See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/271452623

Elastic constant identification of laminated

composite beam with metaheuristic algorithms
CONFERENCE PAPER JUNE 2014
DOI: 10.1109/INISTA.2014.6873598

READS

10

4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Mir Mohammad Ettefagh

Hasan Biglari

University of Tabriz

University of Tabriz

52 PUBLICATIONS 182 CITATIONS

11 PUBLICATIONS 54 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Milad Azvar
Sabanci University
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Hasan Biglari

Retrieved on: 05 December 2015

Elastic Constant Identification of Laminated

Composite Beam with Metaheuristic Algorithms
M. M. Ettefagh
H. Biglari
M. Azvar
Mechanical Engineering
Department
University of Tabriz,
Tabriz, Iran
ettefagh@tabrizu.ac.ir
hbiglari@tabrizu.ac.ir
milad.azvar@gmail.com

H. Emdadi
Department of Computer
Science
University of Tabriz
Tabriz, Iran
habib.emdadi@yahoo.com

AbstractIn this paper, ABC (Artificial Bee Colony),

PSO (Particle Swarm Optimization), TS (Tabu Search)
and SA (Simulated Annealing) algorithms are applied to
estimate the elastic constant of the laminated composite
beam by means of measuring vibration frequency of the
beam using experimental modal analysis. For this
purpose, a proper object function is defined based on the
square of deviation between measured and numerically
calculated frequency. Then by minimizing this function
which is in term of the elastic constant employing
preceding algorithms, this constant can be estimated.
Also, comprehensive comparative results of mentioned
algorithms are reported.
Keywords: Laminated Composite
Analysis; ABC; PSO; TS; SA.

I.

Beam;

Modal

INTRODUCTION

Composite materials because of their desiring ratio

of strength to weight and also capability of changing
their parameters in order to satisfy manufacturing and
designing requirements are in focus of interest in
mechanical, aerospace and civil engineering.
Identification of elastic properties of laminated
composite materials is fundamental for structures
designing and manufacturing. Numerous efforts have
been done in order to introduce new methods and
optimizing the current approaches over identification
of elastic parameters of composite materials.
Identification of elastic constants of laminated fiber
reinforced composites due to their anisotropy and nonhomogeny features are more sophisticated than
conventional materials. Static tests [1], ultrasonic
measurement [2] and modal analysis [3] are three
major types of methods for identifying the materials
properties. Gommers and et al. [1] offered a way to
measure elastic constants of non-isotropic fiber
reinforced composite, such as shear modulus and the

shear-extension coupling constants by simple tensile

tests and introduced optimal method of tensile test for
identifying the best elastic constants. Dokun and et al.
[2] used laser ultrasonic techniques to monitor
ultrasonic propertyfrequency dependent Rayleigh
wave velocity (material dispersion)and then identify
materials properties. Also, tensile tests as well-known
destructive test are applied on measurement of strain
fields and consequently parameter identification of
materials. Specimen size restrictions, boundary
conditions, strain discontinuity and difficulty in
determination of frequency dependent parameters like
damping constant are serious troubles aroused by
tensile test. As a consequence, experimental-numerical
and theoretical methods [4-6] are employed to
compensate the disability and enhancing the accuracy
of former conventional approaches. In these methods,
an identification function which represented the
discrepancy between experiment and numerical or
theoretical responses must minimized using various
available mathematical programming techniques.
Earlier works used direct minimization of experiment
design which needs significant computational efforts.
However, by development and improvement of
evolutionary algorithms and also increasing of
powerful computational computers, researchers have
become more interested in solving the complex
optimization problems [7].
In this paper, an analytical-experimental method is
presented in order to identification of elastic properties
of composite laminated beam using four different
metaheuristic algorithms, ABC [8], PSO [9], TS [10]
and SA [11-12]. Euler-Bernoulli beam theory is
employed to obtain the governing equation of the
beam. It should be noted that, the effects of rotary
inertia and Poisson's effect are considered in theoretical
modeling. A proper-defined object function, which

describes the difference between the measured and

analytically calculated parameters of structure, must be
minimized by applying optimization algorithms, in
order to obtain the identification parameter. The
method was employed to identify the elastic constant
of the laminates from the measured natural frequencies
of the beam by using experimental modal analysis.

