Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

Composite Structures 94 (2012) 23062313

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage:

Surrogate-based multi-objective optimization of a composite laminate

with curvilinear bers
Mahdi Arian Nik, Kazem Fayazbakhsh, Damiano Pasini , Larry Lessard
Department of Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, Macdonald Engineering Building, 817 Sherbrooke West, Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 2K6

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A variable stiffness design can increase the structural performance of a composite plate and provides ex-
Available online 30 March 2012 ibility for trade-offs between structural properties. In this paper, we examine the simultaneous optimi-
zation of stiffness and buckling load of a composite laminate plate with curvilinear ber paths. The
Keywords: problem, which falls in the area of multi-objective optimization, is formulated and solved through a sur-
Variable stiffness rogate-based optimization algorithm capable of nding the set of optimum Pareto solutions. We inte-
Curvilinear ber grate surrogate modeling into an evolutionary algorithm to reduce the high computational cost
Laminate design
required to solve the optimization process. The results show that a curvilinear ber path can increase
both buckling load and stiffness simultaneously over the quasi-isotropic laminate. Furthermore, the opti-
mum direction for varying the ber angle is dependent on the loading direction and boundary conditions.
The results for a plate under uniform compression with free transverse edges shows that varying the ber
orientation perpendicular to the loading direction can increase the buckling load by 116% with respect to
that of a quasi-isotropic laminate.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction on a motion base with several translational DOF. A mandrel with

an additional rotational DOF provides a tool surface on which the
The design of a laminated composite structure requires the tows are placed [3].
selection of the constituent materials and their best arrangement The improvement in buckling and in-plane stiffness of variable
within the structure. To this end, traditional and non-conventional stiffness over constant stiffness design has been demonstrated by
design strategies have been developed. With the former, the ber several authors. Hyer and Lee [4] improved the buckling resistance
angle and the thickness within each layer are kept constant and of a plate with a circular hole using a curvilinear ber path. Lund
the design involves the search for the optimum stacking sequence et al. [5] examined two benchmark problems, i.e. a single-layer
that results in the best mechanical properties of the composite and a 16-layer simply supported plate, and concluded that the buck-
structure. With the latter, the bers are allowed to follow curvilin- ling load can be increased by up to 44% using a variable stiffness
ear paths within the plane of the laminates, thereby giving the compared to a constant stiffness design. Minimum compliance
freedom to tailor the properties in directions that are favorable design for a cantilever beam and a square plate was investigated
to carry the load within the laminate [1]. by Setoodeh et al. [6]. It was found that by allowing the in-plane
Variable stiffness laminates can be manufactured using an stiffness to vary spatially, the compliance can be improved up to
Automated Fiber Placement (AFP) technique [2]. AFP is capable of 36% and 45% for a cantilever beam and a square plate, respectively.
combining tape placement and lament winding techniques to In a follow up work [7], it was pointed out that variable stiffness de-
overcome the limitations and exploit the benets of the two man- sign can increase the buckling load of a single-layer and a balanced
ufacturing methods. Tape placement is generally more efcient for symmetric [h]s square plate up to 166% and 67%, respectively.
manufacturing large at plates and its use is limited to compo- IJsselmuiden et al. [8] studied different loading and boundary con-
nents with simple geometry. Filament winding has its limitations ditions on balanced symmetric [h]3s square plates. Results demon-
in terms of the structural geometries that can be produced, which strated improvements more than 100% in buckling loads of variable-
are basically restricted to convex nearly cylindrical shapes. An AFP stiffness compared to the optimum constant stiffness designs.
machine typically has a self-contained ber placement head with While the above studies are promising because they demonstrate
three rotational degrees-of-freedom (DOF), which is then mounted the potential of optimizing the curvilinear ber paths of composite
structures, their approaches did not consider the manufacturing
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 514 398 6295; fax: +1 514 398 7365. constraints, e.g. the minimum turning radius and the minimum
E-mail address: (D. Pasini). cut length imposed by AFP. As a result, several solutions although

0263-8223/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Arian Nik et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 23062313 2307

