Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 51, Issue 6, pp 3277–3288 | Cite as

Characterization of 3D woven reinforcements for liquid composite molding processes

  • H. Alhussein
  • R. Umer
  • S. Rao
  • E. Swery
  • S. Bickerton
  • W. J. Cantwell
Original Paper


Compaction and permeability characterization of fibrous reinforcements is fundamental to liquid composite molding (LCM) processes, given that these fabric properties determine the part thickness, fiber volume content and mold filling time and patterns. In this study, the permeability of three different 3D woven carbon fiber reinforcements (orthogonal, angle interlock and layer-to-layer) was studied, each having a different weave style and z-binder pattern. For all reinforcements, single-cycle and multiple cycle compaction experiments were conducted on dry and saturated samples. The orthogonal preforms were more difficult to compact to the target fiber volume fraction of 0.65, with peak stresses reaching up to 2.3 MPa. Cyclic compaction tests were conducted to highlight the importance of permanent deformation in the reinforcements, when higher fiber volume content is desired via manufacturing using an LCM process. Unsaturated in-plane radial and saturated through-thickness permeability data were obtained at several fiber volume fractions. The orthogonal and layer-to-layer fabrics exhibited greater levels of anisotropy in the plane of flow. The rate of change of in-plane permeability with increasing fiber volume content was lower compared to through-thickness values. The effect of cyclic compaction on permeability was greater in the orthogonal and angle interlock reinforcements. Micrographs of infused samples showed significant permanent deformation of the z-binder yarns, an effect that reduced permeability at high fiber volume contents.