II.

Q11*L = Q11L + Q12L

Q16L Q26L Q12L Q66L

Q22L Q66L Q26L Q26L

Q12L Q26L Q22L Q16L

Q22L Q66L Q26L Q26L

+Q16L

Q11L = C11L cos 4 + 2 ( C12L + 2C66L ) cos 2 sin 2

+C22L sin 4

Q22L = C11L sin 4 + 2 ( C12L + 2C66L ) cos 2 sin 2

PROBLEM FORMULATION

A. Analytical model
Fig. 1 shows an analytical model of a laminated
composite beam composed of several layers.

+C22L cos 4

Q12L = C12L ( cos 4 + sin 4 )

+ ( C11L + C22L 4C66L ) cos 2 sin 2

Q66L = C66L ( cos 4 + sin 4 )

+ ( C11L + C22L 2C12L 2C66L ) cos 2 sin 2

Q16L = ( C11L C12L 2C66L ) cos3 sin

+ ( C12L C22L + 2C66L ) cos sin 3

Q26L = ( C11L C12L 2C66L ) cos sin 3

+ ( C12L C22L + 2C66L ) cos3 sin

Fig. 1.

Schimatic model of the laminated composite beam

C11 =

Governing equation of an Euler-Bernoulli beam could

be expressed as follows [13]:

I1

2 w0
t w
4 w0
I 3 2 0 2 + EI eq
=0
2
t
x t
x 4

where:

{I1, I 3} = h / 2 {1, z 2} bdz

h/2

B2
EI eq = b D11 11
A11

(1)

C12 =

E1
E2
, C22 =
1 12 21
1 12 21
E1 ( 21 )

1 12 21

, C44 = G12

It should be mentioned that, I1 , I 3 are mass moment of

inertia, A11 , B 11 and D11 are extensional, coupling and
bending stiffness respectively, Qij are reduced stiffness
coefficients and Cij are elastic coefficients of each
lamina. w 0 represents the transverse displacement of
each point in neutral axis of the beam and t is the time.
E1 , E2 , G12 and 12 are elastic constants. Now, using
eigenvalue problem methods on PDE of (1), analytical
natural frequency of clamped laminated ( ) beam can
be derived from numerical solution of following
equation [13]:

A11 = b Q11*L ( z L z L 1 )
L =1

z 2 zL2 1
B11 = b Q L

2
L =1

3
3
n

z
L 1
D11 = b Q11*L L

3
L =1

*L
11

Det

( sin ( l ) + sinh ( l ) )

( 2 cos ( l ) + 2 cosh ( l ) )

( 2 cos ( l ) + 2 cosh ( l ) )

3 sin ( l ) 3 sinh ( l )

=0

(2)

where

2
= q + q + 4 pr

2p

q + q2 + 4 pr
=
2p

, p = EIeq ,

q = I3 2 , r = I1 2

(3)

B. Experimental modal analysis

In Fig. 2, the experimental modal analysis setup for
extracting the natural frequency of the composite beam
is illustrated. In this experimental test, a simplysupported beam is excited by white Gaussian noise with
shaker and simultaneously the response and force is
measured by accelerometer and force sensor,
respectively. After estimating the frequency response
function of the beam, the natural frequency of the beam
can be extracted. This measured frequency will be used
in optimization process for identification of the elastic
constant of the beam.

f obj = (i i ) 2
i =1

(4)

where N is the number of target points which defined as

vibration natural frequency in this case. Now the design
objective can be considered as minimizing the nonlinear
objective function.
D. Design parameters
It is assumed that beam dimensions, mass of beam
( ) and layers stacking order are known. Also, three
elastic constants ( E 2 ,G12 , 12 ) assumed to be known as
well. E1 is the only elastic constant of each lamina
which is supposed to be identified. It should be
mentioned that analytically calculated frequency could
be written in the terms of E1 solely. Hence,
corresponding object function is in the terms of E1 too.
A constraint of this optimization process can be defined
as follows:

5 GPa E1 30 GPa
Now, it is optimization algorithms duty to minimize the
object function and identify the elastic constant.
III. METAHEURISTIC ALGORITHMS
A. ABC Algorithm
The artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm is a new
population-based stochastic heuristic approach,
introduced for the first time by Karaboga in 2005 [8].
This algorithm is very simple and flexible, which does
not require external parameters like crossover rates,
especially suitable for engineering application. The
colony of artificial bees consists of three groups of bees
to search foods, which includes employed bees,
onlookers and scouts.

Accelerometer

Force Transducer

Composite Beam

This algorithm has been applied in different

optimization problems and details of applying this
algorithm can be found in literatures [14-15]. Also, this
algorithm has been used in mechanical engineering
field and mechanism design by converting dimension
synthesis problem to optimization one [16-17].

Shaker

Fig. 2.

Experimental modal analysis setup

C. Design objective
Before defining design objective, definition of
frequency error must be presented, which is defined as
the square of deviation between measured frequency
( i ) and analytically calculated frequency ( i ), as
described in Section B and A, respectively. Therefore,
the objective function is written as a mathematical
equation as follows:

B. PSO Algorithm
The PSO method introduced for the first time in
1995 by Kennedy and Eberhart [9]. This method is
based on social behavior of organisms such as fish
schooling and bird flocking. Because of its simple
concept and quick convergence, PSO can be applied to
various applications in different fields. The approach
uses the concept of population and a measure of
performance like the fitness value used with other
evolutionary algorithms. Similar to other evolutionary
algorithms, the system is initialized with a population of
random solutions, called particles. Each particle

maintains its own current position, its present velocity

and best position explored so far. The swarm is also
aware of the global best position achieved by all its
members. This algorithm is now well-known and used
in different field such as mechanical engineering [16].
Therefore the complete description of this algorithm
can be found in literatures.
C. TS Algorithm
Tabu search is a metaheuristic algorithm was
introduced by Glover for the first time in 1986 [10].
The basic idea of the method is to partially explore the
search space of all feasible solutions by a sequence of
moves. At each iteration, the move carried out is the
most promising among those available. A mechanism
that forbids a set of moves at each iteration is present,
aiming to help the algorithm to escape from local
minima. Also, the algorithm calculates the
neighborhood of the current assignment. Solutions
generated by using a move contained in the Tabu list
cannot be in the neighborhood set, unless the respective
move satisfies the aspiration criterion. Such aspirate
moves are allowed, as they may give a very promising
new solution. The solution with the minimum cost
among those in the neighborhood becomes the new
current solution.
D. SA Algorithm
This algorithm is a stochastic search technique has
been inspired by metallurgical annealing process [1112]. Annealing in a molten metal is done by slowly
cooling and gradual decrease in temperature which
causes the crystal structure to be regular and free from
defects in material and minimizes the energy level. The
gradual decrease in temperature is considered as a
requirement in this process by which the optimization
algorithm can be constructed.
IV.

TABLE I.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF LAMINATED COMPOSITE

E2

G 12

12

5.21GPa

1.83GPa

0.36

TABLE II.

PSO

ABC
TS

SA

PARAMETERS OF APPLIED ALGORITHM

Swarm Size =100

Cognitive=0.1
Social=0.2
Wmax=0.9
Wmin=0.2
Maximum number of iterations= 100
Colony Size =100
Limit value=50
Maximum number of iterations=100
Neighbourhood Size =100
Size of Tabu list=20
Maximum number of iterations=100
Population size=100;
Alpha=5
Number of neighbours=10
Maximum number of iterations=100

The major result of running each algorithm are

inserted in Tables III to VI statistically, express the
results of optimization with ABC, PSO, SA and TS
algorithms for 100 iterations/runs. By these tables, best,
average values and worst of identified frequencies (f1, f2
and f3), elastic constant, error and CPU time values are
shown. It should be added that, the mentioned error is
calculated using the following equation:

Error =

( f1 268)

+ ( f 2 736 ) + ( f3 1440 )
2

(5)

