Video Youtube Interessant

Institut für Flugzeugbau
.uni-stuttgart.de
Analysis and process simulation of

www.
textile structures
Anthony Pickett and Karin Birkefeld

IFB, University Stuttgart

Universität Stuttgart
Contents
.uni-stuttgart.de
o Draping analysis and simulation:

• General introduction and methods for fabric testing
• Analysis methods for draping:
• Kinematic ‘geometric’ mapping methods
www.
• Finite Element methods:

• At the macro- scale
• At the meso- scale
o Braiding simulation
• General introduction and previous work
• Braiding simulation
• Some possibilities for structural analysis:
• At the micro- scale
o Summary
2
Preforming and fabric shaping

.uni-stuttgart.de
Preforming (draping) of the fabric leads to changes in yarn architecture which

influences:
• Permeability in resin infusion processes
• Final part stiffness, failure and other mechanical properties
www.
Initial Shaping and trimming Preparations for infusion Final infusion
Draping of ‘simple’ hemisphere Draping of floor pan structure (CEC TECABS project)
Drape and braid modelling: Possible FE solution methods

.uni-stuttgart.de
Implicit Explicit
P k f(t),x,x&, &x& (1) &x&n = m−1(fn − kxn )
k m
δ (2) x& n+1/2 = x& n−1/2 + ∆tn&x&n
{P} = [K ]{δ } m&x& + cx& + kx = f(t)
www.
Load Stiffness
m&x&n + kxn = fn (t) (3) xn+1 = xn + ∆tn+1/2x& n+1/2
Displacements
The Implicit method: The Explicit method:

Generally best for mildly non- Generally best for dynamic problems
linear and static problems
Highly non-linear materials and large deformations
Especially good for treatment of contact
For this work the Explicit method is used for draping and braiding simulation
Fabric draping analysis: Comparison of methods

.uni-stuttgart.de
Maping PAM-QUIKFORM
FE PAM-FORM
www.
Kinematic
methods FE methods
(macro-level)
FE methods
(meso-level)
• Effort/complexity
LOW (OLD • Input requirements
1950+) • Modelling effort
• CPU costs
• Accuracy
HIGH (NEW 2000+)
Mapping/Kinematic methods: Fabric deformations are
computed using the ‘pin joint model’
.uni-stuttgart.de
Main assumptions:
L1 • Fibres are inextensible.
A • ‘Trellis’ deformations only via shear (the
b L2 fibre crossovers act as pin joints).
i-1, j a
• Initial starting’ (seed) point (e.g. A) and
www.
a i, j-1 initial fibre direction (warp L1, weft L2)

b must be assumed to start the process.
i, j
surface F(x ij , y ij , z ij )
Uses simple mathematics: A

First the two geodesic lines L1 and L2 are
developed then new points xi,j are found from
previous known points xi-1, j and xi , j-1.
(x ij − x i −1, j ) 2 + (y ij − y i −1, j ) 2 + (z ij − z i −1, j ) 2 = a 2 L2 L1

(x ij − x i , j−1 ) 2 + (y ij − y i , j−1 ) 2 + (z ij − z i , j−1 ) 2 = b 2
Example application of the kinematic mapping method

.uni-stuttgart.de
Draping Strategy 1 Draping Strategy 2

www.
Seed point
Seed line
Catia V5 example study:

• Two variations of seed lines and their influence on the fabric shear
distributions
Some variations possible with the kinematic mapping method

.uni-stuttgart.de
The initial projection line:

Many forms of initial projection lines are possible that could help to fit to
the manufacturing process:
• A vector direction
• Normal to a plane
• User defined curve
www.
• Geodesic curves.....
Mapping sequence:
This is usually performed outwards from the seed point.