Compaction Fiber Volume Fiber Volume Fraction Permanent Deformation Flow Front 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to thank Mr. Jimmy Thomas, Mr. Bittu Scaria and Mr. Mohammed Rashed Abdulla Alsuwaidi at Khalifa University for their assistance in conducting the experiments. The authors gratefully acknowledge Mubadala Aerospace and Khalifa University for providing the financial support for this research project.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Robitaille F, Gauvin R (1998) Compaction of textile reinforcements for composites manufacturing; I: Review of experimental results. Polym Compos 19(2):198–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Matsudaira M, Qin H (1995) Features and mechanical parameters of a fabric’s compression property. J Text Inst 86(3):476–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saunders R, Lekakou C, Bader M (1998) Compression and microstructure of fibre plain woven cloths in the processing of polymer composites. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 29(4):443–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pearce N, Summerscales J (1995) The compressibility of a reinforcement fabric. Compos Manuf 6(1):15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Wyk C (1946) Note on the compressibility of wool. J Text Inst Trans 37(12):T285–T292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gutowski TG, Morigaki T, Cai Z (1987) The consolidation of laminate composites. J Compos Mater 21(2):172–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gutowski TG (1997) Advanced composites manufacturing. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen B, Chou TW (1999) Compaction of woven-fabric preforms in liquid composite molding processes: single-layer deformation. Compos Sci Technol 59(10):1519–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen B, Chou TW (2000) Compaction of woven-fabric preforms: nesting and multi-layer deformation. Compos Sci Technol 60(12):2223–2231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen B, Lang EJ, Chou TW (2001) Experimental and theoretical studies of fabric compaction behavior in resin transfer molding. Mater Sci Eng A 317(1):188–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hu J, Newton A (1997) Low-load lateral-compression behaviour of woven fabrics. J Text Inst 88(3):242–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bickerton S, Buntain M, Somashekar A (2003) The viscoelastic compression behavior of liquid composite molding preforms. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 34(5):431–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Somashekar A, Bickerton S, Bhattacharyya D (2012) Modelling the viscoelastic stress relaxation of glass fibre reinforcements under constant compaction strain during composites manufacturing. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 43(7):1044–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kelly P, Umer R, Bickerton S (2006) Viscoelastic response of dry and wet fibrous materials during infusion processes. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 37(6):868–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arbter R, Beraud J, Binetruy C, Bizet L, Bréard J, Comas-Cardona S, Demaria C, Endruweit A, Ermanni P, Gommer F (2011) Experimental determination of the permeability of textiles: a benchmark exercise. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 42(9):1157–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lundström T, Stenberg R, Bergström R, Partanen H, Birkeland P (2000) In-plane permeability measurements: a nordic round robin study. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 31(1):29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ferland P, Guittard D, Trochu F (1996) Concurrent methods for permeability measurement in resin transfer molding. Polym Compos 17(1):149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parnas RS, Salem AJ (1993) A comparison of the unidirectional and radial in-plane flow of fluids through woven composite reinforcements. Polym Compos 14(5):383–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parnas RS, Flynn KM, Dal-Favero ME (1997) A permeability database for composites manufacturing. Polym Compos 18(5):623–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gebart B (1992) Permeability of unidirectional reinforcements for RTM. J Compos Mater 26(8):1100–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bruschke MV (1992) A predictive model for permeability and non-isothermal tow of viscous and shear-thinning fluids in anisotropic fibrous media. Ph.D. thesis, University of Delaware Center for Composite MaterialsGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tan P, Tong L, Steven G, Ishikawa T (2000) Behavior of 3D orthogonal woven CFRP composites. Part I. Experimental investigation. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 31(3):259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tan P, Tong L, Steven G (2000) Behavior of 3D orthogonal woven CFRP composites. Part II. FEA and analytical modeling approaches. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 31(3):273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cox B, Dadkhah M, Morris W, Flintoff J (1994) Failure mechanisms of 3d woven composites in tension, compression, and bending. Acta Metall Mater 42(12):3967–3984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cox BN, Dadkhah MS, Morris W (1996) On the tensile failure of 3D woven composites. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 27(6):447–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leong K, Lee B, Herszberg I, Bannister M (2000) The effect of binder path on the tensile properties and failure of multilayer woven CFRP composites. Compos Sci Technol 60(1):149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Callus P, Mouritz A, Bannister M, Leong K (1999) Tensile properties and failure mechanisms of 3D woven GRP composites. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 30(11):1277–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Endruweit A, Long A (2010) Analysis of compressibility and permeability of selected 3D woven reinforcements. J Compos Mater 44(24):2833–2862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Potluri P, Sagar TV (2008) Compaction modelling of textile preforms for composite structures. Compos Struct 68(1):177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mohamed M, Wetzel KK (2006) 3D woven carbon/glass hybrid spar cap for wind turbine rotor blade. J Sol Energy Eng 128(4):562–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ngo N, Tamma K (2004) Complex three-dimensional microstructural permeability prediction of porous media with and without compaction. Int J Numer Methods Eng 60(10):1741–1757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Song Y, Chung K, Kang T, Youn J (2004) Prediction of permeability tensor for three dimensional circular braided preform by applying finite volume method to a unit cell. Compos Sci Technol 64(10):1629–1636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bickerton S, Buntain MJ (2007) Modeling forces generated within rigid liquid composite molding tools. Part B: numerical analysis. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 38:1742–1754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liotier PJ, Govignon Q, Swery E, Drapier S, Bickerton S (2015) Characterisation of woven flax fibres reinforcements: effect of the shear on the in-plane permeability. J Compos Mater. doi: 10.11177/0021998314565411 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Weitzenböck J, Shenoi R, Wilson P (1999) Radial flow permeability measurement. Part A: theory. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 30(6):781–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weitzenböck J, Shenoi R, Wilson P (1999) Radial flow permeability measurement. Part A: application. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 30(6):797–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hoes KD, Sol Dinescu H, Parnas RS, Lomov S (2004) Study of nesting induced scatter of permeability values in layered reinforcement fabrics. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 35(12):1407–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Alhussein
    • 1
  • R. Umer
    • 1
  • S. Rao
    • 1
  • E. Swery
    • 2
  • S. Bickerton
    • 2
  • W. J. Cantwell
    • 1
  1. 1.Aerospace Research and Innovation CenterKhalifa UniversityAbu DhabiUAE
  2. 2.Center for Advanced Composite Materials (CACM)The University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations