cell ............................. 120

Figure C2: Approximation of sin theta by linear and sinusoidal unit cell .................................. 121

Figure C3: Approximation of cos theta by linear and sinusoidal unit cell ................................. 121

Figure C4: Approximation of warp fabric membrane stress by linear and sinusoidal unit cell . 122

vii

Nomenclature

Nomenclature

( )i Index referencing warp yarn (i=1) and fill yarn (i=2)

Ai Specific area of yarn in the i material direction

c Speed of sound in the fiber material

c* Speed of sound across a crimped yarn

cri Yarn crimp in the i material direction

dfiber Diameter of a single fiber

Ec Elastic modulus of coating

(EI)yarn Yarn bending rigidity the i material direction

Fb,i Vertical force component contributed to yarn bending

Fc,i Vertical force component contributed to yarn extension

Fct,i In-plane force generated at the end of the yarn in the i direction by the coating

Fend,i Total in-plane force in-plane force generated at the end of the unit cell in the i

material direction

Ff,i In-plane force generated at the end of the yarn in the i direction by the yarn

Fy,i Yarn axial tension force

G Shear modulus

G1 Unit cell shear modulus that is contributed by coating shear

G2 Unit cell shear modulus that is contributed by yarn rotation

G3 Unit cell shear modulus that is contributed to locking of yarns

H0i Initial yarn centerline height at the center of the unit cell

Hi Current yarn centerline height at the center of the unit cell

K Bulk modulus

L0i Initial yarn length

Ld,i Linear density of the yarn

Li Current yarn length

Nfiber Number of fibers per yarn

ni Yarns per inch

Ni Normal in-plane membrane stress

p Packing factor of the yarn

rc Radius of curvature

S12 In-plane unit cell shear membrane stress

tc Coating thickness

wc Areal density of coated fabric

wu Areal density of uncoated fabric

y0i Initial horizontal spacing of yarn

yi Current horizontal spacing of yarn

Strain increment tensor

i Strain applied to the unit cell in the i material direction

yarn,i Yarn strain in the i material direction

yarn,

ult Ultimate yarn strain in the i material direction

i

i 0 Original angle between material vector i and the local material axes

it Angle between material vector i and the local material axes at time step t

viii

Nomenclature

2 Shear strain corresponding to the beginning of yarn rotation dominated shear

stiffness

3 Shear strain corresponding to the onset of contact between parallel yarns

4 Shear strain at which shear locking occurs

i Total stretch in the i material direction

c Poissons ratio of the coating

Density of unit cell-shell

ix

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

I wish first to thank my supervisors Dr. Frank Ko and Dr. Reza Vaziri for all their mentoring,

guidance, ideas and assistance through the duration of this work. I am grateful for their

willingness to share with me the worlds of textile and computational mechanics. I would like to

thank the financial support from TRW Automotive on this project and the technical support from

Dr. Chuan Lee from TRW.

I also wish to thank Dr. Joseph Wartman and Mr. David Harmanos of the Civil, Architectural

and Environmental Engineering Department at Drexel University for sharing and their aid in

helping me operate the biaxial tester which was vital to validating the model developed in this

work. Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. John Gosline and Dr. Ken Savage from UBC

Zoology for sharing their tensile tester which was used to generate the uniaxial and bias data

used for validation.

I also offer much thanks to the past and present members of the UBC Composites Group and the

Advanced Fibrous Materials Laboratory for many fruitful discussions and advice.

Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family back east for their support and

understanding while I pursue to advance my education and career. I especially want to thank my

parents for their love and encouragement throughout the years.

x

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Motivation

The first recorded automobile fatality occurred in Birr, Ireland in 1869 (Fallon & ONeill, 2005)

-- an event that arguably marked the dawn of the study of automobile safety. Over the past two

decades, the emergence of the airbag has established itself as an integral part in vehicle safety for

passengers. The United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

estimates that as of 2009 more than 28,000 lives have been saved in the U.S. because of frontal

airbags (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2009). While the airbag has seen

great success, the sobering statistic of 24,474 vehicle occupant fatalities in the U.S. during 2009

documented by the NHTSA illustrates that the airbag as well as other safety technologies need

continuing improvement (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2010). The concept

of the airbag is fairly simple: upon collision, a charge is sent to ignite a gas explosion that rapidly

inflates the airbag. The airbag provides a cushion in which the impact energy is dissipated,

forces that act upon the passenger are distributed over a large area and excessive rotations of the

passenger are limited. When the forces and rotation that act on the passenger are kept to a

minimum, the likelihood of injury dramatically decreases.

Considerable efforts of the airbag designers and manufacturers have been focused on producing

airbag systems that are reliable and have predictable performance. Of fundamental importance

to the airbag performance is the mechanical properties of the airbag fabric. Airbag fabrics, which

are typically constructed of a simple plain weave of nylon yarns, exhibit unique characteristics

that differ from the traditional engineering materials. More specifically, airbag fabrics are

heterogeneous, anisotropic, have the ability to undergo large deformations and exhibit nonlinear

mechanical behavior. Heterogeneity and anisotropy lends itself to the geometric assembly of

discrete constituents while nonlinearity is due to both geometric deformations and material

nonlinearity of the constituents.

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

The applied pressure in the airbag is a follower-type loading, meaning the temporal and spatial

distribution of the load depends on the structural response of the fabric. Structural response is

governed by material behavior of the fabric as well as the operative boundary conditions. A great

amount of effort has been devoted by the computational mechanics community to develop

sophisticated gas models and fluid-structure interaction algorithms which have improved the

accuracy of simulating the operative boundary conditions. Still, simplified assumptions are

made regarding the mechanical behavior of the fabric during the design, analysis and simulation

of the airbag structure.

Of particular interest to the airbag industry is improving the structural analysis and design

through a better understanding of the mechanical behavior as well as the failure behavior of the

fabrics under deployment conditions. The most common simplified assumption in the industrys

structural analysis is to approximate the fabric as an orthotropic continuum with linear elastic

mechanical behavior (Drnhoff et al., 2008; Hirth, Haufe, & Olovsson, 2007; Wawa, Chandra, &

Verma, 1993). The assumed elastic modulus is taken from the initial modulus measured by

experimental data. This type of approach obviously neglects the internal changes of the fabric

structure and the material nonlinearity of the yarn (Wawa et al., 1993). Figure 1-1 illustrates the

shortcomings of the current linear elastic analysis capabilities to capture what is physically

observed in biaxially strained fabrics from this study. From the figure, it can be observed that

after 4% strain there are large portions of the fabric stress-strain curve where the assumed

stiffness is first over estimated and then at strains exceed approximately 15%, the assumed

mechanical behavior under predicts the stiffness of the physical fabric. The erroneous

estimations can therefore lead to false predictions regarding energy absorption of the system and

incorrect simulations of the airbag deployment and impact process. Additionally, there are no

clear criteria to describe the failure of the airbag fabric which is a concern for the industry.

Refinements in the formulation of the mechanical behavior that take into account the nonlinear

stress-strain behavior up to failure can result in better predictions regarding both the dynamics

and failure of the airbag structure.

2

Chapter 1 Introduction

40.00

Y Assumption

35.00

X Test

30.00

membrane stress (N/mm)

Test

25.00

20.00

Assumption

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

strain

Figure 1-1: Biaxial extension of airbag fabric vs. current linear elastic assumption

The objective of this thesis is to model the nonlinear stress-strain behavior of airbag fabrics up to

failure under deployment-like conditions. The aim of this work is to develop a constitutive

model that accurately represents the anisotropy and nonlinearity of the airbag fabric material

under states of stress seen in the deployment of the airbag using simple inputs based on the

fabrics constituents. Since the industry utilizes airbag simulations that are performed using

dynamic explicit finite element codes, the material model is intended to be implemented into

such codes keeping in mind computational efficiency. Experimental evaluation of the fabric is

performed to generate input data for the material model as well as reference for validation.

Figure 1-2 illustrates the general strategy in this study. Successful modeling of the stress-strain

behavior can aid engineers in improving the safety and dependability of the airbag system.

3

Chapter 1 Introduction

It should be made clear that the purpose of this work is to improve predictions of the elastic

behavior of the airbag fabric up to failure under multi-axial states of stress. While a more

sophisticated representation of the constitutive behavior of the airbag fabric may improve the

structural analysis and simulated deployment kinematics, any conclusions drawn about

improvements regarding post-impact kinematics or passenger energy dissipation should be made

cautiously as the work does not consider visco-plasticity (i.e. permanent and rate-dependant

deformations of the fabric).

1.3 Outline

This section presents a general outline of the thesis. Chapter 2 begins with a brief overview of

the airbag system along with the historical evolution of the fabric system. A literature review

presents the work that has been performed in either evaluating the mechanical behavior of airbag

4

Chapter 1 Introduction

textile mechanics pertinent to modeling the elastic behavior of woven fabrics and the current

state-of-art is presented.

Chapter 3 presents a representative unit cell model based on a simple linear approximation of the

yarn crossover geometry for woven fabrics. The structural mechanisms and constitutive

relations that empower the mechanical response of the unit cell are discussed in detail. The

procedures for characterization of constituent properties for a current generation airbag fabric are

presented. A sensitivity analysis of the unit cell inputs is performed using properties of the

airbag fabric as the nominal baseline.

Chapter 4 describes the continuum formulation for a finite element shell using the unit cell

model as the basis for the constitutive relationship. A brief overview of the importance of finite

element analysis in airbag and crashworthiness simulations is provided. The unit cell based

continuum formulation is implemented as a user material subroutine (UMAT) into the

commercial dynamic finite element code, LS-DYNA. The derivation of the continuum

formulation that transforms element strains to the unit cell and transforms the unit cell stresses

back to the element under large deformations is presented. A few verification case studies are

performed to confirm the successful implementation of the theory.

Chapter 5 discuses the validation of the modeling techniques derived in Chapters 3 and 4. The

fabric was tested under uniaxial, biaxial and bias extension to validate the model under different

states of stress. The experimental procedure is carefully laid out and the correlation between the

simple unit cell model predictions and the experimental results is discussed in detail.

Chapter 6 presents the conclusions drawn from the current study and recommends possible

future work in the area of modeling woven fabrics and their failure predictions under multiple

stress states leading to airbag simulations.

5

Chapter 2 Background

Chapter 2 Background

During an automobile collision, the vehicle can undergo a rapid change in velocity while the

passengers continue to move until an opposing force occurs. Highly concentrated opposing

forces arising from the vehicle interior or seatbelt can result in serious injury to passengers. An

airbag is designed to minimize these concentrated forces and reduce excessive motion (mostly

upper body rotation) of a belted passenger. Upon collision, a charge is initiated which inflates

the airbag that forms a cushion between the passenger and vehicle interior. The deployment

sequence occurs rapidly between 25 to 30 milliseconds from the time of sensing the crash to full

inflation of the airbag where the speed of the deploying airbag can reach up to 160 km/hr (100

mph) (Crouch, 1994; Mukhopadhyay, 2008). At which time gas pressures can reach 70 kPa and

temperatures close to 600 C for a few milliseconds (Gon, 2010; Mukhopadhyay, 2008). The

bags internal pressure is uniformly applied to the occupant and the bag gently dissipates the

passengers kinetic energy while distributing the contact force over a large area and minimizing

rotations of the passengers articulated segments. The mechanisms that contribute to airbags

absorption and dissipation of energy are the mechanical biaxial stretching of the fabric and

escaping gases.

While historical references of the airbag can be traced back to the 1920s, the first patent in the

United States for an automotive safety cushion assembly was issued in 1953 (Crouch, 1994;

Mukhopadhyay, 2008). The concept was not executed in a commercial vehicle until the early

1970s when General Motors started to produce automobiles with the safety devices.

Unfortunately, the feature garnered little public support due to expensive and complicated

technology. With additional research and development of an effective and more economical

airbag system, the technology started to be implemented into vehicles extensively in the late

1980s. Starting in 1998, all new vehicles in the United States were required to have driver and

6

Chapter 2 Background

passenger airbags. Today, vehicles are outfitted with side curtain and thorax airbags for side and

rollover impacts (Mukhopadhyay, 2008).

The technical requirements for airbags are defined as: good foldability, high softness, resilient,

heat resistant, low air permeability, high dynamic stress resistance, low fabric weight, high fabric

strength, good abrasion resistance and stability upon aging (Gon, 2010; Mukhopadhyay, 2008;

Schwark & Muller, 1996; Crouch, 1994). To meet these requirements, the airbag is constructed

of woven textile membranes that are mostly constructed from multi-filament polyamid 6,6

(nylon) yarns. The woven fabric structure used in the airbag application is the plain weave;

where the warp and fill yarns are interlaced in a regular sequence of one under and one over.

The term warp refers to the direction of yarns that run continuously through the weaving

machine and are continuous for the entire length of the fabric roll. The fill yarns (sometimes

referred to as weft or woof) are the yarns that run transverse to the warp yarns.

The mechanical behavior of woven fabrics is anisotropic and highly nonlinear. The nonlinearity

is a result of internal structural changes during deformations where the deformations are finite

but can also be attributed to material nonlinearity of the yarn constituents. Woven fabrics

possess high flexibility which allows them to fold and conform to a variety of shapes. The low

bending stiffness is attributed to the interlacing of yarn without rigid bonding of the overlapping

points as well as thin parallel system of fibers which are only restricted by friction.

The yarn material system, polyamide (or better known by its trade name nylon) is the generic

term for any long-chain synthetic polymeric amide which has recurring amide groups as an

integral part of the main polymer chain (Harris, 1954). While this definition can cover a wide

range of structures, the most important group from which commercial fibers are constructed

include condensation polymers of an - straight-chained aliphatic diamine with an - straight-

chain aliphatic dicarboxylic acid. Specifically, nylon 6,6 which is most commonly used in

airbag fabrics is the condensation polymer of hexamethylene diamine with adipic acid (Harris,

1954).

It should also be mentioned that polyester (PET) and nylon 4,6 yarns are used in small quantity

for airbag fabrics and sewing threads in some parts of world. Nonetheless, nylon 6,6 is the fiber

7

Chapter 2 Background

of choice compared to other synthetic or natural fibers because it has the highest strength-to-

weight ratio at an economical price and other properties that are desirable in airbag applications.

Nylon 4,6 has similar mechanical and thermal behavior to nylon 6,6 but is more expensive (Gon,

2010; Mukhopadhyay, 2008). Polyester is a cheaper fiber that is used extensively in seatbelts

and other automotive textiles. However, properties that make polyester a suitable material

candidate for seatbelts does not translate into airbag applications. Polyester undergoes less

dimensional changes compared to nylon under moisture and temperature fluctuations which

allows for smooth uptake and pull out of the seatbelt (Crouch, 1993). Additionally, polyester is

more rigid than nylon which prevents excessive stretching of the belt during high loading that

occurs as a result of an impact. The high elongation of nylon is advantageous in airbags as it

promotes wider allocation of forces throughout the airbag as well as uniform stress distribution

along perimeter seams. Additionally, nylon has a relatively higher melting point, high heat of

fusion and absorbs 2-4% water by weight that provides quenching properties which aids in the

prevention of burn through from hot particulates that could possibly break free from the inflator

and travel into the bag (Crouch, 1993).

The airbag fabric can also be coated with an elastomer which lowers the permeability of the

fabric and provides an ablative shield to the fabric from the hot gases (Crouch, 1993; Crouch,

1994; Gon, 2010; Schwark & Muller, 1996). The first generation of airbags used a neoprene

coating while todays airbags are almost exclusively coated with silicone. Neoprene coatings

can release HCl over time which can degrade the nylon yarns. Additionally, neoprene has a

tendency to self-adhere which requires the airbag to be coated with talc while silicone does not

exhibit adhering so no talc is used. Silicone rubbers are more stable and therefore do not degrade

the fabric even after high temperature aging. This means the amount of coating required is

significantly less if silicone is used instead of neoprene, resulting in a thinner, lighter and more

compliant air bag (Gon, 2010). Silicone exhibits better wear and abrasion resistance compared

to neoprene coatings. From a manufacturing point of view, the silicone used in the airbag

application is a Pt-cured, low viscosity liquid rubber applied using knife coating equipment to

apply a thin coat upon one side of the fabric (Mukhopadhyay, 2008; Schwark & Muller, 1996).

After the coating is applied to the fabric, the fabric is pulled through an oven to induce

polymerization and adhesion between the fabric and coating.

8

Chapter 2 Background

There has been much debate by the airbag industry regarding the value of coated and uncoated

fabrics (Crouch, 1993; Gon, 2010; Mukhopadhyay, 2008; Schwark & Muller, 1996). The coated

fabrics offer better resistance to heat conductivity, tear performance, and low permeability. On

the other hand, the process to coat the fabrics is environmentally unfriendly. The fabric becomes

hard to handle due to the permeation of the solvent of the coating liquid. Uncoated fabrics are

more environmental friendly and are easier to fold and pack into small spaces.

Aside from the evolution from neoprene to silicone coatings, the fabric construction has changed

throughout the twenty years of airbag use (Crouch, 1993; Mukhopadhyay, 2008). The first

generation of fabric design consisted of 940 decitex (abbreviated as dtex) yarns. Decitex is a

measure of the linear density of the yarn and is defined as the weight in grams per 10,000 meters

of yarn. Another popular unit of linear density used in textile is denier, which is the weight in

grams of 9000 meters of yarn. The higher the decitex or denier, the thicker the yarn and coarser

the fabric weave. The first generations of fabrics were coarse, heavy and difficult to pack.

The second generation of fabrics used during the mid-1990s were made of high tenacity 470 dtex

nylon yarns. At this time, the transition from neoprene to silicone coatings was also seen. The

new fabrics were gentler on the passengers skin during impact than its predecessors and had

better packability. The fabrics were also lighter and had more controlled permeability.

Manufactures are now evaluating fabrics that are constructed of high to super high tenacity yarn

with linear densities of 235 to 350 dtex. The fabrics have improvements in weight reduction,

packability and softness. In the future, the trend of low density, high strength yarns will continue

that will result in bags becoming lighter, more robust and more compact (Gon, 2010;

Mukhopadhyay, 2008). As the fabric system continues to evolve, the analysis and design

procedures must as well.

This section details the research related to the evaluation of airbag fabric and modeling of the

mechanical properties of airbag fabric chronologically. While there has been great effort in

modeling the deployment and impact kinematics of airbags, the literature related to experimental

9

Chapter 2 Background

evaluation and modeling of the mechanical properties of airbag fabrics is very limited.

Keshavaraj et al (Keshavaraj, Tock, & Nusholtz, 1995; Keshavaraj, Tock, & Nusholtz, 1996)

studied the biaxial properties of nylon 6, nylon 6,6 and polyester fabrics using a blister-inflation

device. The fabrics were of a balanced construction with the same amount of yarns in the warp

and fill direction although there has been no mention of the value of crimp in the yarns. The

blister-inflation technique used in the study is a quasi-steady-state measurement in which a flat

sheet of fabric is deformed into a semi-spherical blister via pressure drop across the fabric using

compressed air. The biaxial stretching of the fabric and changing permeability as the fabric

structure is inflated is recorded. A pressure gauge measures the internal pressure of the blister

while the blister height is recorded manually. The temperature of the inflating gas was collected

using a temperature sensor while volumetric flow rate is measured with an anemometer. The

fabric thickness is measured before the sample is loaded into the rig. The biaxial stress-strain is

then determined by a relationship previously derived for solid plastic films under blister inflation

and is dependent on the internal pressure, diameter of pressurized sphere, blister height and

fabric thickness. The biaxial stress-strain blister relationship is based on the assumption that a

constant volume of fabric sheet deforms (uniformly) from a flat configuration into a spherical

segment during the experiment.

Permeability behavior of 630 denier and 420 denier fabrics made of nylon 6,6 and nylon 6 were

compared under both low pressure drop and high pressure drop over a variety of temperatures.

The nylon 6 fibers exhibited higher permabilities than the nylon 6,6 fibers. The biaxial stress-

strain behavior was also evaluated for the same specimen matrix. The specimens were

pressurized at set intervals and held so that the blister height could be recorded before increasing

the pressure, hence the quasi-steady-state definition. During this test, the fabric was not

extended to rupture. A ball-burst rupture test was also performed to test the fabrics to failure

under both static and dynamic loading. The authors claim that the ball-burst experiments

provided a more realistic view of the performance of the fabric under biaxial condition. The

crosshead rates tested were 0.5 and 50 inches per minute.