But some codes also allow a sequence to be specified that
can more closely match manufacturing.
Numerous sequences are possible
Possible variations for other fabric types:
• A stretch factor is possible (e.g. in PAM-QUIKFORM) for UD Non Crimp Fabrics
• Non-orthogonal initial fabric shear
• Non symmetric shear behaviour (e.g. For certain NCF’s)....
Beware: The method is based on a mathematical algorithm that does not represent
physical (mechanical) fabric properties or other process parameters.
Comparison of kinematic mapping Assumed seed
point and fabric
and Finite Elements
directions
.uni-stuttgart.de
0°
www.
28.3°
Mapping method fabric shear angle results
Mapping fabric shear plot
wrinkling
bridging
28°
14°
Finite Element section view FE simulation fabric shear angle results
Code developments: From Crash to First car crash
Metal and Fabric Forming simulation 1985
.uni-stuttgart.de
First (?) simple metal

stamping simulation
Brite-Euram Project, ca. 1988
"Investigation for an Innovative
Methodology for Sheet Metal
Stamping", 1989 - 1992.
www.
PAM-STAMP: Metal stamping

and sheet forming
Brite-Euram Project: "Industrial Fabric (Carpet)

Press Forming of Continuous stamping ca. 2000
Fibre Reinforced Thermoplastic
Sheets and the Development of
Numerical Simulation Methods",
1992-1996.
PAM-FORM: Fabric draping
Fabric deformation mechanisms to be treated in numerical models

.uni-stuttgart.de
Ply principle deformation modes
Inter-ply deformation mode

c) Fibre buckling
b) Inter-fibre sliding
www.
a) Inter-fibre shear
d) Fibre straightening (woven fabrics only)
There are two main shapes to consider
Fibre Interply
buckling slip Double curvature: Generally large
amounts of inter-ply shearing occur
Single curvature: Local fibre stretching/
compression-buckling and inter-ply slip
Shear data use either the bias extension or picture frame test
.uni-stuttgart.de
www.
The Picture Frame test: Requires

a special rig but creates a uniform
shear stress versus shear strain
distribution.
Bias extension test: Convenient and easy test,
but only a limited region has pure shear. Repeatability can be difficult:
• Edge effects
Tow slippage at edges can be a problem. • Fibre alignment
Typical Force-Shear angle results for a woven fabric

.uni-stuttgart.de
30
25
www.
20
Fabric
Force (N)
15
wrinkling
10
Yarn locally Interlocking angle
compressed
5
Yarn rigid rotation
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Shear Angle (degrees)
Further fabric characterisation tests

.uni-stuttgart.de
Example testing methods for fabric

drape properties:
a) In plane tension
b) Shear (Picture frame)
c) Friction (for tool-plies and plies-plies)
www.
d) Bending properties
FE models for Non Crimp (and other) Fabrics: Required testing

.uni-stuttgart.de
For Non Crimp fabrics:
Key elements of the model σ S = f ( E S , δ I , δ II ) FE idealisation

E1
G 12
www.
E2  σ 11   E1ε 11 
   
σ ε
 22   2 22 
= E
   
 σ 12   G12 ε 12  • Can be non-linear function to
a) The two NCF plies and stitching
approximate weaves/locking.
• Viscosity for impregnated fabrics can be
added.
For conventional woven fabrics:
• In this case only one layer of shells per fabric layer is used
• The interface between layers (plies) considers simple friction only
For all fabric types:

• Ply bending stiffness is decoupled from in plane stiffness; this is important to correctly
predict potential fabric buckling and bridging
Experiment, QuikForm (mapping) and PAM-FORM (FE) results

.uni-stuttgart.de
UDs1
35 UDc2
35
Quickform Quickform
Shear angle (degrees)
30
30

25
Pamform 25
20 Experiment
20
15
10 Experiment 15
Pamform
10
www.
5
5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Position angle (degrees)
NCF1 UDc3
30
Quickform 35
25
30
Quickform

20 Pamform 25
Pamform
20
15
Experiment 15
10 10 Experiment
5 5
0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
• Mapping methods always over predict due to the assumption of shear ‘trellis-only’ deformation.
• FE methods show better agreement – but there is room for improvement.
Numerical simulation of preforming

.uni-stuttgart.de
www.
IFB/Comas MSc student

Courtesy Eurocopter (ESI
Technical Forum 2010)
Example NCF Finite Element drape simulation of an automotive floor
pan (courtesy ESI and Sotira)
.uni-stuttgart.de
Some features of the FE

Blankholder model:
NCF fabric
Lower die • Shell elements for plies with
Punch interface stitching for NCF
www.
• Rigid body tooling (note the

meshing for accurate
geometry)
• Pressure blank-holders
correctly modelled
• Contacts defined between
fabrics and tooling / blank-
holders
• Tooling is velocity driven
with final pressure loads
Hot Forming of the Airbus wing rib