CASE STUDY

A case study beam is made of Glass/Polyester resin

with [0/45/-45] stacking order. The dimensions of 6-ply
beam are 238.5 24 1.22 mm 3 . Total mass of beam is
10.81 gr. The assumed elastic properties of laminated
composite beam tabulated in Table I. The value of the
unknown elastic constant, supposed to be identified is
about 25GPa (estimated by other mechanical methods).
The modal analysis experiment was repeated 10 times
in measuring of first, second and third frequency of the
beam vibration. Four available metaheuristic algorithms
are applied to each experiment. Parameters of
metaheuristic algorithms, selected in this research, are
put in Table II. It should be reminded that programming
is carried out with MATLAB 12, with Core i5 computer
system processor and 3 GB of memory.

where the values of 268, 736 and 1440 (in Hz) are the
natural frequencies of the composite beam, derived by
experimental modal analysis as described in section II.
In Fig. 3, the frequency response function of the beam
has been shown. In this figure the mentioned natural
frequency of the beam can be observed.

TABLE V.

STATISTICAL RESULTS, OBTAINED BY THE SA

ALGORITHM FOR 100 ITERATIONS.

st

1 Frequency (268 Hz)

Experiment

f1

f2

f3

Identified
Elastic constant

#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
Average
Best
Worst

262.92

735.93

1441.8

23539499969.6303

5.381

11.117229

262.76

735.61

1441.3

24273528274.6193

5.4097

11.231237

262.92

736.09

1442.3

32866790080.2181

5.558

11.026652

262.92

735.93

1441.8

31575589535.0553

5.381

11.023517

262.76

735.45

1441

12709107167.0193

5.3556

11.061685

262.76

735.45

1440.8

34132330047.2828

5.3285

11.177567

262.61

735.3

1440.5

27418342727.0149

5.4641

11.065933

262.76

735.61

1441.1

10769611050.2733

5.3735

11.088365

262.61

735.3

1440.5

21270177829.81

5.4641

11.069687

262.92

735.93

1441.8

28312693572.6635

5.381

11.009096

24686767025

5.4096

11.0871

10769611050

5.3285

11.0091

34132330047

5.558

11.23124

Error

CPU
Time

nd
2 Frequency (736 Hz)

3rd Frequency (1440 Hz)

Fig. 3.
Frequency response function of the beam, extracted by
experimental modal analysis

The corresponding results in mentioned tables are

illustrated in Figs. 4-5.
TABLE III.

STATISTICAL RESULTS, OBTAINED BY THE ABC

ALGORITHM FOR 100 ITERATIONS.

Experiment

f1

f2

f3

Identified
Elastic
constant

Error

CPU
Time

#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
Average
Best
Worst

262.76

735.45

1440.8

25080361099.8693

5.3285

30.911357

262.76

735.45

1440.8

22762260251.5533

5.3285

30.534592

262.76

735.45

1440.8

26307411152.9975

5.3285

31.294821

262.76

735.45

1440.8

41361733546.9444

5.3285

31.468497

262.76

735.45

1440.8

25133369513.629

5.3285

29.856366

262.76

735.45

1440.8

46006136592.5867

5.3285

31.999353

262.76

735.45

1440.8

25082300588.272

5.3285

30.068815

262.76

735.45

1440.8

35582371137.5373

5.3285

31.508160

262.76

735.45

1440.8

25121571605.5497

5.3285

30.762982

262.76

735.45

1440.8

20702609477.3485

5.3285

30.735458

TABLE IV.

29314012497

5.3285

30.91404

20702609477

5.3285

29.85637

46006136593

5.3285

31.99935

TABLE VI.