As a continuation of the previous work, Keshavaraj et al (Keshavaraj, Tock, & Haycook, 1996)

developed an airbag fabric material model for nylon and polyester using a simple neural network

architecture. The neural nets formulated were intended to be used as a design tool in

10

Chapter 2 Background

determining permeability and biaxial stress-strain relationships for airbag fabrics. The authors

claimed that the advantage that neural networks have is the computation efficiency in handling

complex and nonlinear problems compared to the nonlinear finite element technology at the time

the paper was written. The inputs of the model included the experimental data obtained from the

blister-inflation experiments performed in a previous study (Keshavaraj et al., 1996) and the

geometric properties of the fabric (i.e. yarn linear density, yarns per inch). The authors reported

predictions that fitted well with the experimental data with extremely fast computation time. The

ability of the artificial neural network to obtain the mechanical behavior at different state of

stresses was not discussed.

Hong (Hong, 2003) used a mix of dynamic experiments with finite element simulation-

optimization techniques to back calculate the elastic properties of 315 denier (60 yarns x 60

yarns) silicone coated airbag fabric under deployment conditions. Hong discussed the anisotropy

seen in uniaxial tests taken in the warp, fill and bias (yarns oriented 45 degrees) directions in

which Hong argued that this can be problematic in deciding the proper values to use for the

mechanical properties in simulations. To find the elastic constants that govern the airbag fabric

response under deployment, Hong carried out an optimization simulation. In the optimization

procedure, the material properties of the airbag fabric are optimized to minimize the difference in

a drop tower test on a deploying airbag and finite element simulation results. The variables that

are minimized between the test and simulation are the acceleration, velocity, displacement and

force. Hong was able to find values for modulus of elasticity, shear modulus and Poissons ratio,

however, the results were influenced by the type of element formulation used. The mechanical

properties obtained were not compared to other mechanical tests.

Rohr et al (Rohr, Harwick, & Nahme, 2004) performed a series of experiments to determine the

strength and failure behavior of fabric under different loading rates and exposed temperatures. A

series of uniaxial tests on nylon 6,6 airbag fabric in the warp and fill directions was performed at

loading rates 0.08 mm/s and 500 mm/s using an Instron Type 8033 mechanical tester at

temperatures between -35 C and 85 C. Additionally, the fabric was tested at a loading rate of

9000 mm/s using a drop weight tower at temperatures of -35 C and 20 C. The fabric geometry

such as yarn linear density, areal density, yarns per inch in both the warp and fill directions was

not reported in the study. The force was normalized by assuming the fabric as a continuum with

11

Chapter 2 Background

constant cross-sectional area. The results of the uniaxial tests at room temperature, quasi-static

conditions found no differences in mechanical behavior between the warp and fill directions

however, the sample size was not mentioned nor any indication of the repeatability of the test.

The investigation of the strain-rate parameter found that as strain rate increased, the ultimate

strain decreased while failure stress increased but no empirical equations are derived based on

their experimental findings. When varying the exposed temperature, as the testing temperature

increased, the trend of the data showed that the failure stress decreased and failure strain

increased for all three strain rates. However, the authors only tested the fabrics at three

temperatures over a relatively small temperature range with respect to the possible range of

temperatures that the airbag structure can undergo during deployment. Additionally, the authors

carried out burst pressure tests on the fabrics. Little detail is given regarding the experimental

set up and procedure of the test, regardless, the failure pressure was reported to be between 4-5

bar.

In a subsequent study, Rohr et al (Rohr, Harwick, & Nahme, 2005) carried out biaxial cruciform

tests to determine the material behavior under 1:1 biaxial loading. The experimental rig used

consisted of four lever arms where one end of a lever is connected to a traditional mechanical

tester cross head while the other ends traveled on a track equipped with piezoelectric sensors to

record the pulling load from the fabric specimen. Different lever lengths can introduce different

ratios of biaxiality, however this study only used a 1:1 loading ratio. Like the preceding study

(Rohr et al., 2005), there is no reference to the fabric geometry or the size of the sample

population. It is also unclear how stresses and strains were normalized but it is assumed the

same procedures of the preceding paper were used. The results found little difference between

the warp and fill directions for the particular fabric system tested. The authors indicated that the

sample failed near the grips and at the corners of the specimen.

A group of German automotive researchers noted the importance of fabric modeling, particularly

in folding and deployment simulations (Drnhoff et al., 2008). The fabric models used in their

studies are orthotropic elasticity definitions which are implemented into the major dynamic finite

element codes (LS-DYNA, PAM-CRASH, MADYMO FE). Biaxial extension and picture frame

tests were performed to generate the stress-strain response of the fabric under extension and pure

shear. For the biaxial test, the fabrics were not loaded to failure, rather loaded to a given point

12

Chapter 2 Background

and the recovery of the fabric was monitored. The procedure outlining the picture frame test for

evaluation of shear properties of the fabric was discussed, although no results are given. The

authors claimed that using the generated stress-strain curves rather than mechanical data from the

fabric supplier, it was possible to get a better representation of the real life airbag kinematics.

While not a main focus in the paper, it discussed the need and challenge for accurate geometrical

description of the airbag structural components such as patches, straps and vents to improve

virtual airbag designs.

Behera and Goyal (Behera & Goyal, 2009) used an artificial neural network system to predict

performance parameter for five different airbag fabric systems coated with silicone and

polyurethane. The inputs of the model consisted mostly of construction parameters such as

fabric areal density, yarns per inch, warp/fill yarn linear density, yarn strength, yarn ultimate

elongation, fabric cover, warp/fill crimp, thickness and yarn flexural rigidity. To validate the

model output experimental testing followed ASTM standards for breaking load, tear strength,

bursting strength, air permeability and specific packability. After the network was calibrated, the

model was able to determine breaking loads, final elongations, permeability, tear strength, burst

strength and packability. The model was able to predict failure strength and elongation with

minimal error while air permeability and tearing strength outputs were found to have high

percentages of error. The authors state that the prediction performance of the model is purely

based on the amount of training or the amount of data available.

Brueggert and Tanov (Brueggert & Tanov, 2002; Tanov & Brueggert, 2003) proposed a user

defined material model for loosely woven airbag fabric in the finite element code, LS-DYNA,

which takes into account the non-orthogonal orientation as the fabric shears. The model was

based on a representative unit cell constructed of four bars to from a trellis that is diagonally

braced by two springs. The linear elastic bars represent the extensional behavior of the fabric

while the diagonal springs model captures the effect of the yarns locking upon excessive shear

deformation. The authors demonstrated that the internal pressure and kinematics of a side-

cylindrical shaped airbag recorded in experimental tests were in good agreement with a

simulation using the generated material model.

13

Chapter 2 Background

2.2.1 Summary

The literature regarding evaluation of airbag fabric and modeling the constitutive behavior is

quite limited. On the experimental evaluation side, airbag fabrics have been tested in uniaxial

tension under a variety of strain rates and temperatures, and under biaxial tension using the

inflation and cruciform techniques. The blister inflation technique assumes the stresses and

strains are equal for the warp and fill direction which could be invalid if the fabric is unbalanced

either with regard to fabric geometry or yarn mechanical behavior. The cruciform technique is

susceptible to stress concentrations but can be used to mimic different states of stress on

balanced and unbalanced fabrics. In the studies discussed, stresses are normalized by cross

sectional area under the assumption that the fabric is a continuum.

While the procedure of picture frame shear tests has been discussed, shear stress-strain results

have not been published for airbag fabrics. Additionally, other modes of shear deformations like

rail shear or shear under biaxially pre-stressed fabrics have not been investigated for airbag

fabrics to date. Also missing from the current literature is an investigation of the mechanical

properties of the airbag yarns as well as a direct comparison between coated and uncoated

fabrics.

The current avant-garde in terms of modeling elastic behavior of airbag fabrics has been

dominated by finite element orthotropic elastic definitions and to a lesser degree artificial neural

networks. The orthotropic elastic material models common in the commercial codes are as

useful as their inputs making them only accurate for the stress state at which the inputs are given.

The artificial neural networks have been more of an academic exercise that requires a wide range

of experiments with large sample sizes to be of use. Additionally, the ability of artificial network

to predict mechanical behavior and failure under multiple states of stress has not been studied.

The current cutting edge methods, a mix of unit cell constitutive relationships with finite element

continuum formulations have been proposed and demonstrated for use in airbags although

further study and validation of the material behavior is needed.

14

Chapter 2 Background

Perhaps the grandfather of the study of mechanics of woven fabrics is Dietzius Haas (Haas,

1918). Haas was interested in studying the deformations of biaxially stressed textile fabrics for

use in airship design. Haas analysis considered the effects of crimp interchange, thread

straightening and thread shear on the forces seen in the principal axes of a fabric system.

Mathematical relationships to describe the equilibrium of forces were derived based on the basic

geometry of the fabrics. The consideration of fabric shear was based on the assumption that the

fabric would shear in a frictionless trellis like manner under a biaxial stress field until the

resultant force at the intersection of the warp and fill yarns aligned with the physical orientation

of the warp and fill yarn. The analysis was practical and significant as it improved the stability

of airship, particularly when attempting to make turns (Hearle, 1969).

A 1937 paper by F.T. Pierce is a classical paper in woven fabric mechanics that is highly cited in

the literature (Peirce, 1937). In the work, Pierce derived the geometry for a representative unit

cell model of woven fabric based on yarns with solid circular cross sections as seen in Figure

2-1. The unit cell model is able to capture the finite internal structural changes that occur within

the fabric under the condition that the force exerted by the warp yarn on the filling yarn equals

the force exerted by the filling on the warp. Thereby under the conditions of equilibrium and

continuity, the stress-strain curve of the fabric at a macro scale can be determined. However,

solving the geometric and kinematic equations has to be performed using numerical methods as

the relations are complex and nonlinear. Later, a study by Freeston developed a theoretical

analysis of the Pierce unit cell under biaxial loading to provide simpler analytical expressions

(Freeston, Platt, & Schoppee, 1967). The circular cross section and the assumptions of perfectly

flexible, incompressible yarns in the Pierce model limits the analysis to a small range of fabric

systems. Future improvements of this technique were made by Kemp (Kemp, 1958) for race-

track shaped yarns and Shanahan and Hearle (Shanahan & Hearle, 1978) for lenticular shaped

yarns that were compressible.

15

Chapter 2 Background

w

df hf

d

H

D/2

pf

Structure Structure

Figure 2-1: Pierce's unit cell (1937)

Grosberg was among the first to present a mechanistic model of shear for plain weave fabrics

(Grosberg & Park, 1966; Grosberg, Leaf, & Park, 1968). Grosberg recognized the factors that

influence shear rigidity, namely the resistance against change of the interlacing angle caused by

friction and elastic restriction. The model was based on a unit cell of intersecting warp and fill

yarns and considered elastic lateral bending of the yarns, slippage of the yarns at the intersection

and subsequent elastic rotation of the yarn crossovers. The frictional contact between the yarns

was assumed to be a line contact however the length of the contact had to be back calculated

from experiments for the slippage portion of the model due to simplifications made in the

geometry. In the elastic portion of the model, the line contact is computed with geometrical

relationships. Additionally, Grosberg recognized that the geometry of the fabric structure and

contact force changes when the fabric specimen is put under tension and provided a correction

within the model to account for the presence of a pre-tension. However, the correction cannot

account for changing tensions as the structural configuration of the unit cell is updated

throughout the analysis. While the model presented in the papers had good agreement with the

experimental results, greater deviations were seen in extremely tight and extremely loose fabrics.

The model has not been able to replicate the shear behavior of different fabric systems observed

by other researchers in the recent literature (Sun & Pan, 2005).

16

Chapter 2 Background

A simplified model of fabric shear and a discussion of the geometrical limits of fabric were

developed by Skelton (Skelton, 1976). In many ways, the simplified model is similar to the

Grosberg analysis in that it considered the frictional force required to rotate the yarns at the

intersection for the same unit cell geometry but neglecting the consideration of lateral bending of

the yarns. The theoretical maximum shear angle with respect to fabric tightness was determined

by taking into account the geometric construction of the fabrics under several assumptions: yarns

are thin interwoven strips, yarns are interwoven cylinders and yarns are in side-by-side contact.

Additionally, Skelton concluded that for fabrics that are tightly woven, the occurrence of shear

would not be contributed to yarn rotation but by yarn distortion, in which case, the fabric shear

behavior is more like a laminar sheet material.

The next significant contribution to a mechanistic approach of woven fabrics was made by

Kawabata (Kawabata, Niwa, & Kawai, 1973a; Kawabata, Niwa, & Kawai, 1973b; Kawabata,

1989) who considered both extensional and shear responses. The fabric is represented by simple

a unit cell constructed of straight bars connected by pins at the yarn crossover as seen in Figure

2-2. The structural parameters required to construct the unit cell are the warp and fill yarn

density and crimp. Similar to the equilibrium condition in the Pierce model, under biaxial

deformation, the contact force between the warp and fill yarn is balanced and the axial force in

the yarn is broken down into its components to compute the force seen at the fabric ends.

Adequate predictions were found comparing the experimental performance on cotton, wool and

polyester fabric systems under biaxial loads. However, the equilibrium condition cannot be

applied to solve uniaxial extension behavior because no tension is applied to the yarn in the non-

loaded transverse direction (Kawabata, Niwa, & Kawai, 1973b). Therefore, no resistance force

is preventing the straightening of the load yarn (geometric stiffening). It was found that in order

to capture the geometric stiffening a resistance force from the transverse yarn acts upon the

loaded yarn direction. By considering the bending rigidity and intra-fiber shear in the resistance

force of the transverse yarn, the straight line unit cell model could capture the uniaxial behavior

seen in experiments with reasonable accuracy.

17

Chapter 2 Background

X2 2y01

X3

X1 X2

H01

2y02

H02

y01

y02

X1

Actual Fabric Idealized Unit Cell

Structure Structure

Figure 2-2: Kawabata's unit cell (1973)

The same unit cell model was also used to describe the shear deformation of fabrics using some

empirical relationships of the yarns in rotation (Kawabata, Niwa, & Kawai, 1973c). The shear

model is capable of capturing the coupled behavior extension has on the shear resistance of the

fabric. In the Kawabata model, as the unit cell structure is deformed by extension and rotation,

the shear force is found by balancing the torque force required to rotate the intersecting yarns,

which is a function of contact force and friction. To calibrate the shear portion of the model,

specialized equipment was developed to determine the torque required to rotate a crimped yarn

under several magnitude of contact forces. This method was able to obtain reasonable results of

fabric under simple shear (rail shear) as well as shear combined with constant extension.

Overall, the Kawabata unit cell approach used to determine the extensional behavior is very

popular in present day research due to its simplicity and accuracy to describe the complex

nonlinear behavior of fabrics. The method has been modified to include coating extension and

inelastic effects (Stubbs & Thomas, 1984); sinusoidal profile of yarns instead of linear elements

(A. Shahkarami & Vaziri, 2006; A. Shahkarami, 2006; A. Shahkarami, 2006); and incorporated

as the constitutive relationship in some finite element analysis (Ivanov & Tabiei, 2004; King,

Jearanaisilawong, & Socrate, 2005; A. Shahkarami & Vaziri, 2007).

18

Chapter 2 Background

There have been considerable efforts by textile engineers to assume the fabric system as a

continuous sheet in order to use plate theory in the analysis and design of fabric structures.

Kilby (Kilby, 1963) developed planar stress-strain relationships of a simple trellis in which linear

elements pivoted together at the yarn intersection, although the passing over and under of the

yarns is not considered. The analysis found that the fabric can be treated as an elastic lamina and

yielded a single expression for the general modulus in any direction using the modulus of

elasticity in the warp and fill directions, shear modulus and Poissons ratio and angle between the

direction of extension and the warp yarn as input. Due to the nonlinearity of fabrics, the analysis

is limited to small strains.

Alley and Fasion (Alley & Faison, 1972) attempted to analyze the fabric response using the

generalized form of Hookes Law for continuum analysis of membrane structures, more

specifically parawings. The authors described that nine coefficients are needed to construct the

plane stress anisotropic constitutive relations, four of which are coefficients of interaction of first

and second kinds. The coefficients of interaction are analogous to the shear coupling parameters

seen lamina constitutive relationships. Unlike lamina, the resulting Hookian relationship for

fabric is asymmetric and a function of both axial and shear loads. A series of experimental tests

were performed on polyurethane coated nylon fabric to obtain the nonlinear coefficients for that

particular fabric system.

Shanahan, Lloyd and Hearle (Shanahan & Hearle, 1978) examined the uses of plate and shell

continuum formulations to describe the complex deformations of fabrics under the assumption

that fabrics behave as a sheet. Due to the orthogonal nature of the woven fabric geometry, it is

convenient to make use of structural axes. Therefore, Shanahan and co-workers were able to

construct the linear elastic stiffness matrix that had 13 independent stiffnesses that accounts for

extension, bending and coupling. Again, due to the complexity of fabric mechanical behavior,

the analysis is limited to small strain, linear problems though the authors state the analysis

provides the framework for solving for nonlinear situations. Aside from the computational

limitations of the analysis are the difficulties in evaluating the fabrics experimentally to obtain

the elastic constants. The authors argue that the large displacements and finite areas to obtain

19

Chapter 2 Background

measurement techniques for anisotropic engineering materials.

The current methods in fabric analysis rely heavily on the finite element method. Shockey et. al

(Shockey, Erlich, & Simons, 2000) were one of the earliest researchers to discretely model the

individual yarns as solid continuum orientated in a plain weave structure. A small patch of

fabric was modeled to capture the dynamic response of the fabric subjected to aircraft engine

fragmentations. A similar approach was preformed by Duan et. al. (Duan, Keefe, Bogetti, &

Cheeseman, 2005) for ballistic impact of fabrics under different boundary conditions.

Shahkarami (A. Shahkarami, 2006) proposed a less intricate model, where a unit cell of two

crossover yarns is analyzed to capture the detailed behavior of fabric under biaxial loading.

Lomov and Verpoest have developed sophisticated algorithms to generate finite element models

for a wide range of fabric structures ranging from plain weaves, twill weaves and 3D woven

structures (Lomov, Gusakov, Huysmans, Prodromou, & Verpoest, 2000; Lomov et al., 2001).

While these fully 3D analyses provide a wealth of detail regarding the mechanical and dynamical

behavior of the yarns and fabric, a significant amount of computational power and time are

required. Therefore, only small portions of the structures are modeled.

To remedy the computational requirements but retaining important details of the fabric

deformation, shell elements whose constitutive relationships are based on a mechanistic

representative unit cell have been developed by a number of researchers for a variety of

applications. Brueggert and Tanov (Tanov & Brueggert, 2003) developed a user material model

(UMAT) for shell element in the commercial code LS-DYNA where the constitutive relationship

was based on a square arrangement of linear springs capturing the extensional response of the

fabric while a set of diagonal springs represent the shear behavior of the fabric. Ivanov and

Tabiei (Ivanov & Tabiei, 2004) developed a micromechanical model for Kevlar fabric based on

the Kawabata unit cell geometry with a viscoelastic stress-strain yarn model to capture strain rate

dependency. The model was implemented as a UMAT for the LS-DYNA to simulate ballistic

impact of Kevlar fabric. King (King et al., 2005) developed a material model for the commercial

code ABAQUS/Standard to predict the behavior of Kevlar fabric under quasi-static uniaxial

20

Chapter 2 Background

extension, bias extension and picture frame shear. Shahkarami (A. Shahkarami & Vaziri, 2006;

A. Shahkarami, 2006) developed a UMAT for LS-DYNA intended for shell formulations based

on a unit cell with a sinusoidal yarn profile for ballistic impact simulations of Kevlar fabric

panels. Overall, this approach of using a respective micromechanical model as the constitutive

relationship of a shell finite formulation increases the computational efficiency while still

accurately capturing the internal structural changes that affect the macroscopic mechanical

behavior of the fabric.

2.3.4 Summary

The study of the mechanics of woven fabrics is nearly a century old and has been applied to the

study of everything from airships to bullet proof armor. The unit cell method has proven to be

effective in generating the extensional stress-strain behavior of fabrics while predicting shear

behavior has been less successful. The continuum approaches are easy to implement for the

analysis of structures but require a great deal of testing to capture the anisotropic and nonlinear

nature of the fabric. Fully 3D finite element models provide the most detail about the fabrics

mechanical behavior, but are too computationally demanding to model large structures. The

current state-of-the-art techniques discussed offer a favorable compromise of mechanistic unit

cell methods with finite element analysis that provides accuracy and detail without extensive

calibration of elastic constants.