.uni-stuttgart.de
Diaphragm and sheet
vacuum
www.
Meso modelling of fabrics for drape simulation

.uni-stuttgart.de
The textile fabric is usually idealised as a set of shell (or membrane) finite elements.
The main deformation mechanisms can be realistically captured:
• Shear
• Fibre straightening
• Bending…
www.
BUT assumptions of continuum shell elements inhibits inter-tow and tow-to-stitch sliding
mechanisms. Meso scale modelling at the tow level may be a better way forward.
Fabric deformations at the Tow level: Simple hemisphere example

.uni-stuttgart.de
Test set-up
www.
Local tow and

stitch deformations
Ply deformations
Mesoscopic model: Construction and Finite Element idealisation

.uni-stuttgart.de
Material: Saertex V93813

Fabric: Biaxial ±45 NCF
Weight: 321gm-2
Fibres: 12K TORAY T700
Stitch: Tricot (PES 76 dtex)
www.
Fabric tows + stitching (stitching unit-cell)
Stitching bars
Solid tow layer 1
Solid tow layer 2
PhD thesis (Cranfield) – Gavin Creech 2006 Deformed fabric

Meso- modelling: Tow and stitch characterisation

.uni-stuttgart.de
Definition and importance of shear bias

100 a) Negative shear b) Positive shear
90
80
Stitching removed
70
60
Positive shear
Force (N)
50 Negative shear
www.
40
30
20
10
c) Base fabric shear
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
4.0E-05
Characterisation of model:
Force (N) 3.0E-05
• The picture frame with stitching removed
(Test c)) for base tow shear data. 2.0E-05
• Simple coupon (Test a)) for calibration of 1.0E-05

ΛΛΛ stitching
0.0E+00
• Simple coupon (Test b)) for calibration of 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
III stitching
Picture frame test data Unit-cell simulation data
Bias extension shear test: Characterisation under positive and
negative shear
.uni-stuttgart.de
1) Zone of near
uniform shear
Test setup
2) Zones of
preferential
inter-fibre slip
3) Constrained zone
due to clamping
www.
Results and calibration

14
Test a) Negative shear b) Positive shear

12
Force
10 Tension Simulation
Compression (User defined modulus) input
Force (N)
8 Engineering
strain
6
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Coupon strain
Negative shear Positive shear
Negative shear stitch data Positive shear stitch data
Tow ‘pull-out’ test for stitch-to-tow friction data

.uni-stuttgart.de
• Used to define data of ‘link elements’ joining the

stitch to tows.
• Testing is performed by extracting tows in the two
principle directions.
www.
5000
4000
3000
Force (N/m^2)
2000
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Tow displacement (mm)
Example bias extension test results

.uni-stuttgart.de
Fibre strain
www.
a) Bias extension test b) Bias extension simulation
Deformation mechanisms: test and simulation Stitch deformations and strain information
14
14
12 12
10 10
Force (N)
Force (N)
8 8
6 6
4 4
2
2
0
0
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
Engineering coupon strain
Engineering coupon strain
Experimental Simulation Experimental Simulation
Positive shear: Test and simulation results Negative shear: Test and simulation results
Example bias extension test results

.uni-stuttgart.de
www.
Test setup 35 Model correctly captures

120,900 solid element shear bias
70,000 bar elements
30
Test
25 Simulation
Shear Angle (deg)

20
15
10
0
Simulation model: Fully deformed 0 90 180 270 360
Hemisphere position (deg)
Coupling drape and impact models

.uni-stuttgart.de
Tow stiffness and

failure model
FE deformed drape • Trimming of mesh Mesoscopic FE

• Addition of punch
www.
mesh analysis model
Loading, contact and

boundary conditions
28
Mechanical data for the NCF drape-impact model

.uni-stuttgart.de
• Tow mechanical data

100 3000
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
-0.02 -0.01
0 -0.01
0.02 0.04 0 0.01 0.02
www.
-80 -2000
Strain Strain
Simulation Datasheet values

a) Transverse matrix failure b) Longitudinal fibre failure
• Inter-laminar mechanical data (between tows)
stress
σinitiation
σpropagation
The DCB test