Experiment
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
Average
Best
Worst

.STATISTICAL RESULTS, OBTAINED BY THE TS

ALGORITHM FOR 100 ITERATIONS.

f1

f2

f3

Identified
Elastic
constant

Error

CPU
Time

263.4

737.52

1445

23721197124.5346

6.9389

12.282198

262.29

734.34

1438.8

27172203067.5831

6.0764

12.255190

263.72

738.16

1446.4

10244320741.3003

7.9969

12.410953

263.24

736.89

1443.9

25224710983.6245

6.1866

12.441645

262.13

733.86

1437.8

14976271892.8799

6.6225

12.380435

263.24

736.73

1443.5

30500827746.0295

5.972

12.518850
12.423675

262.45

734.98

1439.9

21661556749.5209

5.6482

262.76

735.61

1441.1

30879303453.1958

5.3735

12.181088

262.76

735.61

1441.3

22483529978.2795

5.4097

12.340560

262.29

734.18

1438.3

13116927031.4515

6.236

12.418477

21998084877

6.24607

12.36531

10244320741

5.3735

12.18109

30879303453

7.9969

12.51885

STATISTICAL RESULTS, OBTAINED BY THE PSO

ALGORITHM FOR 100 ITERATIONS.

Experiment

f1

f2

f3

Identified
Elastic
constant

Error

CPU
Time

#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
Average
Best
Worst

262.76

735.45

1440.8

25111420602.7902

5.3285

21.725442

262.76

735.45

1440.8

25111019341.6118

5.3285

21.798221

262.76

735.45

1440.8

25110049454.8997

5.3285

21.773744

262.76

735.45

1440.8

25110491037.4499

5.3285

21.700789

262.76

735.45

1440.8

25111125973.0664

5.3285

21.615837

262.76

735.45

1440.8

25110083759.024

5.3285

21.657098

262.76

735.45

1440.8

25110944378.4238

5.3285

21.633943

262.76

735.45

1440.8

25109279966.035

5.3285

21.587906

262.76

735.45

1440.8

25109435893.2731

5.3285

21.998107

262.76

735.45

1440.8

25110854295.7699

5.3285

21.475473

25110470470

5.3285

21.69666

25109279966

5.3285

21.47547

25111420603

5.3285

21.99811

Fig. 4.
Identified parameter (elastic constant) for different
algorithms

Fig. 5.

Error values in persent for different algorithms

It can be seen from Fig. 4, the identified elastic

constant by PSO in its average value is 25.1022 GPa
which is more accurate than ABC which is 29.3140
GPa. It should be mentioned that the correct value of
the elastic constant, measured by other mechanical
method in literatures, is around 25 GPa. SA and TS are
in the next rank with corresponding average value of
identified elastic constant of 24.6867 GPa and 21.998
GPa, respectively. Also, by considering Fig. 5, it can be
deduced, both of ABC and PSO algorithms minimize
the error function 1.0152 and 1.1722 times better than
SA and TS, respectively.
Figs. 6 and 7 are provided for illustrating the stability
diagram of the cost and error values, respectively for
100 runs of the algorithms.

Fig. 7.
Error values variation versus 100 runs for different
algotrithms

By considering Fig. 6, it can be seen that stability of

PSO and ABC is remarkably better in comparison with
other two algorithms. The obtained results show one of
the most important specifications of the PSO and ABC
in addition to their higher accuracy of these algorithms
respect to SA and TS. The same property of the PSO
and ABC is observable in Fig. 7 that the error value is
more stable and constant when using the mentioned
algorithms, meanwhile the SA and TA fluctuation
around the mean values are major drawback of these
algorithms in identifying the exact elastic constant. It
should be added, SA algorithm is better than TS by
considering the stability of the algorithms.
The last figures of the obtained results in this
research compare the ability of the applied algorithms
by computational and convergence time plots, which
are plotted in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively.

Fig. 6.
Cost value variation versus 100 runs for different
algotrithms

Fig. 8.
Computational time versus generations for different
algorithms

algorithms (ABC, PSO, SA and TS) have been applied

in order to minimize the object function. EulerBernoulli beam theory has been employed to obtain the
governing equation of the beam. Then an experimental
modal analysis setup has been provided for measuring
three natural frequencies of the beam. By defining a
suitable object function which is based on differences
between measured and analytically calculated
frequencies, the elastic constant can be identified by
minimizing this function. The comparison results of the
implemented algorithm show that both of ABC and
PSO can give more accurate results for elastic constant
of the beam. In addition, the convergence time of PSO
is smaller than other algorithms. Also, it is found that
the cost value of PSO is more stable than other
algorithms. It should be added that the proposed
method can be easily extended to identification of more
physical parameter of any composite structures.
REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]
Fig. 9.
Convergence plot versus generations for different
algorithms

[7]
[8]

As it is seen in Fig. 8, the computational times of the

PSO, ABC and SA are same and are better than TS.
Finally by looking exactly to the Fig. 9, it can be
concluded that convergence behavior of the PSO and
ABC are better than other algorithms.