21

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

theory and calibration

The first step in developing a modeling approach is to establish a geometry that best represents

the fabric structure that is simple yet does not sacrifice accuracy or neglect reality. A unit cell

based on the center-line positioning of the yarn which is approximated by straight lines originally

proposed by Kawabata (Kawabata, Niwa, & Kawai, 1973a; Kawabata, Niwa, & Kawai, 1973b;

Kawabata, 1989) was chosen for this study. This simple center-line approach has been adopted

by several researchers over the years for a variety of applications as shown in Table 3-1. While

the center-line unit cell geometry has been repeated throughout the literature, the structural

mechanisms that empower the unit cell vary greatly depending on the fabric system and

application. For instance, some textile composite preforms have lower interlacing density and

lower yarn crimp which permits more fiber mobility in the yarn that in turn allows the yarn to

exhibit a more compressible behavior. (Lomov & Verpoest, 2000) However, tighter woven

fabric structures like those used in airbags tend to inhibit fiber mobility which results in an

incompressible yarn (Lomov, 2000). Likewise, fabric systems of fiber-glass and Kevlar can be

approximated to have linear elastic behavior while other fabrics are composed of highly

nonlinear materials such as nylon or polyester. Therefore, when implementing this type of unit

cell approach, it is important for the user to consider the application and material system in order

to incorporate the proper structural mechanisms to reflect the physical nuisances of the fabric.

Thus as novel applications and material systems are considered for this particular unit cell

theory, new mechanisms will be developed that will add to the library of knowledge that the

fabric designer or analyst can use.

22

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

A goal in the proposed model is to implement mechanisms whose inputs are simple constitutive

properties of the fabric, more specifically fabric geometry and yarn stiffness. In that way, the

model can be used to analyze the in-plane behavior of a fabric without excessive or specialized

testing. Additionally, it can be utilized as a design tool to predict certain mechanical properties

of a virtual fabric.

The way the proposed unit cell model adds to the current body of knowledge is by including:

nonlinear yarn extension behavior for nylon, yarn bending rigidity, and coating extension. All of

which are based on structural mechanics using simple geometry and material properties

(Youngs Modulus, Poissons ratio). In Table 3-1, the proposed models features are compared

to the current models in the literature.

Table 3-1: Existing center-line unit cell models vs. proposed model

System Included Included Validation Methods

Kawabata Cotton; Apparel Linear Nonlinear Extension, Yes(EC) n/a Biaxial, uniaxial, rail

(1973) polyester Bending Rigidity, shear

Incompressible &

Compressible(EC)

Stubbs Teflon- Architectural Linear Linear Ext, Perfectly No Yes Biaxial

(1980) coated Fabrics Flexible,

fiberglass Compressible(EC)

Kato Teflon- Architectural Linear Linear Ext, Perfectly Yes(EC) Yes(EC) Biaxial, Picture Frame

(1999) coated Fabrics Flexible, Shear

fiberglass Compressible(EC)

Boisse Fiberglass Composite Linear Linear Ext, Perfectly No n/a Biaxial, Uniaxial

(2001) Preform Flexible,

Forming Compressible(EC)

Tabiei & Kevlar Ballistic Linear Linear Ext w/ Yes(EC) n/a None

Inanov Protection viscoelasticity,

(2004) Perfectly Flexible

King Kevlar Ballistic Linear Linear Ext, Bending Yes(EC) n/a Uniaxial, Bias

(2004) Protection Rigidity(EC),

Compressible(EC)

Shahkarami Kevlar Ballistic Sinusoidal Linear Ext, Perfectly Yes(NC) n/a Biaxial* , Ballistic

(2005) Protection Flexible, Impact

Compressible(EC)

Bridgens Teflon- Architectural Linear & Linear Ext, Perfectly No Yes Biaxial

(2008) coated Fabrics Sinusoidal Flexible,

fiberglass; Incompressible

PVC-

polyester

PROPOSED Nylon 6,6; Automotive Linear Nonlinear Extension, Yes(EC) Yes Biaxial, Uniaxial, Bias

MODEL Silicone- Airbag Bending Rigidity, Shear

coated Incompressible

Nylon 6,6

* Basic UC material behavior verified using data from Boisse

EC= Experimentally Calibrated

NC = Numerically Calibrated

23

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

The simple unit cell geometry used in this study is shown in Figure 3-1. The coordinate system

origin is defined as the intersection of the warp and fill yarns such that the coordinate axis X1 is

along the neutral line of the warp direction, axis X2 in the fill direction and axis X3 is the through-

thickness direction of the fabric. The assumptions established in this studys formulation of the

unit cell are the following:

The yarns are elastic

Displacements are equal for each yarn end

No slippage occurs at the yarn crossovers

Environmental effects such as temperature or moisture changes are not

considered; i.e. the behavior of the fabric is the same as it is at room temperature

Strain rate effects are neglected for the time being due to lack of experimental

procedure and data

2y01

x3 Initial

State

x1 L01

x2

01 H01 02

2y02

tc

H02

y01

L02

y02

x3

FEnd,1 x2

Fc,1 FEnd,2

Fb,1

Fc,2

Fb,2 x1

FEnd,2 FEnd,1

Deformed

State

Figure 3-1: Simple unit cell geometry in initial and deformed states

24

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

The construction of the straight line unit cell geometry requires two geometric inputs. The first

being the yarns per unit length in the warp and fill directions (in textiles, the common unit is

yarns/inch). From this parameter, the horizontal half spacing of the unit cell, y, can be calculated

as:

1 (3-1)

y01 =

2(n2 )

1 (3-2)

y02 =

2(n1 )

where n is the number of yarns per unit length. From here forward, the 1 and 2 indices will

indicate the warp and fill yarn, respectively. The 0 index represents the original undeformed

structure.

The second geometry input parameter is the percent crimp of the warp and fill yarns. The crimp

of the yarn is the quantification of the amount of undulation caused by weaving and can be found

by measuring a horizontal distance, Xi, between two points that are parallel to the yarn and the

actual length, l0i, of the yarn between the same two points. The crimp can be quantified as:

l0 i X i (3-3)

cri =

Xi

where i = 1,2.

Therefore the length of the yarn can be determined using the expression:

L0 i = y0 i (1 + cri ) (3-4)

The final geometric parameter to assemble the unit cell structure is the yarn height which can be

found simply by:

2 2 (3-5)

H 0 i = L0 i y0 i

To this point, the yarn geometry has been defined in the unit cell, now the coating geometric

parameters needs to be defined. The length and width of the coating are equal to the fabric unit

25

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

cell spacing, y01 and y02, as shown in Figure 3-1. The thickness of the coating, tc, can be found

using the areal density fraction between the uncoated and coated fabric and the total height

(thickness) of the unit cell.

w (3-6)

t c = (2 H 01 + 2 H 02 ) c 1

wu

where wu is the areal density of the uncoated fabric and wc is the areal density of the coated

fabric. The equation (3-6) is only applicable to coated fabrics that have the same geometric

construction as the uncoated fabric. Additionally it is assumed that the coating maintains a

constant thickness throughout the unit cell.

When a displacement is applied to the unit cell, the coating and fabric are assumed to stretch by

the same amount. The tensile force developed at the end of the unit cell, denoted as Fend,i in

Figure 3-1, is the sum of forces generated by the fabric and coating and is expressed as:

where Ff,i is the fabric end force and Fct,i is the end force from coating extension.

Finally, the unit cell end forces can be translated into the membrane stress (force per unit width

of fabric) by:

N i = Fend ,i ni (3-8)

The membrane stresses developed depend on the reconfiguration of the unit cell structure which

is governed by constitutive relations and mechanisms of the yarn and coating. To determine the

new structural configuration of the perturbed fabric structure requires solving a set of highly

nonlinear equations for which a numerical procedure is needed. A computer code was developed

to solve these equations for a particular strain or can be iterated to generate stress-strain curves

of the fabric system for uniaxial and multiple ratios of biaxial extension. Figure 3-2 shows a

flowchart of this code.

26

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

EI, ult Specify Stress State

Biaxial Uniaxial

Strain increment Displacement,

Strain increment

1 =1i-1 + 1

N-R Procedure 1 =1i-1 +

2 =2i-1 + 2

End

< ult

< ult

Save

Ni

Figure 3-2: Procedure for generating stress-strain behavior of fabric under multiple states

of stress using the unit cell approach

Depending on the stress state, the solution procedure varies slightly due to conditional geometric

behavior of the unit cell. To be clear, under biaxial load the change of yarn spacing in both the

warp and fill direction can be determined from the strains while the change in the yarn length is a

function of the yarn height. Under uniaxial load the length of the yarn transverse to the applied

load is equal to its original length while the yarn spacing is a function of the yarn height. Under

these conditions, the yarn is not allowed to compress axially to support negative strains hence

compressive resistance is provided by the bending rigidity of the yarn. Table 3-2 summarizes

these conditional geometric properties of the fabric under different modes of extension. Finally,

a yarn failure criterion was established in which the code runs until either the warp and fill yarn

surpasses the specified ultimate yarn strain.

27

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

y1 = y01 + d1 = y01 + d1 f(H1, H2)

y2 = y02 + d2 f(H1, H2) = y02 + d2

L1 f(H1, H2) f(H1, H2) = L01

L2 f(H1, H2) = L02 f(H1, H2)

H1 Unknown Unknown Unknown

H2 Unknown Unknown Unknown

The center-line unit cell method has two main equations that need to be evaluated in order to

solve for the end forces that arise from the perturbed fabric structure: continuity and

equilibrium. The continuity equation for an incompressible yarn where the cross-section of the

yarns remain unchanged during stretching, regardless of the profile shape is given as:

H 01 + H 02 = H 1 + H 2 (3-9)

where H01 and H02 are the original height of the warp and fill yarn, respectively. H1 and H2 are

the height of the warp and fill yarns in the perturbed structure.

The equilibrium condition considers the sum of the vertical force components that arise between

the warp and fill yarns at the cross-over. The forces that are considered in this study are axial

extension whose vertical component exerts a contact force at the cross-over and the forces that

arise from bending the yarn. The equilibrium condition as shown in Figure 3-1 is expressed as:

where the magnitude of the vertical cross-over forces are a function of the yarn height, Fc is the

contact force that arise from yarn extensions and Fb is the reaction force that arises from

bending.

28

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

Before solving equations (3-9) and (3-10), the deformational mechanisms of the fabrics

constituents need to be derived and discussed in detail. Some of these mechanisms dictate the

equilibrium between the warp and fill yarns while others simply contribute to the end force

through super-position. Furthermore, the shear stress-strain behavior of the fabric needs to be

established.

Fy ,i = E ( ) Ai

(L i L0 i ) (3-11)

L0 i

where E ( ) i is the axial stiffness of the yarn, the magnitude of which is a function of strain. The

detail in Section 3.5. The variable Ai is the specific area of the yarn which is determined through

the following relationship

Ld , i (3-12)

Ai =

9000

where Ld,i is the linear density of the yarn (denier) and is the density of the fiber material

(g/cm3) resulting in Ai being measured in (mm2).

The total contact force or reaction force at the yarn crossover that arises due to the extension can

be shown to be:

Hi (3-13)

Fc ,i = 2 Fy ,i

Li

29

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

While yarns are known for their high flexibility, the small bending rigidity is important to

consider capturing low level stress behavior, particularly under the uniaxial case where the only

force developed by the unloaded yarn to maintain equilibrium at the crossover is due to the

bending rigidity of the yarn. For determining the bending reaction force due to the changing

angle of the yarn, first consider the case of bending a straight linear elastica into a crimped form

as shown in Figure 3-3. With respect to the unit cell, the elastica shown in the figure is

composed of two unit cell halves from two crossovers. Hence, the bending force, Fb,i is divided

by a factor of two. The bending property of the yarn can be characterized by the linear equation:

M=

rc

where (EI)yarn is the bending rigidity of the yarn and rc is the radius of curvature.

dS

Fb,i/2

rc d

i

x+ dx

yi yi

Fb,i/2

30

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

There has been a great deal of research performed concerning the mechanics of the bending

rigidity of yarn particularly on twisted yarns or cordage materials (Freeston & Schoppee, 1975;

Hearle, 1969; Platt, Klein, & Hamburger, 1959). Fortunately, the airbag fabric is constructed of

low-twist continuous filaments with a circular cross-section, therefore a simple treatment is

defensible. The theoretical bending rigidity of low-twist, non-blended yarns is bounded by two

values (Platt et al., 1959). The lower bound assumes each individual fiber has complete freedom

of motion in a frictionless manner and is defined as:

d 4fiber (3-15)

(EI ) LB

yarn = N fiber E fiber

64

where Nfiber is the number of fibers in the yarn, Efiber is the modulus of elasticity of the fiber and

dfiber is the diameter of the fiber.

The upper bound assumes the fibers have no freedom to move and act like a complete cluster

bonded by friction. Therefore the yarn bending rigidity can be computed using the number of

fibers in the yarn divided by the yarn packing factor times the rigidity of the lower bound. This

yields the expression:

(EI ) UB

yarn = E fiber I yarn (3-16)

where Efiber is the modulus of elasticity of the fiber and Iyarn is the second moment of inertia using

the cross-sectional geometry of the yarn.

To determine the force equilibrium between the reaction force and bending moment, from

Figure 3-3, it can be shown that

ds (3-17)

rc =

d

and

dx (3-18)

ds =

cos

31

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

Substituting (3-17) into (3-14) and representing the moment by the reaction force and the

bending moment gives:

d F

M = (EI ) yarn = b x (3-19)

ds 2

Substituting (3-18) into (3-19) and integrating

Fb

(EI ) yarn cosd =

2

xdx (3-20)

2(EI ) yarn

Fb = (sin sin ) (3-21)

x2

Therefore at the yarn intersection where x = y and = 0, and adding the second half of the

bending force, the total bending force at the crossover can be expressed as:

8(EI ) yarn i H i

Fb ,i = 2

(3-22)

yi Li

This expression is identical to the one proposed by Grosberg (Grosberg, 1966; Hearle, 1969) in

his analysis of the bending of fabrics. However, we are interested in the vertical force that arises

when the yarn is bent into a new configuration from its original woven structure. If we reference

the yarn in its woven state as datum (original configuration), the vertical force from bending out

of this state can be expressed as:

8(EI ) yarn i H 0i H i

Fb ,i = 2

(3-23)

yi L

0i Li

Once the vertical force components are known and balanced, the end horizontal force from the

yarns which are of interest can be found simply by:

yi

F f ,i = Fy ,i (3-24)

Li

32

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

In the case of the coated fabric, the end force from the coating must be taken into account.

Assuming the coating is therein isotropic elastic continuum, the stresses under biaxial load using

Hookes law can be expressed as:

Ec

1 = (1 c 2 ) (3-25)

1 c2

Ec

2 = ( 2 c1 ) (3-26)

1 c2

where Ec is the modulus of elasticity for the coating and c is the Poissons ratio of the coating.

Resolving these stresses into an end force associated with the fabric unit cell geometry, the force-

strain relationship for the coating is:

Fct ,1 = (3-27)

1 c2 y01 y02

c

Ec y1tc y2 y02 y y

Fct , 2 =

2

c 1 01 (3-28)

1 c y02 y01

The fabric and coating end force are superimposed to obtain the total end force per unit cell

Fend ,i = F f ,i + Fct ,i (3-29)

Finally, the unit cell end forces can be translated into the membrane stress (force per unit width

of fabric) by:

N i = Fend ,i ni (3-30)

33

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

Up to this point the constitutive behavior discussed pertains to the extensional behavior of the

fabric. The fabric can undergo shear deformations characterized by rotation of the yarns at the

crossover. At first glance the shear problem seems trivial -- the yarns bend laterally until

overcoming static friction at the crossover then rotating that mimicks the rotation of a trellis

structure. Several researchers have proposed simple mechanisms based on elasticity to describe

the shear forces that cause this behavior with varying degrees of success depending on the fabric

system and geometry. However, the culprits that contribute to the shear behavior are more

complicated than ones first instinctive analysis of the problem. Intra-fiber friction, yarn torque,

yarn sliding, intra-yarn shear of the fibers and the rate dependency of friction are issues that are

difficult to capture using simple unit cells.

The problem of shear becomes progressively more complicated when considering coated fabrics.

To the authors best knowledge, Farboodmanesh has probably conducted the most extensive

studies on the shear behavior of coated fabric (Farboodmanesh, 2003; Farboodmanesh et al.,

2005). The shear behavior of a typical single-coated fabric versus uncoated is illustrated in

Figure 3-4. Essentially, at low level shear stress the shear behavior is governed by a coating-

fabric interaction marked by a high shear modulus. As the shear strains grow, the shear stiffness

of the system decreases and transitions to a behavior that resembles the uncoated fabric.

Farboodmanesh (Farboodmanesh, 2003) attempted to model this behavior borrowing from

micromechanical models used in traditional fiber reinforced composites but had limited success.

Developing a robust analytical-constituent-based shear model for coated or uncoated fabric is an

enormous and difficult task which is the reason why many of the unit cell models that include

shear require experimental calibration.

34

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

Single-Coated

Shear Stress

Fabric

Uncoated Fabric

Shear Strain

Figure 3-4: Typical shear stress-strain curve for single-coated and uncoated fabric

Due to the difficulties of evaluating fabric shear using the fabrics constituents, empirical data

from the fabric is warranted to empower the shear behavior of the proposed unit cell method.

This empirical data can be obtained either through picture frame test where the fabric undergoes

pure shear; rail shear test using the Kawabata Evaluation System (KES) (Kawabata, 1989) for

fabrics; or could potentially be numerically calibrated through a full 3D finite element model of

the fabric and its constituents. Each method has advantages and disadvantages. Picture frame

requires special fixture and the design of the fixture must be carefully done to ensure

reproducible results. Kawabata Evaluation System requires specialized equipment and some

post-processing to neglect the effects of tension on the specimen. The use of 3D finite element

models can be used to evaluate the pure shear behavior of virtually designed fabrics but

capturing the correct boundary conditions can be challenging.

Regardless of the approach used to obtain the shear data, the following method can be used to

represent the shear behavior of the unit cell. A similar approach was used by Shahkarami (A.

Shahkarami & Vaziri, 2006; A. Shahkarami, 2006) to describe the shear behavior of uncoated

fabrics and is modified for the current model to include coated fabrics. A spline fit of the shear

modulus as a function of shear strain illustrated in Figure 3-5a can be used to describe the shear

stress-strain behavior based on typical behavior seen in Figure 3-5b.

35

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

G3

Shear Modulus

G1coated

G2

G1uncoated

1 2 3 4

Shear Strain

(a)

Single-Coated Fabric

Uncoated Fabric

Shear Stress

Locking Transition

Zone

12 3 4

Shear Strain

(b)

Figure 3-5: Shear model behavior a) secant shear modulus as a function of strain b)

regions in the shear stress-strain curve

For coated fabrics, the fabric-coating shear interaction modulus, G1 needs to be defined as well

as the extent of the transition zone which is bounded by 1 and 2. For uncoated fabrics, these

values can be set equal to zero. The pre-locking shear stiffness of the fabric, G2 is the same for

both uncoated and coated fabrics of the same construction. As the fabric continues to deform in

shear, the amount of rotation at the crossovers reach a geometric limit and begin to lock. This is

36

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

a gradual process controlled by friction, the current packing state of the fibers within the yarn

and geometric features of the fabric. Within the spline model, this process is bounded by 3 and

4 which are the same for both the coated and uncoated fabric. Likewise the locking shear

modulus, G3, is the same for uncoated and coated fabrics. In the end, the spline fit can be

summarized as shown in equation (3-31).

G1 0 < 1

1 G G1

G1 + 2 ( 1 )

2

1 < 2

2 2 1

1

G + (G2 G1 )( 2 1 ) 2 < 3

S12 = 2

2 (3-31)

1 G G2 1

G2 + 3

2 4 3

( )

( 3 )2 + (G2 G1 )( 2 1 ) 3 < 4

2

1 1

G3 + (G3 G2 )( 4 3 ) + (G2 G1 )( 2 1 ) 4

2 2

It is important to note that this representation of the shear is purely elastic. In reality, the

overcoming of friction is a plastic behavior in the fabric which is exhibited by hysteresis in the

loading-unloading behavior of the fabric. Since the airbag is a one-time use structure subject to

high strain rates, the effect of friction and plasticity are assumed to be negligible at this time.

With the continuity equation and the deformational mechanisms that influence equilibrium

defined, a technique to solve the nonlinear equations to determine the fabric stress at an

associated strain can be discussed. While there are many methods in the literature to solve multi-

variable, nonlinear equations such as Brents method, the Newton-Raphson method was used for

its efficiency and speed at arriving at the roots of a system of nonlinear equations (Press, 1992).

First the functional equations are defined as

f1 (H 1 , H 2 ) = (H 1 + H 2 ) (H 01 + H 02 ) (3-32)

37

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

The essential part of the multivariable Newton-Raphson method is assembling the Jacobean

matrix for which partial derivatives of the functional equations are taken with respect to the yarn

height as shown in equation (3-34).

f1 f1

H 2

[J ] = Hf 1 f 2

(3-34)

2

H 1 H 2

where

f1 f1

= =1 (3-35)

H1 H 2

and

f 2 Fc1 Fb1

= (3-36)

H 1 H 1 H 1

and

f 2 F F

= c2 + b2 (3-37)

H 2 H 2 H 2

The derivative of the contact force with respect to the yarn height is given as:

Fci 2 E ( ) Ai L0 i H i2 L0 i

= 1 + (3-38)

H i L0i Li (H i2 + yi2 ) 2

3

The derivative of the yarn bending force with respect to the yarn height is given as:

Fbi 8(EI )i H 0 i H i2

= (3-39)

yi L0 i (H i + yi )

2 3

H i 2 2 2

With the elements of the Jacobean matrix known, the iterative procedure can be performed as

shown below.

38

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

H 1new H 1guess f1

new = guess [J ] f

H 2 H 2 2 (3-40)

if k=0 H i

guess

= H 0 i else H iguess = H ik 1

The amount of iterations can be reduced between strain increments if the values of Hi from the

previous step are used as the guess for current step.

To develop the stress-strain behavior of the fabric using the unit cell method described thus far, a

series of experiments were performed to characterize the constituent properties. The fabrics

investigated for this study are constructed of high tenacity nylon 6,6 multifilament yarns with a

linear density of 350dtex which was provided by TRW Automotive. One system has a single

side silicone coating which does not penetrate through the full thickness of the fabric while the

other system remains uncoated. Both fabric systems have identical geometrical features (i.e.

yarns/in, % crimp in warp and weft directions). The areal density of the coated fabric is 218.93

g/m2 and 171.56 g/m2 for the uncoated fabric as determined by ASTM D3776-95.

3.5.1 Microscopy

Due to the dense weave and small yarn width, it is difficult to measure features of the fabric

visually; therefore the use of optical microscopy was warranted. To obtain the number of yarns

per inch in the warp and fill directions, micrographs were taken in plan view with respect to the

fabric as shown in Figure 3-6a for a coated sample and Figure 3-6b for an uncoated sample.

Images were taken randomly throughout the fabric samples to collect a global set of data.

39

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

(a)

(b)

Figure 3-6: Plain weave of a) single-coated fabric and b) uncoated fabric

The other geometric parameter of interest is the amount of crimp in each yarn. Using

microscopy, the fabric was set in epoxy so that the edge of the fabric was perpendicular to the

mold face. Upon hardening, the sample is sanded and polished until the fabric edge is exposed.

Images are taken of the sample and then using the software package ImageJ (Rasband, 1997-

2009) the yarn length and spacing are measured to calculate crimp according to equation (3-3).

Figure 3-7 shows images of the cross section of the fabric in the warp and fill directions for

coated and uncoated specimens, respectively. Additional parameters obtained from the sectioned

samples were the filament diameter and count for both warp and fill directions.

40

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

(a)

(b)

Figure 3-7: Cross section of 350dtex coated airbag fabric a) warp direction and b) fill

direction

(a)

(b)

Figure 3-8: Cross section of 350dtex uncoated airbag fabric a) warp direction and b) fill

direction

41

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

Table 3-3 summarizes the geometric parameters for both the coated and uncoated systems as

measured from the micrographs. From these parameters, the geometry of the unit cell and some

constitutive properties can be determined.

Table 3-3: Geometric properties of coated and uncoated airbag fabric as determined from

microscopy

Coated Uncoated

Warp Fill Warp Fill

Yarns/in 60.43 55.27 60.87 55.09

% Crimp 6.30% 8.90% 6.28% 8.79%

#Filaments/yarn 140 140 140 140

Filament Diameter 16.95 16.95 16.95 16.95

(m)

Coating Thickness 0.082 0.082 N/A N/A

(mm)

Overall, the Table 3-3 confirms that the coated and uncoated fabric samples used in the study

have identical geometric construction. From the figures, the plain weave geometry can be

observed and it can also be seen that the yarns have virtually no twist and are composed of many

continuous filaments. The silicone coating is very thin and does not penetrate through the entire

thickness of the fabric.

Besides geometric structure, the mechanical properties of the yarn are essential inputs to a

potential model of the fabric. To evaluate the mechanical properties of the yarns, namely failure

strain and force-elongation behavior, extension tests were performed. The magnitude of crimp

can also be quantified using this method and compared to the values obtained through

microscopy by recording the percent elongation at which the yarn becomes completely straight.

Warp and fill yarns were carefully extracted from the uncoated fabric sample by gently pulling

away neighboring yarns in the weave structure. Yarns were sampled from different locations of

42

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

the fabric roll to generate a global population and to avoid any possible localized effects. The

sample population was 10 yarns in each of the warp and fill direction. A length of 150 mm (3 in)

was marked off using a felt tip marker on the fabric and then the yarns were withdrawn as shown

in Figure 3-9. This procedure of marking the length on the fabric as opposed to measuring on an

extracted yarn ensures that the gauge length is based off of the yarn in its crimped condition as

seen in the fabric structure. A condition that is important to keep true if one wants to back

calculate the percent crimp from the extension test.

It should be noted that yarns were not taken from the coated fabric due to the degree of difficulty

of peeling away the coating layer to get the yarns without causing significant damage to the

yarns. It was also found that extracting lengths greater than 25 mm was near impossible due to

the hindrance of the coating. Extension tests were attempted on a few samples that were suitable

for testing, however the reproducibility of the tests was not acceptable so they are not included in

the study. The other potential test considered was testing a coated yarn, but since the coating

does not penetrate the thickness of the fabric combined with the plain weave structure, the yarn

is not continuously coated for lengths required for testing.

The yarns were mounted onto paper frames as seen in Figure 3-9c using epoxy. The paper frame

ensures the proper gauge length distance between grips preventing additional slack or causing a

43

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

pre-stress in the yarn. Additional slack or smaller gauge length than the yarn extracted can cause

erroneous results in the magnitude of crimp if one wanted to subtract the uncrimping stiffening

from the load-elongation curve, a procedure that will be discussed later on. A larger gauge length

can cause the yarn to stretch, causing a pre-stress in the yarn as well as providing incorrect

results of the magnitude of crimp. A Kato Tech KES-G1 microtensile tester (Figure 3-10) with

a 5kg load cell located at the Advanced Fibrous Materials Laboratory at The University of

British Columbia was used to obtain force-displacement information of the yarn up to failure.

Upon loading the sample into the grips, the paper frame is cut before extension is applied. The

elongation rate was 2mm/min at ambient conditions according to ASTM D 3883-04 (ASTM

D3883-04, 2008).

Controller

Load Cell

Sample

Data Acquisition

As the yarn is extended, the crimp in the yarn begins to straighten before the yarn undergoes

stretching, a process commonly referred to as uncrimping. Obviously, this uncrimping of the

yarn is a form of geometric stiffening that needs to be removed in order to obtain the pure

mechanical response of the yarn. Figure 3-11 illustrates the technique of determining the

44

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

3883-04 (ASTM D3883-04, 2008). The straight line portion of force elongation curve is

extrapolated by line AB. The point A represents the magnitude of the crimp in the yarn and the

elongation where the crimp is fully removed from the yarn. The Point C is obtained by

constructing a line parallel to the Force axis from Point A. Point C corresponds to the tensile

force required to remove crimp without stretching the yarn. The curve is graphically shifted so

that Point C becomes the origin, therefore obtaining the pure force-elongation behavior of the

yarn as seen in Figure 3-12.

45

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

25.00

Warp

20.00

Fill

15.00

Force (N)

10.00

5.00

0.00

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

strain

Figure 3-12: Average force-elongation curve for 350dtex nylon 6,6 airbag yarn

Figure 3-12 shows the average force-elongation curves. Overall, the tests were reproducible

which suggests the yarn responses are uniform throughout the fabric and there are no regional

effects. All yarns failed within the middle of the specimen, away from the grips. The average

failure strains were 21.35% and 20.81% for the warp and fill yarn, respectively. The average

failure load was 21.12 N and 20.18 N. The average crimp for the warp and fill yarns obtained

from the procedure specified by ASTM D 3883 was found to be 6.33% and 8.74%, respectively.

It can be seen from Figure 3-12 that the yarn exhibits a hyperelastic-like behavior which

includes a high initial modulus, a transition period where the stiffness decreases and then as

undergoes higher stiffening at higher strains until failure. This behavior arises from the

semicrystalline structure of nylon polymer fibers. As a tensile load is applied to the yarns,

crystalline block segments separate from the lamellae in the polymer and both block and tie

chains become oriented in the direction of the tensile axis which results in stiffening of the

polymer.

46

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

One may argue that it may be more beneficial to test non-crimp yarns (i.e. yarns that have not

been processed into fabric) to reduce the geometric stiffening effect from decrimping. While this

would reduce the amount of work associated with sample preparation and post-processing of

data, this approach would not capture any additional drawing that the polymeric yarns may go

under during the warping process. From Figure 3-12, it can be seen that the warp yarn is stiffer

and fails at a higher load. Considering the warp and fill yarns are identical in terms of linear

density and filament count, additional drawing of the warp yarn from manufacturing is a

plausible explanation for the difference in mechanical behavior of the two yarn directions. In the

end, the obtained response can be considered ex situ as we have obtained the response of the yarn

from a processed fabric. Of course there may be some behaviors, namely failure stress and

strain, which are affected by the in situ environment of the fabric. Pan (Pan, 1996) and

Shahpurwala (Shahpurwala & Schwartz, 1989) have discussed some of the in situ variables that

can impact yarn such as pressure-independent adhesion, a frictional component dependent on the

confinement pressure of the yarn and statistical distribution of fiber strength.

The values of crimp for the warp and fill yarns found using the extension tests are close to the

values obtained using the sectioning method. The extension test advantages in testing crimp that

it can be used to test a large sample population of yarns with relative ease regarding sample

preparation, testing and processing. However, the method is sensitive to keeping the proper

gauge length. The sectioning method can be time consuming for large sample populations

considering the effort of cutting samples, casting them in epoxy, polishing and imaging.

However, the images obtained can be used to measure crimp with a high level of assurance

assuming the fabric sample does not undergo dimensional changes from handling or the epoxy

environment.

The silicone coating used on the fabric was not available for mechanical testing, although airbag

grade silicone mechanical properties are readily available in the literature (Crouch, 1994;

Schwark & Muller, 1996). The modulus of elasticity of the coating system is 2.75 MPa

(Schwark & Muller, 1996) and Poissons ratio is assumed to be 0.35. The thickness of the

47

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

coating was found to be approximately 0.082 mm based on equation (3-6) and was also

confirmed using microscopy.

The properties of the fabric were evaluated in a previous study (Ko, December 2006) using a

KES-FB1 shear tester at Philadelphia College of Textiles. A fabric sample is held by two

parallel chucks on both edges of the fabric as shown in Figure 3-13a. The one edge moves

parallel to the fixed grip which applies a shear force to the fabric. A constant normal force is

applied to prevent buckling or wrinkling of the specimen. Figure 3-13b better illustrates the

boundary conditions of the test. The test was performed only on coated fabric but as previously

discussed, the low level shear behavior of the uncoated fabric was observed to be the same as the

coated fabric after the influence of the coating is overcame. Figure 3-14 is a reproduction of the

results in the study and it can be seen that the tests had a high reproducibility. For

characterization of the shear relationship described in equation (3-31), the loading portion of the

curve is used.

W2

Fs

2 2

1 ,1

(a) (b)

Figure 3-13: KES-FB1 textile shear tester shown in a) and b) shear deformation adopted in

the KES-FB1 testing system

48

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

0.09

0.08

Membrane Shear Stress (N/mm)

0.07

0.06

0.05 ing

oad

L

0.04

g

0.03 a din

U nlo

0.02

0.01

0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Shear Strain (radians)

Figure 3-14: Shear stress-strain behavior for 350dtex nylon airbag fabric

Since the fabric undergoes a shear deformation under a constant load, the fabric sample is subject

to both shear and tensile forces. The model depends on the pure shear response of the fabric so

the tensile response measured in the fabric needs to be removed. The extension of the unit cell

can be used considering the boundary conditions that arises from KESF testing system as shown

in is as follows.

1 = 1 = 1 (3-41)

2

2 = (3-42)

cos

where i is the yarn stretch, i is the orthogonal stretch with respect to the initial fabric

configuration, and is the shear angle as shown in Figure 3-13b.

Now that the stretches applied to the unit are expressed as a function shear strain, Kawabata

demonstrated that the pure membrane shear stress-strain behavior that arises from yarn rotation,

49

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

S12, can be obtained by removing the tensile forces that contribute to the recorded shearing force,

Fs as shown below (Kawabata, Niwa, & Kawai, 1973c; Kawabata, 1989):

n2

S12 = (FS W2 tan ) (3-43)

cos

where n2 is the fill yarns per inch, W2 is the constant normal load and Fs is the applied shear load.

The drawback to using the KES-FB1 for calibrating shear is that it can only give information

about low level shear behavior in the current shear model the tests can only help find G1 and

G2. At high shear stresses, the shear behavior is no longer governed by yarn rotation rather than

the shear stiffness of the yarn. Therefore, the jamming stiffness of the fabric needs to be

defined. Here it is proposed that the jamming shear stiffness of the yarn is related to the shear

stiffness of the fiber material knocked down by the fiber packing factor of the yarn:

E

G3 = p (3-44)

2(1 + )

where E is longitudinal tensile modulus of the yarn, is the Poissons ratio of the yarn and p is

the packing factor of the yarn.

3.6 Results

The simple unit cell model was run to evaluate the unit cell model for the cases of uniaxial stress

applied to the warp and fill directions and biaxial state of stress. Figure 3-15 shows the model

generated membrane stress-strain curves under equal biaxial and uniaxial state of stress for the

warp and fill directions.

50

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

60.00 60.00

Model-Warp Model-Warp

Model-Fill

Model-Fill

50.00 50.00

membrane stress (N/mm)

40.00 40.00

30.00 30.00

20.00 20.00

1:1

10.00 10.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

strain strain

(a) (b)

Figure 3-15: Membrane stress-strain curves for 350dtex fabric produced by the unit cell

model

A sensitivity analysis was performed to investigate the influence of the essential yarn input

parameters. For clarity of presentation, only the warp stress is shown but the same trends

witnessed in the warp direction are applicable to the fill direction. For the sensitivity study, the

nominal input values are those obtained through characterization and therefore are identical to

Figure 3-15.

Figure 3-16 shows the sensitivity of the unit cell model to yarn crimp for equal biaxial extension

and uniaxial load. Under uniaxial stress, increasing the yarn crimp increases the failure strain of

the fabric. The increase in crimp requires more elongation to uncrimp or geometrically deform

the yarn before material straining can occur. Decreasing crimp eliminates the amount of

geometric deformation and therefore requires less elongation to reach the fabrics failure point.

However, the change in crimp does not change the stiffness or failure load under uniaxial

51

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

extension. For biaxial extension, the trend of increasing failure strain with crimp can be seen but

there is also a decrease in stiffness and the ultimate stress.

60.00 60.00

-Crimp -Crimp

+25%Cr +25%Cr

+10%Cr +10%Cr

50.00 Nominal 50.00 Nominal

-10%Cr -10%Cr

-25%Cr +25%Cr

+Crimp +Crimp

warp - membrane stress (N/mm)

40.00 40.00

30.00 30.00

20.00 20.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

strain strain

(a) (b)

Figure 3-16: Crimp parameter sensitivity for a) 1:1 biaxial extension and b) uniaxial

extension

Figure 3-17 shows the sensitivity to the bending rigidity of the yarn. If the yarn is considered to

be perfectly flexible, the unit cell is not able to capture the stiffening effect as the fabric

uncrimps. The yarn simply elongates until the crimp is removed and then forces are generated as

the straightened yarn elongates. Outside the low level stress behavior during the uniaxial

extension, variations up to two times the nominal value of the bending rigidity have little effect

on the mechanical behavior of the fabric regardless of the stress state.

52

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

60.00 60.00

No Bending +EI No Bending

+EI

Nominal

Nominal

50.00 2x EI 50.00 2x EI

10X EI

-EI

warp - membranestress (N/mm)

10X EI

-EI

40.00 40.00

30.00 30.00

20.00 20.00

EI=0

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

strain strain

(a) (b)

Figure 3-17: Yarn bending rigidity parameter sensitivity for a) 1:1 biaxial extension and b)

uniaxial extension

Figure 3-18 shows the sensitivity to the thickness of the coating in the unit cell model. There is

virtually no effect on the extensional behavior between an uncoated fabric, the nominal values

and coating that penetrates fully through the thickness of the fabric. Intuitively, one would

expect this result since the stiffness of the coating is much less than that of the fabric.

53

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

60.00 60.00

No Coating No Coating

Nominal Nominal

50.00 50.00

Full Coating

Full Coating

warp - membrane stress (N/mm)

40.00 40.00

30.00 30.00

20.00 20.00

1:1

10.00 10.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

strain strain

(a) (b)

Figure 3-18: Coating thickness parameter sensitivity for a) 1:1 biaxial extension and b)

uniaxial extension

3.8 Summary

A unit cell model based on a simple linear geometry was proposed and the governing

deformational mechanisms were derived. The characterization techniques to obtain inputs for

the model were carefully outlined and the geometric and mechanical properties of a 350dtex

airbag fabric are obtained. The results of the unit cell model represent the behavior of an ideal

fabric where deformation is uniform throughout.

The next step would logically be to perform a validation study comparing the results of the

simple unit cell model to experimental results. However, stress heterogeneity is seen in many of

the standard tests to evaluate the in-plane behavior of the fabric. Stress heterogeneity arises due

to specimen geometry, yarn orientation as well as the samples boundary conditions. This

54

Chapter 3- Development of a representative unit cell: theory and calibration

warrants further computation to accurately model the physical conditions of certain tests.

Additionally, besides simulating physical experimental specimens, we would like to use

mechanical response of the developed unit cell as the basis for structural analysis of the airbag in

the crash simulation. More specifically, the technique developed needs to be formulated in a

way that it can be of use with the current design tools. Therefore in the next chapter, a finite

element continuum approach using the unit cell as the constitutive behavior is presented that can

be utilized in modeling stress heterogeneity in test samples.

55

Chapter 4 Implementation and verification

As established to this point, the airbag contributes significantly to the overall crashworthiness of

an automobile. The analysis and simulation of vehicles for crashworthiness is still fairly young

field and has evolved greatly the past 30 years (Khalil & Du Bois, 2004). Starting as simple

lumped parameter model, today models are based on 3D continuum mechanics with intricate and

complex geometry that often require the use of supercomputers for simulation. In the past

decade, the simulation of the airbag and occupant/airbag interaction has become a standard

option in many commercial simulation codes (Drnhoff et al., 2008; Hirth et al., 2007).

The high costs conducting and difficulty measuring the airbag deployment and impact makes

simulations desirable to evaluate a large number of parameters (Khan & Moatamedi, 2008). The

airbag deployment and impact, like most crashworthiness analysis of vehicles, involves highly

nonlinear structural mechanics due to large deformations, rotations and material nonlinearity.

Also considering the equations of state to model gas flow from the inflator, the governing

equations pose a great challenge in the analysis, warranting the use of a numerical method like

the finite element method.

The finite element method of structural dynamics solves the set of nonlinear partial differential

equations of motion for body or structure in a space-time domain along with the material stress

strain relationship within defined boundary conditions. The body or structure is descritized into

a finite number of components (elements) that are connected by points (most commonly referred

as nodes). The temporal and spatial discretization results in a solution of the equations in the

forms of the values of the field parameters at common nodes of the elements. Within the domain

of an element, the values of all the parameters are approximated through the use of the

56

Chapter 4 Implementation and verification

appropriate shape functions. The state of stress and strain in the material corresponds to the

minimum energy of the system which is an approximate representation of the overall equilibrium

of the system.

The finite element simulation of airbags is based on the assumption that the fabric can be

approximated using membrane shell elements with an orthotropic, linear stress-strain material

relationship (Bedewi, Marzougui, & Motevalli, 1996; Hirth et al., 2007; Khan & Moatamedi,

2008). The membrane assumption is valid since the out-of-plane mechanical properties of the

fabric are very low compared to the in-plane properties. However, the orthotropic material

assumption as stated numerous times before, is incorrect as the material is highly anisotropic as

the yarns can rotate to a non-orthotropic state. The current state-of-the-art fabric constitutive

model in LS-DYNA (*MAT_FABRIC) utilizes a nonlinear orthotropic stress-strain formulation

with non-orthogonal material axes (Hallquist, 2006). However, to calibrate the inputs for the

model requires cruciform biaxial test data for extensional responses and picture frame shear tests

for the shear response. This necessitates special equipment and multiple tests for different shaped

airbags which can be time consuming particularly when evaluating novel fabric systems.

Additionally, at stress ratios that deviate from the tested configuration, the constitutive behavior

may not be correct due to rearrangement of the fabrics internal structure.

The proposed alternative is to incorporate the unit cell model described in the previous chapter as

the basis for the constitutive behavior for shell-membrane elements. Figure 4-1 illustrates the

basic concept of the proposed implementation of the unit cell model as the basis for representing

the in-plane mechanical behavior of the fabric. The fabric structure is replaced by a continuum

of a homogeneous anisotropic material. Stretches and rotations are applied to the continuum

membrane which are identical to that occurring in the unit cell. One key aspect of the unit cell-

continuum formulation is to translate the continuum strains which are taken with to respect the

element coordinate system and compute the strains that occur in the fabric with respect to the

yarn configuration which may not coincide with the element coordinate system upon

deformation. Once the strains are transformed to the yarn orientation, the forces from the unit

cell can be computed. Then, the forces are normalized and translated back into the element local

coordinate system.

57

Chapter 4 Implementation and verification

0

element coordinate system n3

q2 n3

= y q1 0

n4

q2

q1

0

q2 q1 0

n1 n2 n2

x

Unit cell forces and

normalized stress are X3 unit cell algorithm x

calculated

X1 X2

Coating

H01

H02

y01 n3

y02

n4

n2

=

UMAT transforms unit cell

stress back to element n1

coordinate system y

x

Deformed Loaded Structure

Therefore, the outlined approach can determine the fabric state of stress with consideration of the

internal changes the yarns undergo without explicit modeling of each yarn. This approach is

therefore very computationally efficient compared to other techniques that attempt to simulate

the mechanical response and contact behavior of every yarn within the fabric. The increase in

efficiency can lead to faster solution times or allow more resources to be dedicated to more

computationally intensive processes in the airbag simulation. Additionally, the history of the

evolution of certain fabric parameters such as the yarn tension, yarn failure, contact forces and

yarn orientation can be tracked for each element for the duration of the simulation.

While there are many advantages using this method, the assumptions made in the development

can impose limits on the use of the model. For instance, the continuum assumption is only valid

if the length scale of the element is larger than the yarns and empty spaces within the physical

fabric. More specifically, the element dimensions cannot be smaller than the dimensions of a

single crossover. This means more dense fabrics can use smaller elements in the simulation

58

Chapter 4 Implementation and verification

while still retaining the physical conditions. Since the airbag fabric is a very dense weave and

the evolution of new airbag fabrics are increasingly becoming denser, this approach has plenty

warrant in the structural analysis of the airbag deployment. If this method was applied to small

structures made of coarse woven fabrics, the limiting element size may be larger than the

required mesh size needed to obtain the correct results.

The other main assumption that can limit the capabilities of the model is the no-slip condition

between the yarns. During the failure of fabric structures, the yarns can slip and slide near the

location of the failure or tear to accommodate the equilibrium within the fabric. This obviously

changes the internal geometry of the fabric and the level of tension can vary throughout the yarn

length along a single crossover. Under the no-slip assumption, yarns crossover if affined to the

midpoint of both yarns and the yarn tension developed is constant through the length of the yarn

within the unit cell.

The final main assumption is that the unit cell remains in a flat planar configuration during out-

of-plane deformations. More clearly, the curvature of the structure is not reflected in the unit

cell geometry. This effect of curvature is significant as it can strain the yarn as well as change

the internal structure of the fabric as seen in Figure 4-2. This assumption is appropriate for

structures with large radius of curvatures with fabrics that have small yarn spacing shown where

the out-of-plane deformation is negligible. In the airbag application, the curvature of the

structure is typically fairly large and the density of the fabric is very high. However, if this

method were to be applied to small diameter tubes like those used in biomedical or petroleum

applications, the effects of the curvature on the unit cell geometry maybe more pronounced and

may affect the mechanical response of the fabric.

59

Chapter 4 Implementation and verification

The numerical testbed for this study is the commercial nonlinear dynamic finite element code,

LS-DYNA. The code is used extensively in the automotive industry as it contains sophisticated

contact algorithms for modeling impact problems in addition to specialized capabilities for

modeling airbags, seatbelts and anthropomorphic test devices. Most importantly, LS-DYNA

allows users to code their own subroutines defining material models, more commonly referred to

as User Material Model (UMAT). Figure 4-2 shows the typical analysis process used by LS-

DYNA with the UMAT option invoked.

Update

Velocities

Update Update

Accelerations Displacements

Start

Apply Force

Process

Boundary

Contacts

Conditions

Model Elements

Figure 4-3: Numerical procedure of LS-DYNA with user material model option

The user-defined subroutine (UMAT) allows for formulation of constitutive relationships for

applications where the standard library of material definitions fail to accurately represent the

physical material behavior. The UMAT is coded in FORTRAN and contains a common block to

access the strain increments, material constants, element failure flags and load curves from the

main program. At each time step, LS-DYNA passes the element strain increments evaluated at

the shell element integration point to the subroutine. For this study, the integration points are

located at the center of the element for the constant stress membrane. The UMAT computes the

60

Chapter 4 Implementation and verification

stresses within the element and passes the values back to the main program to continue the

analysis.

The challenge in the continuum formulation of the constitutive behavior of fabric is that the

configuration of the fabric is continuously changing. The first issue to be addressed is the

measuring the kinematics of the changing configuration. From continuum mechanics, the

fundamental measure of a deformed body at a point in time can be given by the deformation

gradient which is defined for a two-dimensional body as

xi (t )

Fij (t ) = (4-1)

x 0j

The deformation gradient can be used to find the stretch and rotations that a body undergoes in

two points in time. To do so, the right Cauchy-Green deformation tensor needs to be constructed

as per:

C = FT F (4-2)

deformation tensor can now be used to find the stretch and rotation in each yarn.

Within the constraints of the UMAT, the displacement gradient can be constructed at a time t

based on the increments of strain that are passed by the main program

x t = x t 1 + t (4-3)

where xt-1 is the displacement gradient of the previous time step and

t

xt xyt

= t (4-4)

xy yt

61

Chapter 4 Implementation and verification

t

where x y xy are the current strain increments in the local element coordinate system

t t

xyz.

The local axes system used in LS-DYNA is based on the shell node numbering where the x-axis

is defined parallel to the n1 - n2 edge as shown in Figure 4-1 (Hallquist, 2006). The z-axis is

therefore taken to be normal to the element mid-plane and the y-axis is determined by the cross

product:

y = zx (4-5)

Ft = xt + I (4-6)

To track the configuration of the material axis, two vectors q1 and q2 are assumed to be parallel

to the original orientation of the warp and fill yarns respectively. Therefore, the vectors are

assigned based on the angle of the yarn

(4-7)

q0i = [cos i0 sin i0 ]

T

0

where i is the initial angle of the yarn taken with respect to the local x axis.

According to Bathe (Bathe, 1982), the stretch of each material yarn axis can be found using

equation (4-8)

Therefore, with the stretch in each yarn vector calculated, the displacement along each yarn

within the unit cell at the current time step is determined below:

62

Chapter 4 Implementation and verification

d it = y0 i (ti 1) (4-9)

With the stretch of the warp and fill material yarn axis known along with the Cauchy-Green

deformation tensors, the angle between the yarn axes at the current time step can be found using

equation (4-10) (Bathe, 1982):

q01T Cq02

cos = (4-10)

12

With the updated angle between the two yarn vectors known, the vector coordinates need to be

updated. Assuming that a positive value of strain results in the yarn vectors becoming acute, the

change in the yarn angle is determined by equation below

( 0

f w0 )

= (4-11)

2

A positive change in yarn angle follows the rotation convention shown below for each yarn

vector:

1t = 10 (4-12)

2t = 20 (4-13)

Therefore the newly rotated yarn vectors for the warp and fill directions can be expressed

according to equation (4-14):

qi = [cos( it ) sin ( it )]

T

(4-14)

With the unit cell displacement and current angle between the yarns now known, the yarn strain

can be found and the resulting forces can be computed using the procedure outlined in the

previous chapter. The obtained stresses now must be transformed from the yarn coordinate

system back into the local element coordinate system. Keeping with the tensor notation, the

63

Chapter 4 Implementation and verification

local stress tensor can be computed back into the local element xyz system using the scalar

magnitude of the internal yarn forces and the dyadic product of the unit yarn vectors at the

current time step according to Peng and separately by King (King et al., 2005; Peng & Cao,

2005).

N1

= (q1 q1 ) + N 2 (q2 q2 ) + S12 (q1 q2 + q2 q1 ) (4-15)

h h h

where N1 is the magnitude of the force per unit length from the warp yarn end, N2 is the

magnitude of the force per unit length from the fill yarn end, S12 is the magnitude of the shear

force per unit length and h is the thickness of the shell element.

Specifically, the components of the stress tensor within the element coordinate system can be

shown to be:

N1 N S (4-16)

x = cos 2 1 + 2 cos 2 2 + 12 2 cos1 cos 2

h h h

N N S (4-17)

y = 1 sin 2 1 + 2 sin 2 2 + 12 2 sin 1 sin 2

h h h

N N S (4-18)

xy = 1 cos1 sin 1 + 2 cos 2 sin 2 + 12 (cos1 sin 2 + cos 2 sin 1 )

h h h

This form differs from the work of Shahkarami (A. Shahkarami & Vaziri, 2007) as the shear

component is included in the stress tensor rather than treating shear separately. Additionally, the

treatment of the material axes is consistent with the procedures for finite deformation, non-

orthogonal constitutive behavior in continuum mechanics (Bathe, 1982; Holzapfel, 2000).

Within the explicit finite element framework, the determination of the critical time step is crucial

for analysis. LS-DYNA requires the bulk and shear moduli of the material to be defined in order

to determine the critical time step as well as calculating transmitting boundary, contact stiffness

etc. Within the context of the proposed continuum model, the bulk and shear moduli are based

on published values of the speed of sound in bulk material the yarn is composed of and the

density of the fabric structure and can be computed using equations (4-19) and (4-20)

respectively.

64

Chapter 4 Implementation and verification

(4-19)

2c*

K=

3(1 2 )

2c* (4-20)

G=

2(1 + )

where is density of the fiber material , is the Poissons ratio of the yarn material. The values

of c* can be found using the expression:

c (4-21)

c* =

1 + cri

where c is the speed of sound in the fiber material and cr is the crimp of the yarn.

With respect to best practices, for unbalanced fabrics, the yarn crimp that results in the larger

values of K and G governs.

Within the user material model framework, the displacements in the warp and fill direction will

always be given so that the yarn heights are unknown and the length of the yarns is a function of

the height. This is different from the previous chapter regarding uniaxial extension of the fabric

where the transverse displacement was unknown and was solved for assuming the transverse

yarn did not compress. In that case, it was necessary to establish certain unknown unit cell

conditions in order to generate a solution for uniaxial stress condition. In the user material

model framework, the axially incompressible yarn condition is still established however the yarn

spacing will always be determined from the continuum stretches. Therefore, under these

imposed conditions, during large negative displacements the algorithm will not find a solution

since continuity of the unit cell structure is broken. Here the yarns separate and are no longer in

contact. In this case, the yarns are decoupled so that the deformed geometry and forces of each

yarn can easily be computed.

65

Chapter 4 Implementation and verification

An instantaneous failure criterion based on the ultimate yarn strain is used to initiate failure of

the individual warp and fill yarns. Once the yarn surpasses the specified ultimate strain, the yarn

is flagged by the subroutine and the yarn is permanently eliminated from the unit cell. When a

yarn is removed from the unit cell, the shell element is no longer capable of carrying extensional

load in that direction or any shear loading. When both of the unit cell yarns have exceeded the

ultimate yarn strain, the shell element is then eroded from the finite element mesh. The erosion

results in the element being removed from the calculation while retaining its mass properties on

the nodes attached to the element. Nodes that become completely unconstrained due to the

erosion of elements are than also eliminated from the computation. Under certain conditions that

arise from single yarn failure, the elements can undergo an excessive and unrealistic deformation

which promotes numerical instabilities. To remedy possible instabilities, a user-defined criterion

was established in the user material model to erode unhealthy elements.

One last consideration of the UMAT formulation is the need to refer to the local x axis of the

element. This requires the 1-2 edge of each element to be parallel throughout the mesh to ensure

the yarn orientation is consistent throughout the simulated part. Therefore, the current UMAT

definition cannot be used in arbitrarily meshed structures. In the driver side airbag structure, the

bag is constructed of two circular pieces of fabric so the meshing within the constraints of the

UMAT is feasible for the majority of the bag. Possible problematic areas are near edges and

vent hole. Future work will need to address this limitation.

4.4 Verification

Code verification checks that the algorithms are working properly and that the solution of the

mathematical model is accurate. The addition of the unit cell algorithm with the continuum

formulation along with interactions between the subroutine and main program presents several

nuances that can cause problems. To verify the successful implementation of the code a series of

simple tests were performed. The first of these test simply check that the extensional behavior of

a single element to the simple stand-alone computer algorithm discussed in the previous chapter.

Prescribed displacements are applied to the element to confirm the biaxial and uniaxial response

of the implemented unit cell agree with the results from the simple model developed in the

previous chapter. The second set of simple tests consisted of applying displacements to a square

66

Chapter 4 Implementation and verification

patch of 5x5 elements to investigate the elements whose displacements are controlled by the

connectivity of the neighboring elements. This provides us with an opportunity to find arbitrary

displacement ratios where the algorithm has difficulties converging.

The final set of verification studies investigated the rotation-nonorthogonal behavior of the yarn

vectors as illustrated in Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5. Three single element tests were performed:

1) pure shear, 2) rail shear and 3) a balanced trellis like shear varying the shear stiffness of the

yarn crossover. Under pure shear, one would expect that the only deformation that arises is

shear, therefore no stretch is generated in the yarns. From Figure 4-4a, the model correctly

exhibits the proper pure shear behavior. Under rail shear test there is positive stretch generated

in direction of the deformed edge in addition to shear stresses generated. In Figure 4-4b, the

element is sheared so that the deformed edge from shear is parallel to the fill yarns. Again, the

calculated response of the model mimics the expected behavior.

1.15 1.15

Warp Warp

Fill Fill

Yarn Stretch

Yarn Stretch

1.10 1.10

1.05 1.05

1.00 1.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

shear strain shear strain

(a) (b)

Figure 4-4: Verifying modes of shear: a) pure shear and b) rail shear

Finally, in Figure 4-5, an element with balanced yarn properties (meaning that the properties for

each yarn direction are identical) has two opposing corners with assigned displacements while

the remaining two corners are free. The purpose of this example is to examine the impact of

shear stiffness on the non-predefined rotation of the yarn. Assigning no shear stiffness or

resistance at the crossover, the crossover should behave like a pin. Thus, the crossover should

67

Chapter 4 Implementation and verification

act like a trellis where any deformation is attributed to rigid body rotation of the yarns. It can be

seen from Figure 4-5 that shear strain of the crossover results in no stretch of the yarns. If very

high or infinite shear stiffness is assigned, the crossovers should act like they are fixed and

remain in the orthogonal state. Therefore, any deformation of the element should be attributed to

stretch as seen in the calculations. Finally, an assigned realistic value of shear stiffness is applied

and it can be observed that the element experiences a mix of rotation and extension. Overall, this

confirms that the model matches deformational behaviors that one would expect under a

multitude of conditions.

1.30

1.25

Yarn Stretch

1.20

1.15

No Shear Stiffness

1.05

Realistic Shear Stiffness

1.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

shear strain

Figure 4-5: Verifying shear deformation behaviors of a single element with varying shear

stiffnesses

4.5 Summary

The structural analysis of airbag and fabric structures requires a constitutive model that can

consider the complex and often heterogeneous deformations of the fabric structure, but at the

same time, the model needs to be simple enough to keep computational costs low. Here, the

mechanistic unit cell model is implemented as the material behavior for an efficient membrane

element in the finite element code LS-DYNA. Using the developed user material model, a wide

variety of fabric deformational behaviors can be obtained without explicitly modeling each yarn.

68

Chapter 4 Implementation and verification

The user material model has been carefully verified to ensure the in-plane extensional and shear

behaviors are computed correctly and are passed to LS-DYNA without any error. Now that the

unit cell model has been successfully implemented in terms of computational correctness, the

next step is to check the model for physical correctness. In the next chapter, a validation study is

performed demonstrating the models accuracy under a variety of deformations.

69

Chapter 5 Validation

Chapter 5 Validation

While the verification and sensitivity of the model has been performed, neither gauges the

competence of the model for representing the physical system. Validation of a computational

model is the process of determining the degree to which a model is accurate representation of the

real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the model (Schwer, 2002). The intent of

this chapter is to confirm correctness of the models quasi-static in-plane mechanical properties to

experimental data. Since published, publically available experimental data on the mechanical

properties of airbag fabric is very limited, especially with regards to the current state-of-art

fabrics, a series of experiments were performed to rigorously confirm the results of the models.

Of the experiments performed, the biaxial extension of the fabric is believed to be the closest to

mimicking the conditions that occur in the airbag. During the simulation of the quasi-static tests

using the user material model within the dynamic explicit finite element framework, the total

kinetic energy was kept to a minimum so that any influence from inertial effects is negligible.

The uniaxial extension of fabric is often performed due to its simplicity and can be used to

compare the stiffness of the warp and fill directions. The uniaxial tensile properties of the coated

and uncoated fabrics were measured according to the modified strip tensile test method as

specified by ASTM D5035-95. Five samples taken in each of the warp and fill directions for

both coated and uncoated fabrics were tested. The ends of the fabric were wrapped with layers

of masking tape to protect that fabric from crushing at the grips. The specimen width was 25

70

Chapter 5 Validation

mm with a gauge length of 100mm. An Instron 1122 testing machine located in the Department

of Zoology at The University of British Columbia was used for testing. The crosshead speed

was 100 mm/min.

The stress-strain curves in the warp and fill directions for the coated and uncoated samples are

shown Figure 5-1. The stress is normalized based on a membrane assumption, simply

corresponding to the force divided by unit length. The vertical error bar show the maximum and

minimum stress values at selected data points. The horizontal error bar at the failure point

illustrates the minimum and maximum failure strains recorded. Failure occurred within the

middle of the gauge length indicating uniform stress distribution. Overall the tests were very

reproducible. The sample population for the uncoated sample was reduced to four since one of

the specimens had broken near the grip.

70.00

Exp-Coated-warp

60.00

Exp-Coated-fill

membrane stress (N//mm)

50.00 Exp-uncoated-warp

Exp-uncoated-fill

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

strain

From Figure 5-1, it can be seen that there are no discernable difference between the

deformational behavior of coated and uncoated samples as observed in the biaxial extension

71

Chapter 5 Validation

tests. The stress-strain behavior is very different from the biaxial behavior of the fabric. The

uniaxial response is characterized by a sigmoidal shape which consists of a low initial modulus

followed by gradual stiffening into high linear modulus. Compared to the biaxial results, fabrics

under uniaxial loading have higher failure stresses but lower apparent modulus.

As discussed previously, the biaxial loading is the fundamental loading condition seen in an

airbag. To evaluate the biaxial behavior, there are three methods discussed in the literature: burst

test, inflated cylinder test, and cruciform plane biaxial extension test (Bassett, Postle, & Pan,

1999). These methods are better illustrated in Table 5-1 showing the original fabric

configuration and the deformed fabric during operation. In the burst test, stress and strains are

quantified based on the internal pressure within the fabric and the fabric shape and requires

impermeable fabrics. In the inflated cylindrical test, the results can be affected by the presence

of seams unless circularly woven samples are tested and also requires fabrics that are

impermeable. The cruciform biaxial extension test can evaluate both permeable and

impermeable fabrics at a wide range of stress ratios and can directly measure stresses and strains.

For this study, biaxial response of the fabric is evaluated using the cruciform biaxial extension

method.

72

Chapter 5 Validation

Table 5-1: Test methods in the literature for evaluating the biaxial behavior of fabrics

Pressure Sample

Source Sample (Spherical)

(Flat)

Burst

Pressure

Sample

Source (Cylindrical)

Inflated

Cylinder

Sample

(Flat)

Cruciform

Biaxial extension experiments of coated and uncoated fabric samples were performed using a

custom-made large load capacity biaxial tester (see Figure 5-2) located at the Hess Research

Laboratories at Drexel University. The tester was designed with fibrous materials in mind, more

specifically geotextiles, but is suitable for a wide range of textiles and composites that require

large applied loads (Wartman, Harmanos, & Ibanez, 2005). The tester consists of a servo-

hydraulic test frame with two pairs of grip carriages oriented 180 degrees apart that move in

equal and opposite directions. The carriages are driven by a 67 kN hydraulic actuator powered

by a hydraulic manifold with high-pressure and low-pressure accumulators. Each actuator drives

the grip carriages via connection arms. Each grip carriage has a dynamic range of motion of

10.2 cm and peak velocity of 30 cm/s. A 2.0 cm threaded rod extends from each carriage to be

used as the grip attachment point. The grip widths are approximately 20.23 cm (8 inches) wide

and have pyramid-teethed attachment plates to provide sufficient grip. A computer system

consisting of a digital controller running ANCO Engineers ANIPC-400 software controls the

73

Chapter 5 Validation

used to obtain the data.