Hemisphere impact results

.uni-stuttgart.de
www.
Fibre 0.6
Force (kN)
directions
0.4
0.2
5 10 15 20
0
Crush depth (mm)
Contour of fibre stress (GPa)
Results:
• Force deflection response and general modes of failure are similar to tests
• The localised creasing type failure though is not accurately captured; possibly due to the
level of mesh refinement
30
Contents
.uni-stuttgart.de
o Draping analysis and simulation:

• General introduction and methods for fabric testing
• Analysis methods for draping:
• Kinematic ‘geometric’ mapping methods
www.
• Finite Element methods:

• At the macro- scale
o Braiding simulation
• General introduction and previous work
• Braiding simulation
• Some possibilities for structural analysis:
• At the micro- scale
o Summary
31
Braiding process simulation and prediction of mechanical properties

.uni-stuttgart.de
Previous research on 3D braiding:

• BMBF project "Faserverbundwerkstoffe mit
dreidimensionaler Geflechtverstärkung", 1991-1995.
www.
• BMBF project: "Rechnergestützte, automatisierte

Herstellung von 3D-Geflecten", 1996 -1999.
Current work on 2D braiding:

• Momentum project 2007-2010
• Internal IFB research
Early work (1991-99): The prototype 3D- rotary braiding machine

.uni-stuttgart.de
www.
Example T profile
12*12 horngear 3D braider
3D Rotary braiding: Example simulation of a `T` profile

.uni-stuttgart.de
www.
Complex T-profile
a) Model setup b) Compaction c) Overlay of matrix

for compaction of the plates solid elements
Compaction of the braid in the RTM mould and creation of the final composite
3D Rotary braiding: Previous work for stiffness and failure prediction

.uni-stuttgart.de
original bar 40
matrix cube
35
original node node n+2

30
node n+3 node i BAR

new bar SOLID
25
new node node i+1

node n+1 20
www.
node n 15
0 6 8 11 13 15
a) Refining and constraining the b) Comparison of yarn axial force for the solid and bar
yarns to the solids models: Force variation from the upper to lower faces.
Broken fibres
Internal fibre
breakage
(maximum load)
Failed matrix
Subsequent Matrix
Location of first critical stiffness
fibre strain and
breakage, followed by
matrix rupture
2D braiding and simulation steps

.uni-stuttgart.de
2D braiding simulation
www.
Meso- and macro- models
Analysis of:
1. Stiffness and elastic properties
2. Failure and impact behaviour
Braiding: Simulation process chain

.uni-stuttgart.de
Braiding simulation
www.
Meso- models for analysis of:

2. Failure
Macro- models for analysis of:

• Stiffness and elastic properties
• Failure
FE braid modelling: Model details

Braiding Braiding take-
.uni-stuttgart.de
ring up direction
Braiding
mandrel
www.
Standing yarns Braiding yarns

Yarn paths Bobbin elements
• Models typically 50,000+

elements.
• CPU: Hrs to days on high end PC.
2D braiding: Example simulation and test

.uni-stuttgart.de
www.
39
Example rotary braiding over a generic mandrel

.uni-stuttgart.de
Simulation
model
Generic mandrel
www.
Test results
2D braiding: Comparison of test and simulation

.uni-stuttgart.de
www.
Braiding: Simulation process chain

.uni-stuttgart.de
Braiding simulation
www.

• Failure

• Failure
Some methods for computing mechanical properties

.uni-stuttgart.de
Yarn segment siffness and

stiffness transformations Assembly
n
Analytical
C ig = Q T (r1i , r2i , r3i )C i Q (r1i , r2i , r3i ) Ct = ∑k C
i =i
i
i
g
37 GPa 37 GPa
www.
y x
WiseTex
(stiffness)
3D image Prediction
Pattern
Homogenisation
for stiffness
Finite Element
(stiffness+failure)
Failure with
damage models
Micro-mechanical modelling: Building a RVE from braid simulation
for analysis
.uni-stuttgart.de
www.
Difference from
Exx, GPa
WiseTex result
WiseTex 47.60 -
PAM-CRASH 47.63 ~0%
Stiffness
46.90 1.5%
Stress distribution for averaging
loading in compression
Braiding: Coupled process-mechanical analysis

.uni-stuttgart.de
Braiding simulation
www.