theoretically optimum might not satisfy the manufacturing con- the optimum result can be manufactured using existing ber
straints imposed by the AFP machine. To avoid this issue, other placement machines. In the following sections, the ber path for-
researchers redened the tow steered ply denitions to meet the mulation is rst presented before investigating two benchmark
AFP manufacturing constraints. A continuous function was pro- cases previously studied in [9,10,14]. Analytical expressions for
posed to describe the ber path, which can also reduce the number the in-plane and out-of-plane responses of the plate under uniform
of design variables without compromising structural continuity. compression are provided to more accurately calculate the buck-
Grdal and Olmedo [9] suggested to model the ber path with a lin- ling load compared to the aforementioned research. Next, a GA-
ear ber angle variation from one end of a plate to the other. In their based optimization technique is briey described. A discussion of
work, an analysis for calculating the in-plane stiffness of a plate with the results follows together with design recommendations and
the prescribed ber path was proposed. In another attempt, Olmedo directions for future research.
and Grdal [10] used the same ber path model and layup to inves-
tigate the buckling resistance of the plates under uniform compres- 2. Problem denition
sion. It was found that up to 80% increase in the buckling load can be
achieved compared to constant stiffness laminates. Tatting and This section explains the ber path used to design a variable
Grdal [11,12] designed and manufactured at plates with curvilin- stiffness plate. Then, two case studies of square plates, each under
ear ber path for maximum buckling load under shear loading. An two dissimilar boundary conditions, are described.
improvement up to 224% in the buckling load for variable stiffness
compared to a constant stiffness design was found. Alhajahmad 2.1. Fiber path denition
et al. [13] used the same ber path denition and found ber paths
that maximized the buckling load of a plate subjected to pressure For the design of a variable stiffness plate, it is necessary to de-
and in-plane loads. It was shown that the buckling load and the ne a reference path (Fig. 1a) along which the AFP machine places
in-plane stiffness are generally unrelated and present opposing de- the rst course (a course is dened as a number of tows placed side
sign trends. In previous research works [9,10,13,14], curvilinear - by side). The subsequent ber paths can be obtained by offsetting
ber paths were found to substantially improve one of the the machine along a given direction, e.g. x- or y-directions.
properties under investigation while the other property was kept As suggested by Grdal and Olmedo [9], a reference ber path
constant. Since the concurrent improvement of the buckling load that varies linearly along the x-axis of the plate can be formulated as
and in-plane stiffness was not examined, the benets of a variable
2T 1  T 0
stiffness design were not fully exploited. hx jxj T 0 1
Buckling load and in-plane stiffness are examples of two con- a
icting objectives that can be simultaneously maximized in the de- where h represents the ber orientation, a denotes the plate width,
sign of composite plates, a problem that falls within the area of T0 and T1 are the ber angles at the plate center (x = 0) and the plate
multi-objective optimization. Instead of a single optimum solution, edge (x = a/2), respectively. In this case, since the path varies along
this problem has a set of optimum solutions dening the Pareto the x-axis, the reference path should be shifted along the y-direc-
front, which represents the trade-offs among the objectives [15]. tion to manufacture the entire plate (Fig. 1b). A single layer with
Among several design optimization algorithms, evolutionary this ber path denition may be represented by hT0|T1i, where
strategies have been demonstrated to be capable of returning a pop- T0 = T1 represents a straight ber case. Similarly (Fig. 1c), the ber
ulation of solutions at each iteration of the optimization process. orientation can be formulated along the y-direction, in which y
Genetic Algorithm (GA), which belongs to this category, has been replaces x in Eq. (1); in this case, the AFP machine should be
widely used and recommended for optimizing composite structures offset along the x-direction.
[16]. GA, however, being a population-based algorithm, requires a
large number of function evaluations to reach the optimum solu- 2.2. Case studies
tion. This requisite makes the process of nding an optimum solu-
tion computationally expensive. To overcome this issue, the A square plate 0.254  0.254 m made of 16-ply balanced sym-
coupling of a surrogate model with GA has been recognized as ben- metric [h]4s laminate subjected to a uniform end shortening along
ecial. For example, Lee and Lin [17,18] used a linear combination of the x-direction is considered as a case study. Concerning the bound-
trigonometric basis functions as a surrogate model to optimize the ary conditions, the transverse edges are considered free in case I-a,
stacking sequence of a composite laminate. It was claimed that the while the edges are xed against displacement in the y-direction
use of the surrogate model decreased the number of GA iterations in case I-b (Fig. 2). The plates are designed with material properties:
by one-third. In another study, Lanzi and Giavotto [19] compared Ex = 181 GPa, Ey = 10.27 GPa, Gxy = 7.17 GPa and txy = 0.28 and with
the performance of Radial Basis Function (RBF), Kriging, and Neural the curvilinear ber path given by Eq. (1) in two different scenarios:
Network surrogate modeling techniques to achieve a stiffened com- case-I, the ber orientation varies along x-direction (parallel to the
posite plate with the minimum weight and maximum buckling loading direction); case-II, the ber orientation varies along
load. They concluded that all surrogate models under investigation y-direction (perpendicular to the loading direction).
in their work return similar results for the specic case. In addition,
Irisarri et al. [20] used RBF to maximize the buckling and the failure
load of a stiffened composite plate. Vandervelde and Milani [21] 3. Analysis
used a second order polynomial regression as a surrogate model,
which was developed by Wang et al. [22], to design and optimize In this section, the analytical formulations for evaluating two
an airplane composite wing free vibration. Surrogate-based optimi- objectives, namely in-plane stiffness and critical buckling load,
zation has been successfully used also for constant stiffness com- for a composite plate with a curvilinear ber path are derived.
posite design [1721]. Surrogate modeling, however, has not been
used to optimize variable stiffness composite structures. 3.1. In-plane response of a variable stiffness plate
The focus of this paper is on maximizing simultaneously in-
plane stiffness and buckling resistance of a variable stiffness com- Closed-form expressions for the in-plane stiffness evaluation of
posite plate using a computationally efcient surrogate-based a variable stiffness plate can be obtained from the in-plane plate
optimization method. Curvilinear ber paths are selected such that equilibrium equations given by
2308 M. Arian Nik et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 23062313