Specimens were cut into a cruciform shape as shown in Figure 5-3 leaving a 20.32 cm x 20.32

cm (8 x 8) test area. Great care was taken while cutting the sample to ensure the fabric

remained orthogonal and true to the desired dimensions in order to avoid unwanted bias.

Masking tape placed in layers was used as a grip tab to protect the fabric from being damaged by

the grips. A sample size of 5 coated and 5 uncoated samples were prepared.

74

Chapter 5 Validation

The alignment and calibration of the loading actuators was first performed. Using a straight edge

and a laser level, each extender arm from the actuator was measured and adjusted to ensure each

grip carriage and arm was equidistant. Upon confirmation of the actuator extensions calibration,

the grip assemblies were attached to each arm and were checked to ensure that the grip slots

were leveled. An overhead digital camera was placed over the sample to qualitatively measure

fabric displacements within the gauge length in addition to the recorded cross-head

displacements.

An extension rate of 5mm/sec (2.5mm/sec per actuator) and a sample rate of 50Hz were inputted

into the digital controller. On a separate digital controller, the sampling rate of the overhead

digital camera was defaulted at 2Hz. Samples were loaded into the grip assemblies with the

5.08cm grip tab fully inserted into the grip slot and secured. The orientation of the fabric (warp

or fill direction) with respect to the load cells (A,B,C,D) was recorded. To ensure there was no

bias or unbalance in the load cells, samples were rotated, as demonstrated in Figure 5-4 into

different configurations so that the load cells had the opportunity to measure warp and fill

75

Chapter 5 Validation

directions during the duration of testing. Results from using this procedure show that there was

no noticeable asymmetry between the load cells.

A pretension of 44.5 N (10 lbs) was introduced to each actuator which is equivalent to 2.2 N/cm

(1.25 lbs/in) of stress imposed on the sample. The pretension is an ad-hoc procedure to eliminate

excessive experimental noise obtained from the load cells early on in the testing sequence. The

samples were loaded until final fracture. Upon completion of the test, the failed sample was

removed and the alignments of the actuators were checked after the actuators had returned to

their original positions. A new sample was placed into the grip fixtures and the loading

procedure was repeated.

The load data recorded had some inherent noise which was eliminated using a moving average

filter. The average membrane stress-strain curve is shown in Figure 5-5. The stress is

normalized based on a membrane assumption, simply force divided by unit length. The vertical

error bars show the maximum and minimum stress values at selected data points. The horizontal

error bars at the failure point illustrates the minimum and maximum failure strains recorded.

Overall, the biaxial response for the coated and uncoated samples was shown to be reproducible.

The failure mode of the fabric was tearing which initiated at the corners of the samples.

76

Chapter 5 Validation

45.00

Coated-warp

40.00

Coated-fill

membrane stress (N/mm)

Uncoated-warp

30.00

Uncoated-fill

25.00

20.00

Uncoated Fill

15.00 Coated Warp

Coated Fill

10.00

5.00

0.00

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

strain

Figure 5-5: Average biaxial stress-strain curve for coated and uncoated samples

The fabric under biaxial extension exhibits a hyper-elastic like behavior very similar to the yarn

behavior exemplified by a high initial modulus, some softening before stiffening into a high

linear modulus until failure as seen in Figure 5-5. There is no drastic change in extensional

properties between the coated and uncoated samples. This is to be expected since the silicone

coating has a considerably lower stiffness compared to the yarn system. However, it was also

observed during the experiments that the coated fabric fractured at a lower strain than the

uncoated fabric. The probable cause of the discrepancy of the failure points between the coated

and uncoated sample is due to the difference in the stress concentrations seen in the corners of

the samples. The difference lies in the prohibitive nature of the coating to resist in-plane yarn

rotation and sliding. Qualitatively, yarn sliding at the edges of the sample apparent by fraying of

the edges occurs in the uncoated fabric which can be seen from the photographs taken and shown

in Figure 5-6a. This sliding and rotation allows the yarns to conform to the load path putting

less stress on the yarns. On the other hand, in Figure 5-6b, the coated fabrics edges have no

fraying. Additionally, the edges have a slight curvature caused by crimp interchange between

the warp and fill yarns due to no slip condition.

77

Chapter 5 Validation

(a)

(b)

Figure 5-6: Photographs of biaxial extension at approximately 12% strain for a) uncoated

and b) coated fabrics

The bias extension test refers to the uniaxial extension of a rectangular fabric specimen that has

been cut at 45 degrees to the yarn directions. The test is fairly simple to conduct compared to

other methods used for shearing a fabric such as rail shear or picture frame test and can provide

reasonably reproducible results. One drawback is that the strain is not homogeneous throughout

78

Chapter 5 Validation

the sample in which three distinctive shearing zones can be identified. Referring to Figure 5-7,

Zone A undergoes pure shear deformation until the yarns reach a jamming point. Zone B is mix

of yarn extension and shear while Zone C remains undeformed.

Zone C

Zone C

Zone B Zone B

Zone B Zone B

L Zone A Zone A

Zone B Zone B

Zone B Zone B

Zone C

Zone C

L

a) b)

Five samples each of the uncoated and coated fabric specimens were tested. The specimens

dimensions were 50mm wide by 100mm long gauge length which has been used in other

research (Harrison, Clifford, & Long, 2004; Page & Wang, 2000; Spivak & Treloar, 1968). The

samples were cut vigilantly to ensure the 45 degree orientation and optical microscopy was used

to confirm the fabric angle. Masking tape was applied to the gripped portion of the fabric to

protect it from grip induced damaged. A 1cm x 1cm orthogonal grid was drawn on each sample

using a felt-tip permanent marker as a reference to measure rotation at the center of the specimen

as well as monitor the deformations in other regions in the fabric. Additionally, the grid square

in the center of the sample will be used as a Point of Reference to quantify shear strain verses the

applied stress to the specimen in the upcoming discussion.

The bias tests were performed on the Instron 1122 tester at room temperature with a digital

camera mounted onto a tripod to record the shear angle at the center of the specimen as shown in

79

Chapter 5 Validation

Figure 5-8. The camera recorded video at 30 frames per second at a resolution of 640x460

pixels. The video started to record before the extension was performed and a clicking noise

which acts as an audio marker was made simultaneously when the Instron loading was engaged.

Using the audio marker, the video images can be correlated to an exact data point recorded by

the Instron. Data acquisition from the Instron was performed at 100 Hz. A 500 kg load cell was

installed and an extension rate of 60 mm/min was used. After jamming, the samples started to

slip out of the grips, therefore they were not tested to failure. Since the low level shear behavior

is of interest, the range of data obtained when the specimen slips at higher shear strains is

ignored.

Instron Tester

Bias Specimen

Post-processing the video to obtain the shear strain can be a daunting task. The duration of each

bias test was about one minute and the video was recorded at 30 fps, which results in 1800

images available for measurement for one sample. Even using one frame per second, it would

require 60 images to manually measure for shear angles. Therefore, to reduce the amount of

images while retaining accuracy, images were measured at 1 fps for the first 10 seconds where

the majority of the shear deformation occurs and the one frame every five seconds is measured to

80

Chapter 5 Validation

until 50 seconds has past for the test. It was witnessed that after a minute slippage of the

specimens in the grips begins to occur in the sample, therefore any data points beyond that time

are not considered. The angle of the lower corner of the center square marked off on the

specimen is measured using the software ImageJ.

Figure 5-9 shows the average load-elongation behavior of the coated and uncoated bias fabric

samples. At low levels of extensions, the coated samples exhibit a stiffer behavior than the

uncoated fabric. After about 20mm, the stiffnesses of the coated and uncoated fabric are almost

identical.

8.00

Exp - Coated

7.00

Exp - Uncoated

Applied Stress (N/mm)

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00

Extension (mm)

Figure 5-10 shows the average applied specimen stress and shear angle results for the coated and

uncoated specimens. To be clearer, the y-axis (applied shear stress) is the load recorded by the

Instron normalized by the specimen width and the x-axis (shear angle) is the measured change in

angle of the center square. The alphabetic markers signify the correlated video snapshots shown

in Figure 5-11 for the coated fabric and Figure 5-12 for the uncoated fabric so that the stress-

strain curve can be referenced with respect to the observed deformed configuration of the

81

Chapter 5 Validation

sample. The Point of Reference (P.O.R.) where the center shear angle was measured is indicated

in the first frame. Since the camera position moved during the testing, it is not possible to

superimpose semi-transparent images to illustrate the average deformed configuration of the

sample. Therefore in the construction of Figure 5-11 and Figure 5-12, the sample whose

applied stress-strain response was closest to the average is referenced.

16.00

Uncoated G

14.00

Applied shear stress (N/mm)

Coated

12.00

10.00

F

8.00

E

6.00

B C D

4.00

2.00

0.00

A

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Center Square Shear Angle (degrees)

Figure 5-10: Bias shear -- applied specimen end stress vs. center specimen shear angle

The horizontal error bars at each data point represent the deviations that occur mostly due to

human error in measuring shear angle and effects that result in yarn slippage. The error in the

shear angle for both specimens is acceptable, although the uncoated samples exhibit higher strain

error. Overall, Figure 5-10 attempts to quantify the local shear deformation of the pure shear

deformation zone as opposed to the total elongation of the sample which is mainly a global

response.

82

Chapter 5 Validation

Figure 5-11: Typical bias shear deformation sequence - 50mm x 100mm coated sample

Figure 5-12: Typical bias shear deformation sequence - 50mm x 100mm uncoated sample

83

Chapter 5 Validation

It can be observed that at lower levels of shear strain there is a significant difference in the

deformational behavior of the coated and uncoated samples. Figure 5-13 better illustrates this

low shear strain behavior for both of the fabric sample sizes tested. It can be observed that the

coated fabric has a much higher initial shear stiffness compared to the uncoated fabric. While

the coating has a low Youngs Modulus and is very thin, it still seems to inhibit yarn rotation

during low shear strains. At higher shear strains, the coated fabric starts to behave similarly to

the uncoated sample having a region of low shear stiffness before dramatically stiffening when

the yarns have rotated into a jammed (locked) condition.

2.00

1.80 Uncoated

1.60

Coated

Applied Stress (N/mm)

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0

Center Square Shear Angle (degrees)

Figure 5-13: Detailed low shear angle plot of applied stress vs. center shear of bias sample

84

Chapter 5 Validation

Figure 5-14 and Figure 5-15 show the stress-strain results for the coated and uncoated uniaxial

extension of the simple single unit cell model, simulated sample using the finite element material

model formulation and the experimental results. The simple single unit cell analytical model is

an adequate approximation of the uniaxial behavior of the fabric assuming that the deformation

is homogeneous. In reality, the deformation of the sample is not homogeneous due to the

transverse contraction along the free edges of the sample from crimp interchange of the yarns.

Figure 5-16a demonstrates the predicted strain heterogeneity in the coated fabric at 30% strain

in the warp direction. Figure 5-16b shows the fabric strain in the fill direction. For brevity,

only the warp-loaded coated simulation is shown but the following discussion is applicable to

fill-loaded direction and uncoated fabric. As it can be seen by comparing the warp and fill

strains, the simulation predicts an area of biaxial tension near the clamped portion of the sample

caused by constriction of the transverse yarns against yarn crimp interchange. Along the center

of the specimen, the strain is highest and uniform where the axial yarns have almost completely

decrimped. Stepping away from the macroscopic strains, Figure 5-17a and Figure 5-17b shows

the calculated warp and fill yarn strains. Since the failure criteria of the unit cell is based on the

ultimate yarn strain, studying the yarn strains developed can indicate the location where possible

fabric failure initiates. In the examples given in Figure 5-17, at approximately 30% fabric strain,

the warp yarns near the middle of the sample approach the ultimate warp yarn strain which was

the area in which failure had occurred in the experiments. The simulated sample using the finite

continuum formulation has the ability to replicate both the macroscopic and yarn deformations

that occur physically in the sample. Therefore, the predicted stiffness and failure from the finite

element simulation more closely resemble the behavior of to the experiments compared to the

calculated behavior from the single unit cell.

Outside the deformation mechanisms, the calculated stress-strain behavior of the coated and

uncoated fabric simulations are almost identical. This is to be expected as shown previously

from the sensitivity analysis of the unit cell, experimental observations and the lack of shear

deformation in the type of loading.

85

Chapter 5 Validation

70.00

Exp-Coated-warp

60.00 Exp-Coated-fill

Analytical UC-Coated-warp

membrane stress (N//mm)

50.00 Analytical UC-Coated-fill

FE UC-Coated-warp

40.00 FE UC-Coated-fill

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

strain

Figure 5-14: Uniaxial extension of coated airbag fabric - model vs. experiments

70.00

Exp-uncoated-warp

60.00 Exp-uncoated-fill

membrane stress (N//mm)

Analytical UC-uncoated-fill

40.00

FE UC-Uncoated-warp

30.00 FE UC-Uncoated-fill

20.00

10.00

0.00

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

strain

Figure 5-15: Uniaxial extension of uncoated airbag fabric - model vs. experiment

86

Chapter 5 Validation

a)

b)

Figure 5-16: Macroscopic strains of simulated uniaxial loaded coated airbag fabric at 30%

extension a) warp direction and b) fill direction

87

Chapter 5 Validation

a)

b)

Figure 5-17: Yarn strains of simulated uniaxial loaded coated airbag fabric at 30%

extension a) warp direction and b) fill direction

Figure 5-18 and Figure 5-19 show the stress-strain results of the simple unit cell model,

simulated biaxial cruciform test and the experimental cruciform test. Both the simple model and

finite element model were run until reaching their calculated ultimate load of the fabric. The

simulated cruciform sample is a quarter model of the actual test to keep computational time low.

Overall, the deformational behavior of the single unit cell and simulated model closely resemble

the global stress-strain characteristics seen in the experiments.

88

Chapter 5 Validation

60.00

Exp-Coated-warp

50.00 Exp-Coated-fill

membrane stress (N/mm)

UC Model-warp

40.00

UC Model-fill

30.00

FE Model-warp

20.00 FE Model-fill

10.00

0.00

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

strain

Figure 5-18: Biaxial extension of coated airbag fabric - model vs. ex periments

60.00

Exp-uncoated-warp

50.00 Exp-uncoated-fill

membrane stress (N/mm)

UC Model-warp

40.00

UC Model-fill

30.00

FE Model-Warp

20.00 FE Model-Fill

10.00

0.00

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

strain

Figure 5-19: Biaxial extension of uncoated airbag fabric - model vs. ex periments

89

Chapter 5 Validation

Table 5-2 shows the simulated deformation of the sample compared to photographs taken during

the biaxial experiments. Likewise, Table 5-3 shows a similar comparison for the uncoated

fabric. Qualitatively, the simulations capture the deformational nuances of the corners of the

specimens, specifically the slight curvature that is developed. On the other hand, there are

visible differences between the uncoated simulation and the experiment. The uncoated sample in

the experiment exhibits sliding and pullout of the yarns; thereby giving the edges of the sample a

straight rather than curved appearance seen in the simulation. However, this discrepancy does

not greatly affect the global force-displacement relationship of the system as evident in the

calculated stress-strain curves.

While the single unit cell model and finite element material formulations have very good

agreement on the stress-strain behavior, the failure predictions by the two methods vary.

Notably, the finite element simulation of the coated fabric adequately predicts the point of failure

seen experimentally for coated fabric (around 12%). The single unit cell model greatly over-

predicts the failure point of the coated fabric, understandably as the edge effects and stress

concentrations are not considered. The failure of the simple unit cell model presents the failure

of a fabric under homogeneous biaxial displacement. Much like the uniaxial sample, the biaxial

sample has edge effects that cause heterogeneous displacement condition.

The initiation of failure in the simulation occurs at the corner of the specimen where yarns strains

are the highest. Upon the first onset of yarn failure, propagation of failure to neighboring yarns

occurs suddenly causing the simulation to become unstable. In the experiments, a similar

phenomena is exhibited -- failure typically initiating at the corner of the sample and rapidly

propagating across the cruciform arm. Figure 5-20 (a) and (b) shows the warp and fill yarn

strains for the coated failure at 12% biaxial strain respectively. From the figures, it can be seen

that the fill yarn near the corner of the specimen approaches its ultimate strain. It should be

noted that modeling the cruciform shape used in this study within the finite element framework

is quite difficult. While the global stress-strain behavior is believed to be correct, the local

behavior of the cruciform corner is a singularity point where calculating the correct magnitude of

stress becomes a very challenging task. Refining the mesh past dimensions that are smaller than

the dimensions of the unit cell results in earlier failures at the corner as one would expect. One

could bevel the corner to elevate the effect of the singularity, but this condition would also

90

Chapter 5 Validation

neglect the physical system. Therefore, the failure predictions of the biaxial simulation may

require further technique and investigation. Nonetheless, we will address possible weaknesses in

the user material model in predicting failure of biaxial samples assuming the singularity problem

is less evident in actual applications.

0%

~5%

~12%

91

Chapter 5 Validation

0%

~5%

~10%

92

Chapter 5 Validation

(a

(b

Figure 5-20: Simulated yarn strains at approximately 12% equal biaxial extension in the-

a) warp direction and b) fill direction

Interestingly, the failure predictions of the uncoated fabric by the simple unit cell and finite

element material model deviate greatly from what is seen in the experiments. The simple unit

93

Chapter 5 Validation

cell model over-predicts the failure point while the continuum material model under-predicts the

failure of the uncoated fabric. The shortcomings of predicting failure of the uncoated fabric

samples are apparent when considering the assumptions that are the basis for each model. The

simple unit cell model represents an ideal fabric. The failure stress predicted by the simple model

represents the failure of an infinitely long fabric sample under biaxial extension where the yarns

remain orthogonal with no edge effects or sliding and friction. On the other hand, the material

model is based on continuum assumptions that allow for non-orthogonal yarn configurations and

considers no sliding between the yarns. Henceforth, the actual fabric sample can be descritized

to consider the stress concentration from edge corners. This continuum assumption seems to be

valid for the coated fabric system where the coating reduces slip thus ensuring a more continuum

like structure. Additionally, as mentioned previously the yarn failure strain criteria is based on

the ex-situ response. Certainly the confining pressure of neighboring yarns and filament friction

are aspects not considered within the model that could potentially affect the failure criteria.

The bias extension is a test to examine the shear behavior of the fabric. Due to the high

deformational heterogeneity, it is not possible to model the test using the simple unit cell model.

Figure 5-21 shows the simulated and average experimental results of the force-elongation

relation for the bias sample. A good correlation is seen between simulation and experiments for

both coated and uncoated samples. At higher extensions, around 35 mm, the response of the

model for both coated and uncoated fabrics becomes slightly stiffer than the experiments. While

the global force-displacement seems reasonable, examining shear deformation in detail suggests

weaknesses in the model. Figure 5-22 shows the applied stress versus the measured shear strain

at the center of the specimen. At low shear strains there is reasonable agreement between the

simulation and experiments. Figure 5-23 gives a more detailed view of the low level stress-

strain. However, at larger center shear strains the simulations of the coated and uncoated

samples deviate from the experiment, even though the global stiffness of the simulation and

experiments were found to be similar. Table 5-4 and Table 5-5 show the deformed sample

against the simulation at various extensions for the coated and uncoated fabric, respectively.

From the tables it can be seen that the simulation accurately captures the distinct deformation

zones seen in the bias experiments.

94

Chapter 5 Validation

35.00

Exp - Coated

30.00 Exp - Uncoated

FE - Coated

FE - Uncoated

25.00

Force (kgf)

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00

Extension (mm)

Figure 5-21: Bias load-elongation for coated and uncoated fabric - simulation vs.

experiment

16.00

Exp-Uncoated

14.00 FE-Uncoated

Applied shear stress (N/mm)

Exp-Coated

12.00

FE-Coated

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

shear strain (degrees)

Figure 5-22: Applied shear stress vs. measured shear angle - simulation and experiments

95

Chapter 5 Validation

1.60

Exp-Uncoated

1.40 FE-Uncoated

Exp-Coated

Applied shear stress (N/mm)

1.20 FE-Coated

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0

shear strain (degrees)

Figure 5-23: Detailed low level applied shear stress vs. measured shear angle - simulation

and experiments

The agreement between the simulation and experiments at low shear levels shown in Figure

5-23 is encouraging since the shear model at those regions is calibrated using experimental data.

At large shear deformations as shown in Figure 5-22, the approximation of the locking stress

seems to have an effect on the shear deformation. The locking shear does not consider possible

yarn deformations that have been documented in the literature such as inter-filament friction,

yarn torque, rapping of the yarns at the crossover and changes in fiber volume fraction in the

yarn (Grosberg et al., 1968; McBride & Chen, 1997; Skelton, 1976). Therefore, it can be argued

that the shortcomings in the simulations do not lie in the shear model but in the calibration

techniques. A possible and more suitable technique for calibrating the shear behavior of the unit

cell that would include both low level shear and the full locking shear effect is by testing the

fabric using a picture frame set-up as discussed in Chapter 3.

96

Chapter 5 Validation

Table 5-4: Comparison of bias deformation of coated sample: experiment vs. simulation

0 mm

10 mm

20 mm

30 mm

97

Chapter 5 Validation

Table 5-5: Comparison of bias deformation of uncoated sample: experiment vs. simulation

0 mm

10 mm

20 mm

30 mm

98

Chapter 5 Validation

5.4 Summary

Considering the lack of experimental data for the mechanical behavior of 350 dtex airbag fabric,

a series of three experiments were conducted to validate the model: uniaxial extension, biaxial

extension and bias extension. Of the three experiments, the biaxial extension most closely

resembles the condition seen in the inflated airbag. Overall, the deformational behavior of the

simulated fabric closely resembles that measured in the experiments. Additionally, the single

unit cell model incorporated in MATLAB can be particularly useful to quickly evaluate different

plain weave fabric parameters for their mechanical properties under simple deformations.

99

Chapter 6- Conclusion and recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

The importance of accurately simulating the mechanical behavior of airbag fabric in the

structural analysis of the airbag and the shortcomings of the current methods has been

established in the previous literature. The proposed approach can closely predict the

macroscopic nonlinear mechanical behavior of airbag fabric using the constituent properties

under a variety of deformations. Additionally, not only does the approach successfully simulate

the macroscopic behavior of the fabric, it can also approximate deformations of the constituents

at the structural level such as crimp interchange and yarn strain all at vary small computational

cost. This is a significant improvement on the current constitutive definitions for airbag fabric.

The basis of the constituent based approach is the unit cell model the simplified approximation

of the plain weave fabric structure. The structural mechanisms that contribute to the

macroscopic load-elongation behavior that arises from deformation of the constituents are

carefully defined. The characterization of the constituent properties for the model is fairly

simple: geometric spacing and crimp; yarn load-elongation behavior; and in-plane shear

behavior of the fabric.

After implementation into the explicit finite element code, LS-DYNA, the unit cell model was

used to simulate three quasi-static tests. The first of the simulated test was a uniaxial extension

of a fabric sample a simple and popular test to quickly evaluate a fabric performance. Good

correlation of deformational behavior and failure was seen between the model and experiments.

To truly understand the models use in the airbag application, a biaxial extension test of the fabric

was conducted using a customized cruciform test set-up. Again, there was good agreement

between the simulated and recorded stress-strain behavior of the fabric. Finally, a bias extension

test, where a sample is loaded with the yarns oriented at 45 degrees from the loaded direction

100

Chapter 6- Conclusion and recommendations

was performed to evaluate the models ability to represent the shear behavior of the fabric. At

low levels of shear deformation, the model results closely resemble the experiments. However,

at higher shear strains while the global load-elongation of the model is consistent with

experiments, the measured shear at the center of the sample deviates from what is calculated in

the simulation.

There are many parameters that can potentially affect the airbags performance which have not

been explored in the literature. Certain yarn structural mechanisms such as yarn bending are of

importance in quasi-static simulations but could be less influential on the airbag dynamics during

the rapid dynamic simulation. Outside of structural mechanisms, assumptions neglecting the

out-of-plane effects of the fabric should also be evaluated, particularly regarding any impact of

simulated unfolding of the airbag.

The environments that the airbag fabric experience can vary greatly during its lifetime which can

possibly affect its overall performance. Before deployment, the fabric and its constituents can

undergo the degradation effects from the environment such as temperature and humidity

changes. During deployment, the fabric undergoes high strain rates and can experience

temperatures up to 600 C, all of which are certainly different than the conditions measured in

the experiments. All these scenarios are not currently implemented in the current model. If

further experimentation shows sensitivity to these effects, additional unit cell mechanisms can be

added to the model to enhance its capabilities.

The other potential improvement of the proposed model is that it is purely elastic. Due to the

discrete and free movement nature of the constituents, fabrics exhibit hysteresis. Of course this

hysteresis acts as an energy dissipation agent. In the occupant crash simulations, documenting

the total energy dissipation between the impact of the occupant and bag are essential in

evaluating the likelihood of injury. The exact or estimated percentage of the fabric hysteresis

contribution to the total energy dissipation of the system is not documented in this study. Further

experiments and simulations should be conducted regarding this subject. Outside of energy

101

Chapter 6- Conclusion and recommendations

dissipation, quantifying yarn sliding seems to be important in predicting fabric failure under

complex modes of deformation.

6.3 Summary

Overall, considering the current methods used by airbag designers, the current approach can be a

powerful tool to better understand how the nonlinear behavior of the fabric can affect designs

and passenger safety. Not only is the nonlinear behavior of the fabric accurately represented, but

details into crimp interchange and yarn strain are implicitly computed providing a wealth of

information at low computational costs. While the studied application was intended for

automotive airbags, the developed approach and methodology can be applied to a variety of

textile structures such as architectural fabric roofs, ballistic armor, inflatable structures,

parachutes and the like.

102

References

References

Alley, V. L., & Faison, R. W. (1972). Decelerator fabric constants required by the generalized

form of Hookes Law. Journal of Aircraft, 9(3), 211-216.

ASTM D3883-04. (2008). Standard test method for yarn crimp and yarn take-up in woven

fabrics. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

Bassett, R. J., Postle, R., & Pan, N. (1999). Experimental methods for measuring fabric

mechanical properties: A review and analysis. Textile Research Journal, 69(11), 866-875.

Bathe, K. (1982). Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice-Hall.

Bedewi, N. E., Marzougui, D., & Motevalli, V. (1996). Evaluation of parameters affecting

simulation of airbag deployment and interaction with occupants. International Journal of

Crashworthiness, 1(4), 339.

Behera, B. K., & Goyal, Y. (2009). Artificial neural network system for the design of airbag

fabrics. Journal of Industrial Textiles, 39(1), 45-55.

Brueggert, M., & Tanov, R. R. (2002). An LS-DYNA user defined material model for loosely

woven fabric with non-orthogonal varying weft and warp angle. Proceedings of the 7th

International LS-DYNA Users Conference, 8-01-8-13.

Crouch, E. T. (1993). Evolution of airbag components and materials. Worldwide Passenger Car

Conference and Exposition, Dearborn, Michigan.

Crouch, E. T. (1994). Evolution of coated fabrics for automotive airbags. Journal of Industrial

Textiles, 23(3), 202-220.

Drnhoff, H., Baldauf, H., Beesten, B., Hirth, A., Luijkx, R., & Remensperger, R. (2008).

Relevance of fabric modeling for simulation of airbag deployment. Airbag 2008, Karlsruhe,

Germany.

Duan, Y., Keefe, M., Bogetti, T. A., & Cheeseman, B. A. (2005). Modeling friction effects on

the ballistic impact behavior of a single-ply high-strength fabric. International Journal of

Impact Engineering, 31(8), 996-1012.

Fallon, I., & ONeill, D. (2005). The world's first automobile fatality. Accident Analysis &

Prevention, 37(4), 601-603.

construction and coating penetration effects. (Master of Science, University of

Massachusetts - Lowell).

103

References

Farboodmanesh, S., Chen, J., Mead, J. L., White, K. D., Yesilalan, H. E., Laoulache, R., et al.

(2005). Effect of coating thickness and penetration on shear behavior of coated fabrics.

Journal of Elastomers and Plastics, 37(3), 197-227.

Freeston, W. D., Platt, M. M., & Schoppee, M. M. (1967). Mechanics of elastic performance of

textile materials. Textile Research Journal, 37(11), 948-975.

Textile Research Journal, 45(12), 835-852.

Gon, D. (2010). Air bags for automobiles - A textile challange. Textile Asia, (April), 25-29.

Grosberg, P. (1966). The mechanical properties of woven fabrics part II: The bending of woven

fabrics. Textile Research Journal, 36, 205-211.

Grosberg, P., Leaf, G. A. V., & Park, B. J. (1968). The mechanical properties of woven fabrics:

Part VI: The elastic shear modulus of plain-weave fabrics. Textile Research Journal, 38(11),

1085-1100.

Grosberg, P., & Park, B. J. (1966). The mechanical properties of woven fabrics: Part V: The

initial modulus and the frictional restraint in shearing of plain weave fabrics. Textile

Research Journal, 36(5), 420-431.

Haas, R. D., A. (1918). The stretching of the fabric and the deformation of the envelope in

nonrigid balloons No. 16)NACA - National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.

Hallquist, J. O. (2006). LS-DYNA keyword user's manual : Version 971. Livermore, Calif.:

Livermore Software Technology Corp.

Laboratories.

Harrison, P., Clifford, M. J., & Long, A. C. (2004). Shear characterisation of viscous woven

textile composites: A comparison between picture frame and bias extension experiments.

Composites Science and Technology, 64(10-11), 1453-1465.

Hearle, J. W. S. (1969). In Backer S. (Ed.), Structural mechanics of fibers, yarns, and fabrics.

New York: New York : Wiley-Interscience.

(Eds.), Textile structural composites (pp. 27-64). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.

Hirth, A., Haufe, A., & Olovsson, L. (2007). Airbag simulation with LS-DYNA: Past, present

and future. LS-DYNA Anwenderforum, Frankenthal.

Chichester; New York: Wiley.

104

References

Hong, S. (2003). A study on the modeling technique of airbag cushion fabric. New York, NY,

ETATS-UNIS: Society of Automotive Engineers.

Ivanov, I., & Tabiei, A. (2004). Loosely woven fabric model with viscoelastic crimped fibres for

ballistic impact simulations. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering,

61(10), 1565-1583.

Kawabata, S. (1989). Nonlinear mechanics of woven and knitted materials. In T. W. Chou, & F.

K. Ko (Eds.), Textile structural composites (pp. 67-116). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science

Publishers.

Kawabata, S., Niwa, M., & Kawai, H. (1973a). The finite-deformation theory of plain-weave

fabrics. part I: The biaxial-deformation theory. Journal of the Textile Institute, 64(1), 21.

Kawabata, S., Niwa, M., & Kawai, H. (1973b). The finite-deformation theory of plain-weave

fabrics. part II: The uniaxial-deformation theory. Journal of the Textile Institute, 64(2), 47.

Kawabata, S., Niwa, M., & Kawai, H. (1973c). The finite-deformation theory of plain-weave

fabrics. part III: The shear-deformation theory. Journal of the Textile Institute, 64(2), 62.

threads. Journal of the Textile Institute Transactions, 49(1), 44.

Keshavaraj, R., Tock, R. W., & Haycook, D. (1996). Airbag fabric material modeling of nylon

and polyester fabrics using a very simple neural network architecture. Journal of Applied

Polymer Science, 60(13), 2329-2338.

Keshavaraj, R., Tock, R. W., & Nusholtz, G. S. (1995). Comparison of contributions to energy

dissipation produced with safety airbags. New York, NY, ETATS-UNIS: Society of

Automotive Engineers.

Keshavaraj, R., Tock, R. W., & Nusholtz, G. S. (1996). A realistic comparison of biaxial

performance of nylon 6,6 and nylon 6 fabrics used in passive restraints - airbags. Journal of

Applied Polymer Science, 61(9), 1541-1552.

Khalil, T., & Du Bois, P. (2004). Finite element analytical techniques and applications to

structural design. In P. Prasad, & J. Belwafa (Eds.), VEHICLE CRASHWORTHINESS AND

OCCUPANT PROTECTION (pp. 111-158). Southfield, Michigan: American Iron and Steel

Institute.

Khan, M. U., & Moatamedi, M. (2008). A review of airbag test and analysis. International

Journal of Crashworthiness, 13(1), 67.

Kilby, W. F. (1963). 2Planar stress-strain relationships in woven fabric. Journal of the Textile

Institute Transactions, 54(1), 9.

105

References

King, M. J., Jearanaisilawong, P., & Socrate, S. (2005). A continuum constitutive model for the

mechanical behavior of woven fabrics. International Journal of Solids and Structures,

42(13), 3867-3896.

Drexel University: External Report for TRW (Unpublished)

Lomov, S. V., Gusakov, A. V., Huysmans, G., Prodromou, A., & Verpoest, I. (2000). Textile

geometry preprocessor for meso-mechanical models of woven composites. Composites

Science and Technology, 60(11), 2083-2095.

Lomov, S. V., Huysmans, G., Luo, Y., Parnas, R. S., Prodromou, A., Verpoest, I., et al. (2001).

Textile composites: Modelling strategies. Composites Part A: Applied Science and

Manufacturing, 32(10), 1379-1394.

model. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 19(16), 1329-1350.

McBride, T. M., & Chen, J. (1997). Unit-cell geometry in plain-weave fabrics during shear

deformations. Composites Science and Technology, 57(3), 345-351.

Textile advances in the automotive industry CRC Press.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2009). Special crash investigations - counts of

frontal air bag related fatalities and seriously injured persons No. DOT HS 811 104).

Washington, DC: United State Department of Transportation.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2010). Fatality analysis reporting system

encyclopedia. Retrieved 10/10, 2010, from http://www

fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeopleAllVictims.aspx

Page, J., & Wang, J. (2000). Prediction of shear force and an analysis of yarn slippage for a

plain-weave carbon fabric in a bias extension state. Composites Science and Technology,

60(7), 977-986.

Pan, N. (1996). Analysis of woven fabric strengths: Prediction of fabric strength under uniaxial

and biaxial extensions. Composites Science and Technology, 56(3), 311-327.

Peirce, F. T. (1937). The geometry of cloth structures. Journal of the Textile Institute

Transactions, 28(3), 45.

Peng, X. Q., & Cao, J. (2005). A continuum mechanics-based non-orthogonal constitutive model

for woven composite fabrics. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing,

36(6), 859-874.

Platt, M. M., Klein, W. G., & Hamburger, W. J. (1959). Mechanics of elastic performance of

textile materials. Textile Research Journal, 29(8), 611-627.

106

References

Press, W. H. (1992). Numerical recipes in C : The art of scientific computing. Cambridge; New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Health.

Rohr, I., Harwick, W., & Nahme, H. (2004). Ermittlung des festigkeits- und

schdigungsverhaltens von airbaggewebe bei verschiedenen belastungszustnden und

dehnraten. Materialwissenschaft Und Werkstofftechnik, 35(9), 574-577.

Rohr, I., Harwick, W., & Nahme, H. (2005). Der biaxiale kreuzzugversuch zur ermittlung von

werkstoffkennwerten von airbaggeweben am beispiel von polyamid 6.6.

Materialwissenschaft Und Werkstofftechnik, 36(5), 195-197.

Schwark, J., & Muller, J. (1996). High performance silicone-coated textiles: Developments and

applications. Journal of Industrial Textiles, 26(1), 65-77.

computational solid mechanics, #293. Proceedings- The International Society for Optical

Engineering, 1(4753), 670.

Shahkarami, A. (2006). An efficient unit cell based numerical model for continuum

representation of fabric systems. Unpublished PhD, The University of British Columbia,

Shahkarami, A., & Vaziri, R. (2006). An efficient shell element based approach to modelling the

impact response of fabrics. 9th Int. LS-DYNA Users Conference, Dearborn, Michigan. 12.

Shahkarami, A., & Vaziri, R. (2007). A continuum shell finite element model for impact

simulation of woven fabrics. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 34(1), 104-119.

Shahpurwala, A. A., & Schwartz, P. (1989). Modeling woven fabric tensile strength using

statistical bundle theory. Textile Research Journal, 59(1), 26-32.

Shanahan, W. J., & Hearle, J. W. S. (1978). An energy method for calculations in fabric

mechanics part II: Examples of application of the method to woven fabrics. Journal of the

Textile Institute, 69(4), 92.

Shockey, D. A., Erlich, D. C., & Simons, J. W. (2000). Improved barriers to turbine engine

fragments No. U.S. Department of Transportation). Menlo Park, California: SRI

International.

Skelton, J. (1976). Fundamentals of fabric shear. Textile Research Journal, 46, 862-869.

Spivak, S. M., & Treloar, L. R. G. (1968). The behavior of fabrics in shear: Part III: The relation

between bias extension and simple shear. Textile Research Journal, 38(9), 963-971.

Stubbs, N., & Thomas, S. (1984). A nonlinear elastic constitutive model for coated fabrics.

Mechanics of Materials, 3(2), 157-168.

107

References

Sun, H., & Pan, N. (2005). Shear deformation analysis for woven fabrics. Composite Structures,

67(3), 317-322.

Tanov, R. R., & Brueggert, M. (2003). Finite element modeling of non-orthogonal loosely

woven fabrics in advanced occupant restraint systems. Finite Elements in Analysis and

Design, 39(5-6), 357-367.

Wartman, J., Harmanos, D., & Ibanez, P. (2005). Development of a versatile device for

measuring the tensile properties of geosynthetics. , 161(40782) 28.

Wawa, C. J., Chandra, J. S., & Verma, M. K. (1993). Implementation and validation of a finite

element approach to simulate occupant crashes with airbags: Part I - airbag model. ASME

Applied Mechanics Division -Publications- AMD, 169, 269.

108

Appendix A UMAT *MAT card documentation

*MAT_USER_DEFINED_MATERIAL_MODELS

User defined material 48. This model is the Continuum Plain Weave Fabric Model for shell elements with one

through-thickness integration point (membrane) developed at The University of British Columbia. This model

employs a mechanistic unit cell approach and non-orthogonal formulation capable of representing the constitutive

behavior of plain weave fabrics. The unit cell formulation is based on simple yarn constituent properties and can

employ both linear and nonlinear yarn extensional behavior. Additional structural mechanisms include transverse

yarn compression, yarn bending rigidity and coating extension. A four region shear stress-shear input parameter is

capable of fitting the shear behavior of both uncoated and coated fabrics. The unit geometry can be approximated

by simple linear or sinusoidal approximation of the yarn crimp. The routine includes an instantaneous ultimate

strain based yarn failure criterion which removes failed yarns from the unit cell and invokes element erosion when

both warp and fill yarns have surpassed their capacity. The current implementation is a scalar routine.

Card 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Type I F I I I I I I

Card 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Type I I I I I

Default 0* 1 0 0 0

*Note: These values are not necessarily defaults. These variables must set as indicated to ensure proper operation

of this user material model.

Card 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Type F F F F F I F I

109

Appendix A UMAT *MAT card documentation

Card 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Type F F F F F F F I

Card 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Type F F F F F F F I

Card 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Type F F F F F F F F

Card 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Type F F F F F F

VARIABLE DESCRIPTION

MID Material Identification. A unique number must be chosen.

RO Mass density.

MT User material type. To specify the fabric model, 48 must be specified.

LMC Length of the material constant array. For the fabric model, 38 must be specified.

NHV Number of history variables. For the fabric model, 40 must be specified.

110

Appendix A UMAT *MAT card documentation

VARIABLE DESCRIPTION

IORTHO Set to 0 for the fabric model

IBULK Address of the bulk modulus in the material constants array. Set to 1.

IG Address of the shear modulus in the material constants array. Set to 2.

IVECT Vectorization flag. For the fabric code, set to 0.

IFAIL To allow element erosion, set IFAIL=1.

ITHERM For the fabric code, set to 0.

IHYPER For the fabric code, set to 0.

IEOS For the fabric code, set to 0.

K Bulk Modulus. See Remark 1.

G Shear Modulus. See Remark 2.

SHTH Shell Thickness.

thw0 Initial Warp Angle.

thf0 Initial Fill Angle.

niter Maximum number iterations for the unit cell calculation.

TOL Tolerance of the unit cell solution. See Remark3.

geoflag Unit cell geometry flag:

EQ 0.0: Linear

EQ 1.0: Sinusoidal

H01 Initial amplitude of the sine function representing the warp yarn. Set to 0.0 for linear as the

code internally determines the initial yarn height.

n1 Warp yarns per inch.

cr1 Warp yarn crimp.

ey1u Ultimate strain of warp yarn.

EIy1 Warp yarn bending rigidity. See Remark 4.

den1 Warp yarn linear density in denier.

yro1 Warp yarn material density.

lcd1 Load curve ID to specify warp yarn stress-strain curve.

H02 Initial amplitude of the sine function representing the fill yarn. Set to 0.0 for linear as the

code internally determines the initial yarn height.

n2 Fill yarns per inch.

cr2 Fill yarn crimp.

ey2u Ultimate strain of fill yarn.

EIy2 Fill yarn bending rigidity. See Remark 4.

den2 Fill yarn linear density in denier.

yro2 Fill yarn material density.

lcd2 Load curve ID to specify fill yarn stress-strain curve.

gm1 Shear strain designating a transition zone. See Remark 5.

G1 Initial Shear modulus.

gm2 Shear strain designating a transition zone. See note 5.

G2 Intermediate Shear modulus

gm3 Shear strain designating a transition zone. See Remark 5.

G3 Maximum Shear modulus.

gm4 Shear strain designating a transition zone. See Remark 5.

ETOL Value of erosion shear for highly deformed elements to maintain stability. Recommended

value of 2.00.

stnfr Factor in calculating minimum contact force. Typically set to 1.1.

fda Maximum transverse compression parameter (mm).

fdb Intra-ply contact stiffness ((N-mm)(1/3) ).

Ec Modulus of elasticity of coating

111

Appendix A UMAT *MAT card documentation

VARIABLE DESCRIPTION

Nu_c Poissons ratio of coating

tc Coating thickness

Remarks:

1. The suggested units for analysis are g , mm, ms, N, MPa. Internally, the conversion of the yarns per inch

will formulate the unit cell geometry in mm.

2. Bulk Modulus is used to determine stable time step and is required for determining transmitting boundaries,

contact interfaces, rigid body constraints. Within mechanistic unit cell empowered model, the following

equations can be used to calculate the correct bulk modulus that accounts for the crimp of the yarn.

2c*

K=

3(1 2 )

where is density of the fiber, is the Poissons ratio of the yarn material and

c

c* =

1 + cr

where c is the speed of sound in the fiber material and cr is the crimp of the yarn.

With respect to best practices, for unbalanced fabrics, the yarn crimp that results in the larger values of K

governs.

3. Shear Modulus is used to determine stable time step and is required for determining transmitting

boundaries, contact interfaces, rigid body constraints. Within mechanistic unit cell empowered model, the

following expression can be used to calculate the correct shear modulus that accounts for the crimp of the

yarn:

2c*

G=

2(1 + )

where . and c* are defined in remark 1.

4. Tolerance of the unit cell Newton-Raphson scheme to reach a solution. A smaller tolerance has a trade off

of longer computational time.

112

Appendix A UMAT *MAT card documentation

5. The theoretical bending rigidity of low-twist, non-blended yarns is bounded by two values. The lower

bound assumes each individual fiber has complete freedom of motion frictionless matter and is defined as:

EI yarn = nEI fiber

where n is the number of fiber within the yarn and EIfiber is the bending rigidity of a single fiber.

The upper bound assumes the fibers have no freedom to move and act like a complete cluster bonded by

friction. Therefore the yarn bending rigidity can computed using the number of fibers in the yarn divided

by the yarn packing factor times the rigidity of the lower bound. This yields the expression:

where Nfiber is the number of fibers in the yarn and Iyarn is the second moment of inertia using the cross-

sectional geometry of the yarn.

For greater discussion on the theoretical bending rigidity of yarn, determination of values within the

bounds, determination of bending rigidity of blended yarns and determination of bending rigidity of highly

twisted yarns the paper by Platt, Klein and Hamburgaer (1959) is highly suggested.

6. Due to the difficulties of evaluating fabric shear using the fabrics constituents, empirical data from the

fabric is warranted to empower the shear behavior of the proposed unit cell method. This empirical data

can be obtained either through picture frame test where the fabric under goes pure shear; rail shear test

using the Kawabata Evaluation System (KES) for fabrics; or could potentially be numerically calibrated

through a full 3D finite element model of the fabric and its constituents. Each method has advantages and

disadvantages. Picture frame requires special fixture and the design of the fixture must be carefully done to

ensure reproducible results. Kawabata Evaluation System requires specialized equipment and some

additional calculation to remove the effects of tension and to obtain pure shear behavior. The use of 3D

finite element models can be used to evaluate the pure shear behavior of virtually design fabrics but

capturing the correct boundary conditions can be challenging.

Regardless the approach to obtain the shear data, the following method can be used to represent the shear

behavior of the unit cell. A spline fit of the shear modulus as a function of shear strain illustrated in Figure

2A can be used to describe the shear stress-strain behavior based of typical behavior seen in Figure 1A.

Single-Coated Fabric

Uncoated Fabric

Shear Stress

Locking Transition

Zone

12 3 4

Shear Strain

Figure A1: Shear model behavior regions in the shear stress-strain curve

113

Appendix A UMAT *MAT card documentation

G3

Shear Modulus

G1coated

G2

G1 uncoated

1 2 3 4

Shear Strain

Figure A2: Secant shear modulus as a function of strain

For coated fabrics, the fabric-coating shear interaction modulus, G1 needs to be defined as well as the

extent of the transition zone which is bound by 1 and 2. For uncoated fabrics, these values can be set

equal to zero. The pre-locking shear stiffness of the fabric, G2 is the same for both uncoated and coated

fabrics of the same construction. As the fabric continues to deform in shear, the amount of rotation at the

crossovers reach a geometric limit and begin to lock. This is a gradual process controlled my friction, the

current packing state of the fibers within the yarn and geometric features of the fabric. Within the spline

model, this process is bound by 3 and 4 which are the same for both the coated and uncoated fabric.

Likewise the locking shear modulus, G3, is the same for uncoated and coated fabrics.

History Variables:

The fabric continuum model will return many more variables than normal material models. These

variables include the stretch of each yarn vector, yarn strain, unit cell geometric parameters, yarn failure

flags, number of iterations, solution error etc. To access these history variables, be sure to set the NEIPS

(shells) variables in the *DATABASE_EXTENT_ BINARY card to 40. The following table shows the

history variables available and their location in the history variable list:

History Model

Variable Variable Description

1 strchw Stretch of warp yarn vector

2 strchf Stretch of fill yarn vector

3 thw Angle of the warp yarn vector

4 thf Angle of the fill yarn vector

5 fail1 Warp yarn failure flag (0=no fail, 1=failed)

6 fail2 Fill yarn failure flag (0=no fail, 1=failed)

7 ey1 Warp yarn strain

8 ey2 Fill yarn strain

114

Appendix A UMAT *MAT card documentation

History Model

Variable Variable Description

10 sigf Un-rotated fabric stress - fill

11 gmw Shear strain - warp

12 gmf Shear strain - fill

13 R Newton-Raphson scheme residual error

14 iter Number of iterations of the unit cell N-R scheme

15 iterMXd Counter for number of times the maximum of

iterations was exceeded throughout the analysis

16 Ten1 Warp tensile force

17 Ten2 Fill tensile force

18 Fc1 Contact force from warp yarn

19 Fc2 Contact force from fill yarn

20 Fb1 Bending force from warp yarn

21 Fb2 Bending force from fill yarn

22 H1 Height of warp yarn in the unit cell

23 H2 Height of fill yarn in the unit cell

24 d1 Warp yarn displacement

25 d2 Fill yarn displacement

26 dcomp Total transverse compression within the unit cell

27-30 blank -

31 g11 Component of the displacement tensor

32 g12 Component of the displacement tensor

33 g21 Component of the displacement tensor

34 g22 Component of the displacement tensor

35 sy1 Warp yarn stress (from load curve)

36 sy2 Fill yarn stress (from load curve)

37 sig(1) Calculated stress in 1 dir of the element reported back

to DYNA

38 sig(2) Calculated stress in 2 dir of the element reported back

to DYNA

39 sig(4) Calculated stress in 4 dir of the element reported back

to DYNA

40 blank -

115

Appendix A UMAT *MAT card documentation

References:

Shahkarami, A., & Vaziri, R. (2007). A continuum shell finite element model for impact simulation of

woven fabrics. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 34(1), 104-119.

Shahkarami, A. (2006). An efficient unit cell based numerical model for continuum representation of fabric

systems. PhD thesis, The University of British Columbia

Kawabata, S., Niwa, M., & Kawai, H. (1973). The Finite-deformation Theory of Plain-Weave Fabrics Part

I: The Biaxial Deformation Theory. Journal of the Textile Institute, 64(1), 21.

Kawabata, S., Niwa, M., & Kawai, H. (1973). The Finite-deformation Theory of Plain-Weave Fabrics Part

II: The Uniaxial Deformation Theory. Journal of the Textile Institute, 64(2), 47.

Platt, M. M., Klein, W. G., & Hamburger, W. J. (1959). Mechanics of elastic performance of textile

materials. Textile Research Journal, 29(8), 611-627.

116

Appendix B UMAT pseudo code

t

1. Read the current strain increments,

x t = x t 1 + t

3. Calculate deformation gradient using

F t = xt + I

4. Calculate the Cauchy-Green deformation tensor using

C = FT F

4. Read yarn angle orientations from input deck, Calculate yarn vectors using

q0i = [cos i0 sin i0 ]

T

ti = q0Ti Cq02

q01T Cq02

cos =

12

1t = 10 and 2t = 20

qi = [cos( it ) sin ( it )]

T

d it = y0 i (ti 1)

11. Read yarn failure flag from history variables. If either of the warp or fill yarns have failed

go to 33

12. Set up Newton-Raphson scheme. Set initial values of Hi equal to H0i if t=0 else the initial

value Hi is equal to Hi t-1

117

Appendix B UMAT pseudo code

yi = y0i + di

Fy ,i = E ( ) Ai

(L

i L0 i )

L0 i

Hi

Fc ,i = 2 Fy ,i

Li

8(EI ) yarn i H 0i H i

Fb ,i =

Li

2

yi L0 i

f1 (H 1 , H 2 ) = (H 01 + H 02 ) (H 1 + H 2 )

f 2 (H 1 , H 2 ) = ( Fc1 Fv1 ) ( Fc 2 Fb 2 )

H 1new H 1guess f1

=

new guess [ J ]f

H 2 H 2 2

28. Go to 13

yi

F f ,i = Fy ,i

Li

118

Appendix B UMAT pseudo code

Ec y2tc y1 y01 y2 y02 Ec y1tc y2 y02 y1 y01

Fct ,1 = and F =

1 c2 y01 y02 1 c2 y02 y01

c ct , 2 c

N i = (Ff ,i + Fct ,i )ni

ult

,i

then Ni = 0 , S12 = 0 and yarn is flagged in history variable -- go to 36

34. If both yarns have failed then erode element from the mesh

G1 0 < 1

1 G G1

G1 + 2 ( 1 )

2

1 < 2

2 2 1

1

G2 + (G2 G1 )( 2 1 ) 2 < 3

S12 = 2

1 G G2 1

G2 + 3

2 4 3

( )

( 3 )2 + (G2 G1 )( 2 1 ) 3 < 4

2

1 1

G3 + (G3 G2 )( 4 3 ) + (G2 G1 )( 2 1 ) 4

2 2

36. Transform yarn stress tensor into the element coordinate system using

N1 N S

x = cos 2 1 + 2 cos 2 2 + 12 2 cos1 cos 2

h h h

N N S

y = 1 sin 2 1 + 2 sin 2 2 + 12 2 sin 1 sin 2

h h h

N N S

xy = 1 cos1 sin 1 + 2 cos 2 sin 2 + 12 (cos1 sin 2 + cos 2 sin 1 )

h h h

119

Appendix C Justification of the selection of a linear unit cell over sinusoidal geometry

unit cell over sinusoidal geometry

Early in the course of the research, the linear unit cell was compared to a more complex

sinusoidal geometry by (A. Shahkarami, 2006) that more closely resembles the geometry of the

unit cell. The linear unit cell assumption results in a misrepresentation of the yarn height at the

crossover. It should be noted that the initial lengths of unit cell yarns in both geometries are

equal to the actual yarn length and the yarn spacing is also true to the fabric structure (based on

the measured yarns/in and % crimp ). Referencing Figure 1C, the percent difference between

the approximation of the yarn height for the linear and sinusoidal unit cell during biaxial

deformation is about 9%. Referencing Figure 2C and Figure 3C, the trigonometric functions

that resolve the yarn forces into horizontal and fabric components have a smaller percent

difference. Finally, the fabric end stress computed by the linear and sinusoidal unit cell is shown

in Figure 3D. The difference between the computed stress of the two geometries is between

1.5% and 2.0% under biaxial deformation.

0.090 100.00

0.080 90.00

80.00

0.070

70.00

0.060

warp yarn height (mm)

warp yarn height - tri 60.00

0.050 % difference difference (%)

50.00

0.040

40.00

0.030

30.00

0.020

20.00

0.010 10.00

0.000 0.00

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20

strain

Figure C1: Approximation of yarn height by linear and sinusoidal unit cell

120

Appendix C Justification of the selection of a linear unit cell over sinusoidal geometry

0.295 100.00

sin(theta) - sin

sin(theta) - tri

0.290 90.00

% difference

0.285 80.00

0.280 70.00

0.275 60.00

difference (%)

sin(theta)

0.270 50.00

0.265 40.00

0.260 30.00

0.255 20.00

0.250 10.00

0.245 0.00

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20

strain

Figure C2: Approximation of sin theta by linear and sinusoidal unit cell

0.970 100

cos(theta) - sin

cos(theta) - tri 90

0.968 % difference

80

0.966

70

0.964

60

difference (%)

cos(theta)

0.962 50

40

0.960

30

0.958

20

0.956

10

0.954 0

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20

strain

Figure C3: Approximation of cos theta by linear and sinusoidal unit cell

121

Appendix C Justification of the selection of a linear unit cell over sinusoidal geometry

45.000 100.00

warp-stress - sin

warp-stress - tri 90.00

40.000

% difference

80.00

35.000

70.00

30.000

warp stress N/mm

60.00

difference (%)

25.000

50.00

20.000

40.00

15.000

30.00

10.000

20.00

5.000 10.00

0.000 0.00

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20

strain

Figure C4: Approximation of warp fabric membrane stress by linear and sinusoidal unit

cell

Overall for the fabric used in this study, no dramatic difference on the fabric stresses was found

between geometries was found. Therefore, the linear unit cell was chosen since it is less

computationally intensive and requires less preprocessing to determine the initial unit cell

geometry,

122

Appendix D Conversion of membrane stress into specific stress

specific stress

In this study in order to keep consistent with the thin membrane assumption, stresses are

normalized based on force per unit width. Another popular stress normalization unit within the

textile community is specific stress based on force per mass per unit length.

force/width in N/mm

Specific stress on fabric in N/tex =

fabric " weight" in g/m 2

A traditional engineering unit of stress (force per unit area) can then be determined from the

specific area provided the density of the fabric is known as shown below:

123

- Yarn Specs - USTERDiunggah olehZubairShafqat
- RadialReturn-BrannonDiunggah olehRaasheduddin Ahmed
- HW#3Diunggah olehfelipe G
- 10.2307@52200Diunggah olehluismiguel1092
- Lecture 8Diunggah olehAditya Koutharapu
- [2012] a New Bond-slip Model for Adhesive in CFRP-steel Composite System - Dehghani, Daneshjoo, Aghakouchak, KhajiDiunggah olehvlad lupasteanu
- Formulating Equation to Calculate ‘Fibre Percentages’ in Weft Knitted FabricDiunggah olehMohammed Atiqul Hoque Chowdhury
- Chap6 Mechanical PropertiesDiunggah olehKiran Babu Satuluri
- Notice: Textile and apparel categories: Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement; commercial availability— Woven fabricsDiunggah olehJustia.com
- Elasticity,Shrinkage and CreepDiunggah olehmohammedzeeshan
- 2D Cohesive Elements AbaqusDiunggah olehRian
- DiscussionDiunggah olehGowtham Ragunathan
- 10Diunggah olehhend mahmoud
- 1st SemesterDiunggah olehManak Soni
- Pol Izz OttoDiunggah olehIsmahene Smaheno
- 26Diunggah olehB S Praveen Bsp
- Battered Piles Rev2Diunggah olehYawgmoth
- Computational Modeling of Interfacial Behaviors in Nanocomposite MaterialsDiunggah olehSlava Slesarenko
- ex1[1]Diunggah olehAbhay Khedia
- Zarnani & Bathurst CGJ v46 2009Diunggah olehFilipeBaptista
- Diseño Pileres Roca DuraDiunggah oleheduardoarias1973
- Summary about SMAT articleDiunggah olehariana religioso
- TM490TRE.00-EnG Printing Machine Technology V4000Diunggah olehaxelbrooks
- art17Diunggah olehRonald Alejandro Muñoz Guerrero
- pescara.pdfDiunggah olehClinton Dame
- spin8.pdfDiunggah olehMadhavkumar
- A Spring Loaded Safety Valve Has to Blow Off at a Pressure of 1Diunggah olehrathish14u
- Literature Reviee CompositeDiunggah olehManda Ramesh Babu
- BD545_39.pdfDiunggah olehabozaid19
- SsmDiunggah olehSurya Dewantara

- Class 3 - Fracture Mechanics LEFM 1_2Diunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- OMAE2017-61046Diunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- 1 Vectors and TensorsDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- ACEPS-2015 Simulation of Low Cycle FatigueDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- 6 Balance LawsDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- Cel AbaqusDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- 9 Fluid MechanicsDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- 4 Infinitesimal StrainsDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- CP JointProject1314Diunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- Chapter 1Diunggah olehSisay_Firdawek_2529
- 7 Linear ElasticityDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- 3 StrainsDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- CP WindLoadProject1314Diunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- Abaqus Examples BookDiunggah olehCostynha
- 11 Newtonian FluidsDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- ABAQUS-umatDiunggah olehManickavasagam Arun Kumar
- Contents NewDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- Lecture 1Diunggah olehphuong2311
- 06_sample_A36_steel_cert.pdfDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- Liu 2014 Ocean-EngineeringDiunggah olehJhy Mha
- 2 MotionDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- 06 Developing Stress-Strain Curves for Material ModelsDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- Fortran 90 CommandsDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- Nonlinear Analysis of Structures.pdfDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- 03 Structural Dynamics Part2Diunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- Fem Model for Concrete PipeDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- Cel Xfem FormulationDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi
- ch06Diunggah olehPrakash Kancharla
- 06 Sample A36 Steel CertDiunggah olehRabindraSubedi

- AIEEE Class XI Phy Laws of MotionDiunggah olehsatish jadhav
- orbital mechanics projectDiunggah olehapi-107279294
- fsaasDiunggah olehAnonymous 2CMPbqwB
- igcse physics classified.pdfDiunggah olehAhmad Ahmad
- Crack Growth in P91Diunggah olehmahmoud_allam3
- Calculation of properties of two-center systemsDiunggah olehFelipe Ventura
- Strain Energy Density FunctionDiunggah olehjavier_maldonado_12
- Kinetics of ParticlesDiunggah olehBeverly Paman
- Hanieh 03Diunggah olehRadha Krishnan
- Development of Co-current Air–Water Flow in a Vertical PipeDiunggah olehShoby
- ES 1-BDiunggah olehRaffy Manzano Beoncio
- Influence of diffuser angleDiunggah olehLuqman Mohdari
- Global Synthetics Secant Stiffness of SecugridDiunggah olehJluis Ipn
- Physics HSCDiunggah olehmothermonk
- Pressure Drop CalculationDiunggah olehDavid Lambert
- Ex_1dof Sp08 Derive EomDiunggah olehconcord1103
- Bma4723 Vehicle Dynamics Chap 4Diunggah olehFu Hong
- 302 Settlement of Piled Foundations.pdfDiunggah olehchrtrom
- AWS90 Structural Nonlin Ch02 NonlinearDiunggah olehRebeca Garzon
- CBSE Class 12 Physics Assignment - Electrostat (1)Diunggah olehRahul Kumar
- CH09Diunggah olehapi-3843750
- JyotChoksi PortfolioDiunggah olehJyot Choksi
- 01 Lecture Notes -Week 3- A Slide Per Page -GrayDiunggah olehRuss Pope
- Catalogue of Bethlehem Structural Shapes 1911Diunggah olehAlberto Chazarreta
- Direct Simulation Monte Carlo Simulations of Hypersonic Flows With Shock InteractionsDiunggah olehNam Le
- James Prescott JouleDiunggah olehAndruşa Ioana
- ACAM8-AnalysisofSoil-PipelineInteractionusingABAQUSExplicitDiunggah olehSafwat El Rouby
- physics pass paperDiunggah olehFloweRy Fa La
- Rotary EncodersDiunggah olehbtibi67
- R_71.1994.08.302_R0.pdfDiunggah olehSrihariKyatam