Article

2019, Vol. 49(5) 676–690

! The Author(s) 2018

Development of Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1528083718795912
composites, reinforced journals.sagepub.com/home/jit

by novel 3D woven
orthogonal fabrics with
enhanced auxeticity

Muhammad I Khan, Jehanzeb Akram, Muhammad Umair,

Syed TA Hamdani , Khubab Shaker , Yasir Nawab and
Muhammad Zeeshan

Abstract
Auxetic materials are under great attention of researchers due to their excellent mech-
anical response under certain conditions. Previous works have been carried out in
knitted or uni-stretch woven fabrics. In the present study, three-dimensional (3D)
woven structures were produced and the effect of float length of ground weave and
binding yarn on auxeticity of the fabric was investigated. Eight different 3D orthogonal
woven structures/reinforcements were produced on rapier dobby loom by changing the
float length in ground weave and binding yarns. Hand layup technique was used for
composite fabrication, while green epoxy resin was used as a matrix. For investigating
the auxeticity, 3D reinforcement samples were subjected to tensile loading and change
in their thickness was measured. The results showed that 3D woven reinforcements
with equal and maximum float length of ground weave and binding yarn showed greater
auxetic behavior, because both weaves support each other and room for opening of
structure increases. As the difference between the float length of ground weave and
binding yarns increases, the auxeticity of reinforcement decreases because the ground
weave and binding yarn cancel out the effect of each other. Moreover, the impact energy
absorption of the developed composites was found to increase with the increase in float
length, justifying that the structures are auxetic in nature.

Department of Weaving, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, National Textile University, Faisalabad,
Pakistan

Corresponding author:
Yasir Nawab, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Department of Weaving, National Textile University,
Sheikhupura Road, Faisalabad 37610, Pakistan.
Email: [email protected]
Khan et al. 677

Keywords
Three-dimensional (3D) orthogonal woven reinforcements, auxeticity, Poisson’s ratio,
3D woven auxetic composites, impact resistance

Introduction
The three-dimensional (3D) weaving involves interlacing of three yarns, i.e. the
warp yarn and two weft yarns (ground yarn and binding yarn). Dual directional
shedding systems are used in this technique, as the warp yarns are interlaced with
two set of weft yarns. 3D weaving is the interlacing of a grid-like multiple layer
warp sheet with the sets of ground yarn and binding yarn [1]. Nevertheless, the 3D
woven fabrics can also be produced using conventional 2D weaving process, and
can be either warp interlock or weft interlock [2]. Some of the most common
examples of these 3D fabrics include terry fabrics, spacer fabrics, multilayer
woven fabrics and shell fabrics [3]. 3D preforms have been developed to minimize
the out-of-plane damage caused by 2D structures. These reinforcements aim to
attain a balance between the in-plane and out of plane properties of woven
fabric [4]. Especially for structural applications, 3D reinforcement should be rec-
ommended [5].
Auxetic materials tend to become thicker when stretched axially and vice versa.
This occurs due to their hinge like structures, which become flexible when
stretched. Auxetic structures show negative Poisson’s ratio [6]. Auxetic textiles
can be produced either by inherently auxetic fibers, helical auxetic yarn (HAY)
or auxetic textile structures [7]. The auxetic materials have better energy absorption
and resistance under the compressive loads than conventional materials [8]. This
property, in combination with shear resistance, indentation resistance and fracture
toughness, makes the auextic materials an attractive choice for applications such as
automobile, aerospace, defence, sensors, and protection [9]. The auxetic materials
can also serve effectively as filtration media. Material with different particle sizes
can be filtered with the same filter using auxetic behavior. Auxetic material can be
used for artificial blood vessel as wall thickness increases when the pulse of blood
flows through it due to auxeticity [9]. Auxetic material or structure is also used in
smart bandages impregnated with healing agents. When the bandage is applied on
the swollen wound, it opens up to release the healing agent. When the wound heals
and swelling decreases, the bandage pores will close, restricting the release of
healing agent [8]. The synclastic curvature of auxetic materials makes it easier to
produce curved surfaces that conform to the human body shape easily. Auxetic
spacer fabrics are used as replacement of foam pads, as foam have low air perme-
ability. It can be used in sports clothing for making knee pads, elbow pads, helmets
and other applications. Auxetic yarns are used to make blast curtains due their
good impact and indentation resistance [10].
Composites are fabricated by mixing two or more different materials to develop
a new material that has better mechanical properties than its constituents, when
used alone. Composite materials offer many advantages, e.g. less weight, higher
678 Journal of Industrial Textiles 49(5)

strength, higher stiffness and toughness. There are various types of preforms used
in composites. Woven fabrics are preferred for their structural stability.
Composites are reinforced by stacking woven fabric layers over one another. But
there are chances of delamination failure during performance. So, 3D woven
reinforcements are used to overcome deficiencies of stacked reinforcements [11].
3D woven preforms show better out-of-plane and interlaminar failure resistance
[12]. Yi and Ding employed conventional shuttle loom for fabricating 3D preforms
for composites [13]. Wambu and Anandjiwala also worked to reduce the occur-
rence of delamination as well as improving out of plane impact properties by
through the thickness reinforcement [14]. Auxetic reinforcements are used in com-
posites to enhance the energy absorption/impact resistance of the composite mater-
ial [15]. In case of impact, the material bears a high force acting on it for a short
interval of time. The high velocity impact has greater effect as compared to a low
velocity impact for a long period of time [16]. During impact, the phenomenon of
energy dissipation in composite and metal is totally different from each other. In
case of low or intermediate impact energy, metals absorb energy through elastic
and plastic deformation. If the load-carrying capability of metal is small, some
permanent structural deformation (perforation) may occur, and its load-bearing
ability will decrease [16]. Whereas the energy absorption in composite materials
creates large areas of fracture, resulting in reduction of strength and stiffness [16].
In fiber-reinforced composites, impact resistance and load bearing capacity are
greatly affected by fiber properties. The ability of a fiber ability to store energy
elastically is the basic factor in determining the impact resistance of a composites in
case of low velocity impact. The composite materials are robust if fiber diameter is
large and offer higher strains to failure in case of fibers having small diameter.
Various methods to fabricate auxetic composites have been found in the literature.
The methods include (a) angle ply method, in which negative Poisson’s ratio
through thickness is achieved by arranging laminates in a certain sequence [17],
(b) composites developed using impregnating DHY yarns with polymeric resin [18],
(c) auxetic fabrics impregnated with polymeric resin [19], and (d) auxetic nanocom-
posites [20]. Jiang used unidirectional carbon prepreg sheets impregnated with
epoxy resin to fabricate auxetic composites. Auxetic effect was achieved by stacking
of sheets in the form of symmetrical laminates, with the ply sequence of h with
respect to the reference direction where h = 0, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 40 . Twenty-
four fiber layers were used to produce these composites. The composite laminates
exhibited NPR for h values in the range between 15 and 30 , according to the
theoretical prediction. Miller produced auxetic composites using DHY’s impreg-
nated with silicon rubber gel. DHY was produced using UHMWPE wrap yarns
and polyurethane core material with different Young’s modulus using an approxi-
mate wrap angle of 70 [21]. The recent study on auxetic composites was conducted
by Steffens et al. [19]. In this study, high performance fibers such as Para aramid
and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (Spectra) were used to develop auxe-
tic structures with the help of weft knitting technology. These knitted reinforce-
ments were impregnated with polymeric resins (epoxy and unsaturated polyester
Khan et al. 679

resins based on iso-phthalic acid) to produce auxetic composites. High perform-

ance fibers exhibited excellent impact resistance and energy absorption values,
making them suitable for advanced technical applications [19]. Sugun and
Sandeep used orthogonal weaving technique to fabricate integrally woven ‘‘T’’
stiffeners based on pleat formation concept. Carbon tows were woven on a custo-
mized automatic take-up rapier weaving machine. Dobby shedding mechanism
with multi-beam warp let-off was used [22]. In a recent research conducted by
Ma et al., comparison of ballistic impact damage was studied between 3D angle-
interlock woven fabric and its reinforced composite. Experimental and numerical
modeling was done to investigate their impact resistance under various ballistic
strike velocities. Results concluded that the 3D woven composite has absorbed
more impact energy than the 3D woven fabric under the high velocity impact
( < 350 m/s). And it showed the opposite trend under the ‘‘low’’ velocity impact
(>350 m/s) [23].
Previous work is available on the auxetic behavior of 2D knitted or uni-stretch
woven fabric structures. In our previous work, 3D woven auxetic composites with
improved impact energy absorption were produced using orthogonal technique
[24]. The current research is based on the same technique and focuses on develop-
ment of novel 3D orthogonal auxetic structures with improved auxeticity. The
effect of float length of binding yarn and ground weave on auxeticity of the struc-
tures was analyzed. Also, these 3D woven structures were fabricated into their
corresponding composites which offer superior impact resistance properties. For
their high energy absorption, good impact and indentation resistance, Auxetic
woven fabric composites can be used in automobile industries, protective clothing
(sports clothing and helmets) and blast proof curtains.

Material and methods

In this research, eight different 3D orthogonal through thickness woven structures
were produced on rapier dobby loom using different ground weave and binding
yarn. Construction of samples is given in Table 1.
In these structures, cotton yarn was used as warp and weft yarn while jute was
used as binding yarn because it has better tensile strength and stiffer than cotton
[25]. Tenacity of both jute and cotton yarn is comparable but jute has greater
young’s modulus. When tensile load is applied the binding yarn (Jute) due to its
greater modulus, tries to straighten with minimum elongation. On the other hand,
cotton yarn is flexible. When binding yarn tries to straighten, the cotton yarns
comes out of surface and produce auxetic effect. Mechanical properties of cotton
and jute yarns are given in Table 2.
First four samples were produced using the same float length in ground weave
and binding yarn for investigating the effect of float length of ground weave and
binding yarn on auxeticity of fabric. Other four samples were produced in two sets.
Each set have same ground weave but different binding yarn pattern, as given in
Table 3. Cross-sectional view of each 3D woven orthogonal sample is shown in
680 Journal of Industrial Textiles 49(5)

Table 1. Construction of woven fabric samples.

Parameters Values

Total ends 180

Linear density (warp) 295 tex
Linear density (weft) 295 tex
Linear density (binding yarn) 205 tex
Ends/cm 10
Picks/cm 32
Denting 2 ends per dent

Table 2. Mechanical properties of cotton and jute yarns.

Mechanical properties Jute Cotton

Breaking force (cN) 3294  5 4812  5

Tenacity (cN/tex) 16.22  0.5 17.89  0.5
Elongation (%) 1.79  0.05 15.36  0.05
Modulus (GPa) [26] 20–55 6–10

Table 3. Design of experiment of 3D woven reinforcements.

Sample ID Ground weave Binding pattern

S1 2/1 2/1
S2 3/3 3/3
S3 4/2 4/2
S4 5/1 5/1
S5 2/1 3/3
S6 2/1 5/1
S7 5/1 4/2
S8 5/1 2/1

Figure 1. From the literature available on auxetic textiles, it is clear that there
must be some portion in the structure that is loosely woven (flexible) than rest
of the structure in one repeat. So, we have chosen these weaving patterns on
that principle (loosely woven binding yarn and relatively tightly woven ground
weave yarn)
Cross-sectional image of real fabric is given in Figure 2.
Khan et al. 681

Figure 1. Weft wise cross section of 3D orthogonal multilayer reinforcements (Texgen).

Composite fabrication was done by hand layup method. Fabric samples were
impregnated with green-epoxy resin. Rotating rollers were used to force the resin
impregnation into reinforcements. After completion of resin impregnation, samples
were cured for 24 h under atmospheric conditions. Fiber volume fraction of the
682 Journal of Industrial Textiles 49(5)

Figure 2. Cross-sectional image of fabric in reinforcement form.

composite samples was 38%. Two component green epoxy resin CHS-EPOXY
G530 was used during composite manufacturing which was supplied by
Spolchemie Pvt. Ltd Czech Republic. It was a universal unmodified liquid low
molecular weight epoxy resin based on bisphenol A. This resin has no modifiers
and can cure at two different levels, either at elevated or ambient temperature.
CHS-Epoxy 530 is primarily used for modifying, saturating, condensing and pre-
serving operations in different areas of industry. It is also used in casting and
tooling, civil engineering, coatings, adhesives, composites, encapsulating and pot-
ting applications. As we know, green epoxy would degrade after certain period and
finally the composite structure would deform and provide no harm to the envir-
onment. Nowadays, bio resin is preferred in structural and automotive applica-
tions. Cycloaliphatic amine (Telalit 0600) was used as hardener. Resin and
hardener were mixed in the ratio of 3:1. The specifications of this green-epoxy
resin are given in Table 4.
Testing was done at two levels, i.e. first at reinforcement level and second at
composite level. In the first level, auxeticity of reinforcement was measured. All
samples were subjected to a tensile load using Universal Testing Machine
(Allroundline Z100, Zwick/Roell, Germany). The thickness of specimen, before
and after tensile loading was measured using digital thickness tester according to
standard test method ASTM D1777, and transversal strain was calculated. The
values of axial and transversal strain were then used to calculate the Poisson’s ratio
using equation (1).

"y
¼ ð1Þ
"x

where "x is the axial strain and "y is the transversial strain in equation (1).
Interlocking pattren of binding yarn before and after tensile test and change in
thickness is shown in Figure 3.
Khan et al. 683

Table 4. Specifications of green epoxy resin.

Property Specifications

Density at 20 C (g/cm3 ) 1.16

Viscosity (Pa.s) 8.0–10.0
Glass transition temperature Tg ( C) 72–75
Gel time (23 C) 51 min

(a) Binding yarn (b)

Binding yarn

Axial load Axial load

Figure 3. Interlocking pattern of binding yarn before and after tensile load. (a) Before axial load.
(b) Aefore axial load.

In the second step, the energy absorption of these composites is under impact
loading. The impact testing was performed according to the standard test method
ISO-179. In this method, a rectangular shaped (10 mm  80 mm  thickness) compos-
ite sample is placed between two fixed supports of the tester. A pendulum of known
weight positioned to a known height is then allowed to fall freely. When pendulum
strikes the specimen, it exerts an impact load on the specimen and breaks the specimen,
rising to a specific height. This difference between the initial and the final height is
measured to calculate the amount of energy lost in fracturing the specimen. The total
energy in fracturing the specimen can be determined by using the following equation

EðtotalÞ ¼ mgðhi  hf Þ ð2Þ

where E(total) is the total energy, ‘‘m’’ is the mass and ‘‘g’’ is the gravitational
acceleration, hi is the initial height and hf is the final height of pendulum.
During the impact testing, velocity of pendulum was 2.8 m/s. Schematic diagram
of Charpy impact testing is shown in Figure 4.

Results and discussion

Reinforcement auxetic behavior
The auxetic behavior of reinforcement was determined in terms of the Poisson’s
ratio. For this purpose, the reinforcement was subjected to a tensile load, stretching
684 Journal of Industrial Textiles 49(5)

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of Charpy impact testing.

Table 5. Results of axial and transversal strains and Poisson’s ratio of 3D woven reinforcements.

Initial Final Axial Transversal Poisson’s

Sample ID thickness (mm) thickness (mm) strain (%) strain (%) ratio

S1 4.38 5.00 15.38 14.15 0.92

S2 3.64 4.25 15.38 15.68 1.02
S3 6.20 7.43 15.38 15.84 1.03
S4 5.30 6.82 15.38 17.07 1.11
S5 6.20 7.00 15.38 14.91 0.97
S6 4.15 4.00 15.38 12.76 0.83
S7 6.62 7.92 15.38 15.84 1.03
S8 3.34 3.56 15.38 14.14 0.92

it to a fixed value of axial strain and recording the change in thickness. The initial
length of all samples in warp direction was 13 cm while samples were stretched to
15 cm and transversal strain was noted. The Poisson’s ratio () is calculated using
equation (1). The results of axial and transversal strains and Poisson’s ratio are
given in Table 5.
From the results given in Table 5, we can relate transversal strain with Poisson’s
ratio. It is observed that the transversal strain and Poisson’s ratio have a direct
relation with each other. More the increase in thickness, higher is the value of
negative Poisson’s ratio and vice versa. The results of negative Poisson’s ratio
showed that thickness of fabric is increasing due to the increase in length of spe-
cimen in warp direction. All the 3D woven reinforcements (except sample no 6)
Khan et al. 685

Figure 5. Thickness of samples before and after tensile loading.

Figure 6. Strain versus Poisson’s ratio of 3D woven reinforcements.

were found to be auxetic in nature, with maximum auxeticity exhibited by S4. The
initial thickness (without any load) and final thickness (at 15.38% axial strain) of
reinforcement are shown in Figure 5.
It was observed that only a single sample S6 has shown positive Poisson’s ratio
that depicts that it is not auxetic.
Figure 6 shows the combined effect between transversal strain percentage and
Poisson’s ratio of all specimens. The behavior of float lengths of ground weave and
binding yarn has been explained. S4 has showed maximum auxetic behavior. It has
maximum float length in ground weave and binding yarn as shown in Figure 2 (S4).
In combination both have supported each other and produced maximum auxeti-
city. The increase in fabric thickness was due to interlocking pattern of binding
yarn. S3 & S7 have showed almost the same behavior, slightly lesser than S4. They
both have a float length of 4/2 in binding yarn but have different ground weaves.
Reduction in float length of binding yarn reduced the auxetic behavior. S1 and S8
were similar in terms of auxeticity. They both have the same length of binding yarn.
S8 has greater length in ground weave, but lesser float in binding yarn has limited
its auxeticity. It can be concluded that, float length of ground weave and binding
686 Journal of Industrial Textiles 49(5)

Figure 7. Comparing the auxetic behavior of S5 and S6. (a) S5. (b) S6.

yarn interact with each other to give rise to auxeticity. To exhibit auxetic behavior,
the float length of binding yarn should be equal or near to the float length of
ground weave. Also, the difference between the float length of ground and binding
yarn needs to be less. If there is greater difference between the two, then there will
be very less or negligible auxetic behavior.
S5 and S6 have same ground weave but different binding yarn float. S5 has equal
number of yarns on both sides of binding yarn creating a balanced architecture that
provides flexibility to behave as auxetic material. Whereas in S6 there is an unba-
lanced architecture and a tight ground weave, due to which yarn buckling occurs
when tensile load is applied and no increase in thickness is observed (Figure 7).
It can be concluded that, to exhibit auxetic behavior, there must be some flexibility
in the structure which is not present in case of S6. Ground weave has limited the
flexibility of binding yarn. That is the reason it has showed positive Poisson’s ratio.

Impact properties (for composites)

Different failure mechanisms (complete break & hinge break) were observed during
impact testing. There are various factors that contribute to impact resistance of
woven fabrics. One of the major contributing factors is woven architecture of
fabric, which significantly affects the energy dissipation values. Energy dissipates
in the form of kinetic energy, strain energy and friction energy. This difference in
failure mechanisms was due to the difference in architecture of 3D woven fabrics.
Cross-sectional view of composite before impact, hinge break and after impact is
given in Figure 8.
The values for impact energy absorption at breaking point of composites are
given in Table 6. The width for all samples was 11.24 mm.
3D woven auxetic reinforcement was used in these composites. Impact strength
of these composites is calculated by equation (3).

Impact energyðJÞ  1000

Impact strength ðKJ=m2 Þ ¼ ð3Þ
Impact Area ðm2 Þ

Impact strength of composites is given in Figure 9.

It was observed from the results that energy absorption of composites varies
with the variation of architecture of 3D woven reinforcement (different float length
Khan et al. 687

Figure 8. Cross-sectional view of composite breaking behavior against impact: (a) composite
before impact; (b) hinge break; and (c) complete break.

Table 6. Impact energy absorption values of composites.

Samples ID Thickness (mm) Impact energy (J) Impact strength (kJ/m2)

S1 4.23 0.70  0.01 14.72

S2 3.52 0.79  0.02 16.63
S3 5.86 0.83  0.02 17.59
S4 4.37 0.88  0.01 18.62
S5 7.10 1.15  0.03 14.53
S6 5.40 0.68  0.02 11.2
S7 6.58 1.35  0.04 18.3
S8 4.92 0.90  0.02 16.27

Figure 9. Impact strength of 3D woven composites.

688 Journal of Industrial Textiles 49(5)

of ground weave and binding yarn). Trend line shows that impact strength
increases as float length both in ground weave and binding yarn increases.
Samples having greater float lengths both in ground weave and binding yarn
absorbed more energy. This is due to the lesser number of intersection points.
The specimen having more number of intersection points absorbed least amount
of impact energy whereas specimen with higher float length absorbed higher impact
energy due to flexible structure. As we know, intersection points has direct relation
with compactness of structure [24]. Under the Charpy impact test, the energy dis-
sipation values of the auxetic composites were greater as compared to the non-
auxetic composite (S6). In auxetic reinforcement, there is always a room for hinges
in the structure to expand. When auxetic materials are subjected to impact energy,
more energy is dissipated due to flexible nature of structure. S6 has absorbed least
amount of energy and showed brittle behavior due to rigid reinforcement as shown
in Table 6. The rigidity in non-auxetic reinforcement (S6) structure is due to the
excessive intersection points in ground weave.

Conclusions
In this research, the effect of float length of ground weave and binding yarn on
auxeticity of 3D multilayer orthogonal through thickness fabrics (reinforcements)
has been investigated. Results showed that float length of ground weave and bind-
ing yarn have a direct effect on Poisson’s ratio. Float length of binding yarn in
coordination with ground weave affects the auxeticity in such a manner that, with
the increase in float length, the auxetic affect also increased. Specimen with com-
bination of maximum float length in ground weave and in binding yarn exhibited
maximum auxeticity. It is clear from the results that due to higher float length,
there is greater room for hinges in structure to expand and produce auxetic effect.
The float length of ground weave and binding yarn should be equal or near to each
other for improved auxeticity. When they both were increased at equal interval, it
exhibited greater auxeticity and when there was greater float difference between the
two, it exhibited very little or negligible auxetic behavior. As energy absorption is
concerned, composites having greater float length, both in ground and binding
yarn showed better energy absorption values. As the float length is increased, the
room for energy dissipation also increases due to mobility of yarns within the
structure, while in shorter float lengths there would be higher number of interlace-
ment points, creating a compact structure, which results in failure of structure
when subjected to low velocity impact. Breaking behavior of auxetic composite
is ductile. So, these auxetic composites have better impact resistance and energy
absorption as compared to the non-auxetic composites. In conclusion, the impact
strength of composites was improved by using 3D woven auxetic reinforcements.
As indicated by the testing results, the impact properties of these composites have
improved, therefore these composites may find their use in protective clothing
(sports clothing and helmets), blast proof Curtains, and impact applications, e.g.
automobiles, structural applications, etc.
Khan et al. 689

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: This work is supported by Higher Education
Commission of Pakistan under the project NRPU 6072.

ORCID iD
Syed TA Hamdani http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3937-8890
Khubab Shaker http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8612-6760
Yasir Nawab http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0456-1369

References
[1] Khokar N. 3D Fabric-forming processes: distinguishing between 2D-weaving,
3D-weaving and an unspecified non-interlacing process. J Text Inst 1996; 87: 97–106.
[2] Umair M, Talha S, Hamdani A, et al. Study of influence of interlocking patterns on the
mechanical performance of 3D multilayer woven composites. J Reinf Plast Compos
2018; 37: 429–440.
[3] Chen X, Taylor LW and Tsai LJ. Three-dimensional fabric structures. Part 1 – An
overview on fabrication of three-dimensional woven textile preforms for composites.
Handb Tech Text Second Ed 2015; 1: 285–304.
[4] Gnaba I, Legrand X, Wang P, et al. Through-the-thickness reinforcement for compo-
site structures: a review. J Ind Text. Epub ahead of print 26 April 2018. DOI: 10.1177/
1528083718772299.
[5] Kashif M, Hamdani STA, Nawab Y, et al. Optimization of 3D woven preform for
improved mechanical performance. J Ind Text. Epub ahead of print 16 March 2018.
DOI: 10.1177/1528083718760802.
[6] Alderson KL, Webber RS, Kettle AP, et al. Novel fabrication route for auxetic poly-
ethylene. Part 1. Processing and microstructure. Polym Eng Sci 2005; 45: 568–578.
[7] Hu H. Auxetic textile materials – a review. J Text Eng Fash Technol 2016; 1: 1–20.
[8] Alderson A and Alderson KL. Auxetic materials. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G J Aerosp
Eng 2007; 221: 565–575.
[9] Liu Q. Literature review: materials with negative Poisson’s ratios and potential appli-
cations to aerospace and defence. Technical Report, Aust Gov Dep Def 2006; 1–47.
[10] Ge Z, Hu H and Liu S. A novel plied yarn structure with negative Poisson’s ratio.
J Text Inst 2016; 107: 578–588.
[11] Padaki NV, Alagirusamy R, Deopura BL, et al. Studies on preform properties of
multilayer interlocked woven structures using fabric geometrical factors. J Ind Text
2010; 39: 327–346.
[12] Nawab Y, Legrand X and Koncar V. Study of changes in 3D-woven multilayer inter-
lock fabric preforms while forming. J Text Inst 2012; 103: 1273–1279.
[13] Yi HL and Ding X. Conventional approach on manufacturing 3D woven preforms
used for composites. J Ind Text 2004; 34: 39–50.
690 Journal of Industrial Textiles 49(5)

[14] Wambua PM and Anandjiwala R. A review of preforms for the composites industry.
J Ind Text 2011; 40: 310–333.
[15] Wang Z and Hu H. Auxetic materials and their potential applications in textiles. Text
Res J 2014; 84: 1600–1611.
[16] Cantwell WJ and Morton J. The impact resistance of composite materials – a review.
Composites 1991; 22: 347–362.
[17] Zhou L, Jiang L and Hu H. Auxetic composites made of 3D textile structure and
polyurethane foam. Phys Status Solidi Basic Res 2016; 253: 1331–1341.
[18] Miller W, Ren Z, Smith CW, et al. A negative Poisson’s ratio carbon fibre composite
using a negative Poisson’s ratio yarn reinforcement. Compos Sci Technol 2012; 72:
761–766.
[19] Steffens F, Rana S and Fangueiro R. Development of novel auxetic textile structures
using high performance fibres. Mater Des 2016; 106: 81–89.
[20] Zhang J, Jiang D, Scarpa F, et al. Enhancement of pullout energy in a single-walled
carbon nanotube-polyethylene composite system via auxetic effect. Compos Part A Appl
Sci Manuf 2013; 55: 188–194.
[21] Miller W, Hook PB, Smith CW, et al. The manufacture and characterisation of a novel,
low modulus, negative Poisson’s ratio composite. Compos Sci Technol 2009; 69:
651–655.
[22] Sugun BS and Sandeep DN. Integral weaving of orthogonal 3D ‘T’ stiffeners based on
pleat weaving concept. J Ind Text 2018; 47: 1626–1644.
[23] Ma P, Jin L and Wu L. Experimental and numerical comparisons of ballistic impact
behaviors between 3D angle-interlock woven fabric and its reinforced composite. J Ind
Text. Epub ahead of print 19 January 2018. DOI: 10.1177/1528083718754903.
[24] Liaqat M, Samad HA, Hamdani STA, et al. The development of novel auxetic woven
structure for impact applications. J Text Inst 2017; 108: 1264–1270.
[25] Bhardwaj S and Juneja S. Performance of jute viscose/polyester and cotton blended :
yarns for apparel use. Stud Home Com Sci 2012; 6: 33–38.
[26] Ali A, Shaker K, Nawab Y, et al. Hydrophobic treatment of natural fibers and their
composites—a review. J Ind Text 2018; 47: 2153–2183.