[9]

[10]

[11]

V.

CONCLISION

In this paper, an optimization-based method have

been proposed for identification of elastic constant of
laminated composite beam using experimentalanalytical approach. Four different methheuristic

[12]

[13]

B. Gommers, I. Verpoest, and P. Van Houtte, Determination

of the mechanical properties of composite materials by tensile
tests. Part I: Elastic properties, Journal of composite materials,
vol. 32(4), pp. 310-334, 1998.
O.D. Dokun, L.J. Jacobs, and R.M. Haj-Ali, Ultrasonic
monitoring of material degradation in FRP composites,
Journal of engineering mechanics, vol. 126(7), pp. 704-710,
2000.
J. De Visscher, H. Sol, W.P. De Wilde and J. Vantomme,
Identification of the damping properties of orthotropic
composite materials using a mixed numerical experimental
method, Applied Composite Materials, vol. 4(1), pp. 13-33,
1997.
A. Bledzki, A. Kessler, R. Rikards and A. Chate,
Determination of elastic constants of glass/epoxy
unidirectional laminates by the vibration testing of plates,
Composites Science and Technology, vol. 59(13), pp. 20152024, 1999.
R. Rikards, A. Chate, and G. Gailis, Identification of elastic
properties of laminates based on experiment design,
International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 38(30), pp.
5097-5115, 2001.
R. Rikards, A. Chate and G. Gailis, Method for identification
of elastic properties of laminates based on experiment design,
Composites Part B: Engineering, vol. 30(3), pp. 279-289, 1999.
L.D. Chambers, Practical handbook of genetic algorithms
complex coding systems, vol. III, CRC press, 2010.
D. Karaboga and B. Basturk, On the performance of artificial
bee colony (ABC) algorithm, Applied Soft Computing, vol. 8,
pp. 687697, 2008.
J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, Particle Swarm Optimization,
Proceeding of IEEE International Conference on Neural
Networks in Perth-WA, vol. 4, pp. 1942-1948, 1995.
F. Glover, M. Laguna, P.M. Pardalos, and M.G.C. Resende
Tabu Search, In Handbook of Applied Optimization, Oxford
University Press, pp. 194-208, 2002.
S. Kirkpatrick, C.D. Gelatt, and M.P. Vecchi, Optimization by
simulated annealing, Sciene, vol. 220 pp. 671680, 1983.
V. Cerny, A thermodynamical approach to the traveling
salesman problem: An efficient simulation algorithm, Journal
of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 45, pp. 41- 51,
1985.
J.N. Reddy, Mechanics of Laminated Composite Plates and
Shells: Theory and Analysis, CRC press, 2004..

[14] S.H. Sishaj and P. Simon, Artificial bee colony algorithm for
economic load dispatch proble with non-smooth cost
functions, Electric Power Components and Systems, vol.
38(7), pp. 786-803, 2010.
[15] F. Kang, J. Li, H. Li, Z. Ma and Q. Xu, An improved artificial
bee colony algorithm, IEEE 2nd International Workshop on
Intelligent Systems and Applications (ISA), 2010.
[16] H. Emdadi, M.Yazdanian, M. M. Ettefagh and M. R. FeiziDerakhshi, Double four-bar crank-slider mechanism dynamic
balancing by meta-heuristic algorithms, International Journal
of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), vol. 4(5),
September 2013.
[17] M. M. Etttefagh, M. Abbasi and H. Emdadi, , Path synthesis
of the four-bar mechanism using ABC algorithm and
comparing with BGA, proceeding of IEEE Internationa
Symposium on Innovations in Intelligent Systems and
Applications 2013 (INISTA 2013),.