2. Failure

2. Failure
Building the FE models

.uni-stuttgart.de
Overlaying,
Performing Extracting Overlaying Materials,
nesting and
the braid the Braid and merging BC’s and
compaction
simulation (coupon) solids loading
Simulation
www.
46
Bi-axial braids: Stiffness studies and validations

.uni-stuttgart.de
60.000
Engineering constant Ex [MPa]
50.000
www.
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Braiding angle β [°]
Test data CLT Wisetex real geometry FE Implicit

47
Meso-failure modelling of braids: Example Bi-axial 55°

.uni-stuttgart.de
stress
Yield
75 MPa
plastic strain
= 0.005
www.
Matrix dominated
failure
Initiation of local
first matrix failure
Residual fibre strength
48
Structural meso-modeling: 2D braiding
.uni-stuttgart.de
Overbraiding
3-layers
www.
Extracted yarn
model
Structural meso-modelling: Merging braid and solid models

.uni-stuttgart.de
www.
Structural meso-modelling: Analysis results

.uni-stuttgart.de
Torsion Moment@10°
Test 300 kNmm
Simulation 283 KNmm
Linear FE
www.
analysis
Test
Principle stresses matrix (GPa)
Ongoing work: Failure/max load prediction and

Yarn forces (kN)
(maybe) crash
.uni-stuttgart.de
www.
Thank you for your attention
52

Video Youtube Interessant

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Video Youtube Interessant

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Institut für Flugzeugbau

Analysis and process simulation of

Anthony Pickett and Karin Birkefeld

Institut für Flugzeugbau

o Draping analysis and simulation:

• Finite Element methods:

Preforming and fabric shaping

Preforming (draping) of the fabric leads to changes in yarn architecture which

Initial Shaping and trimming Preparations for infusion Final infusion

Drape and braid modelling: Possible FE solution methods

The Implicit method: The Explicit method:

Fabric draping analysis: Comparison of methods

a i, j-1 initial fibre direction (warp L1, weft L2)

Uses simple mathematics: A

(x ij − x i −1, j ) 2 + (y ij − y i −1, j ) 2 + (z ij − z i −1, j ) 2 = a 2 L2 L1

Example application of the kinematic mapping method

Draping Strategy 1 Draping Strategy 2

Catia V5 example study:

Some variations possible with the kinematic mapping method

The initial projection line:

This is usually performed outwards from the seed point.

First (?) simple metal

PAM-STAMP: Metal stamping

Brite-Euram Project: "Industrial Fabric (Carpet)

Fabric deformation mechanisms to be treated in numerical models

Ply principle deformation modes

Inter-ply deformation mode

d) Fibre straightening (woven fabrics only)

There are two main shapes to consider

The Picture Frame test: Requires

Typical Force-Shear angle results for a woven fabric

Further fabric characterisation tests

Example testing methods for fabric

FE models for Non Crimp (and other) Fabrics: Required testing

For Non Crimp fabrics:

Key elements of the model σ S = f ( E S , δ I , δ II ) FE idealisation

For all fabric types:

Experiment, QuikForm (mapping) and PAM-FORM (FE) results

Shear angle (degrees)

Shear angle (degrees)

Numerical simulation of preforming

IFB/Comas MSc student

Some features of the FE

• Rigid body tooling (note the

Hot Forming of the Airbus wing rib

Diaphragm and sheet

Meso modelling of fabrics for drape simulation

Fabric deformations at the Tow level: Simple hemisphere example

Local tow and

Mesoscopic model: Construction and Finite Element idealisation

Material: Saertex V93813

Fabric tows + stitching (stitching unit-cell)

Solid tow layer 1

Solid tow layer 2

PhD thesis (Cranfield) – Gavin Creech 2006 Deformed fabric

Meso- modelling: Tow and stitch characterisation

Definition and importance of shear bias

• Simple coupon (Test a)) for calibration of 1.0E-05

Results and calibration

Test a) Negative shear b) Positive shear

Tow ‘pull-out’ test for stitch-to-tow friction data

• Used to define data of ‘link elements’ joining the

Example bias extension test results

a) Bias extension test b) Bias extension simulation