(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 1. A composite laminate with a curvilinear ber path; (a) denition of a reference ber path; (b) ber angle offset along y-direction (T0 = 60, T1 = 15); and (c) ber angle
offset along x-direction (T0 = 60, T1 = 15).


u0 u0 u0 u0
Y =(x) =(x)


Case I-a: Square plate under uniform Case I-b: Square plate under uniform
compression, Free transverse edges compression, Fixed transverse edges

Fig. 2. Case I: square plates with different boundary conditions.

Nx;x Nxy;y 0 2a is a result of varying the ber path in the xy plane. Since the above
two partial differential equations with variable coefcients are
Ny;y Nxy;x 0 2b coupled, a numeric solutions must be obtained. Here, MATLAB sub-
routines have been developed to solve the above equations and
where x and y are the plate coordinates, Nx, Ny and Nxy are the cor-
calculate the displacement distribution of the plate as well as the
responding stress resultants, and the comma denotes the partial
equivalent in-plane stiffness.
derivatives of the term with respect to the subscripts. Employing
the generalized stressstrain relations and assuming a linear rela-
3.2. Buckling response of a square plate
tion between displacement and strain, the above equations take
the form:
This section presents the calculation of the critical buckling load
A11 u;xx 2A16 u;xy A66 u;yy A16 v ;xx A12 A66 v ;xy A26 v ;yy of a variable stiffness plate subjected to an in-plane uniform com-
pression (constant displacement along x-direction, u0). The plate is
A11;x A16;y u;x A16;x A66;y u;y A16;x A26;y v ;x
assumed to be simply supported along all edges; these geometrical
A12;x A26;y v ;y 0 3a conditions at the boundaries imply zero out-of-plane deection
along the edges. The compression load at the plate edge (Nx0), cor-
A16 u;xx A12 A66 u;xy A26 u;yy A26 v ;yy A66 v ;xx 2A26 v ;xy responding to the displacement u0, is obtained using the equations
A22 v ;yy A16;x A12;y u;x A66;y A26;y u;y of the in-plane response mentioned in Section 3.1. To calculate the
A66;x A26;y v ;x A26;x A22;y v ;y 0 3b buckling load, Nx0 is increased proportionally (kN x0 ) where k is
the load multiplier. kcr is dened as the minimum load multiplier
where Aij are the elements of the in-plane stiffness matrix of the for a buckled plate and can be obtained using an energy method
composite plate, u and v are mid-plane displacements in the x- [23]. The Ritz method is used to obtain the critical buckling load
and y-direction, respectively. For more details on deriving these and the out-of-plane deection (w) of the plate. Since all edges
equations, the interested reader may refer to [14]. are simply supported, w should be zero along these edges. The fol-
Unlike a constant stiffness design, the derivatives of the A ma- lowing series approximation that satises the boundary conditions
trix with respect to x and y elements are not zero. This difference is assumed for w
M. Arian Nik et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 23062313 2309

ipx jp y imization problem is to use the inverse of the objective functions.
w C ij sin sin 4 Then, the optimization problem can be written as follows
i1 j1
a a
minf1=Eeq x; 1=N cr xg; x T 0 ; T 1 T
where I and J are arbitrary numbers used in the summations, and a x 10
is the plate width. Cij are constants which can be calculated using s:t: fT 0 ; T 1 2 0 ; 90 g
the principle of stationary potential energy dened as
where x is the vector of design variables, i.e., T0 and T1 that are the
@ P @U X ber angle at the plate center and plate edge, respectively; Eeq and
0 5
@C ij @C ij Ncr are respectively the equivalent in-plane stiffness and the critical
where P represents total potential energy, U is the strain energy buckling load of the plate. It is worth to mention that the design
due to the out of plane deection of the plate and X denotes the po- variables should be integers to respect the manufacturing con-
tential energy due to the external forces. The strain energy due to straints. To reduce the computational cost involved in the optimiza-
the out-of-plane deection of the plate can be calculated as tion process, we now resort to a surrogate modeling approach
2 which will be coupled with the optimization algorithm.
Z Z !2 !2 !2
a 2 a 2 2
1 4D11 @ w D22 @ w D66 2@ w
U 4.1. NSGA-II and motivation for surrogate modeling
2 0 0 @x2 @y2 @x2
@4w @4w @4w Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II (NSGA-II) is a mul-
2 D12 2 2 D16 3 2D26 dydx 6 ti-objective Evolutionary Algorithm (EA) that uses elite-preserva-
@x @y @x @y @x@y3
tion strategy and explicit diversity-preserving mechanism to nd
a set of evenly distributed solutions to a multi-objective optimiza-
where U represents the strain energy, Dij denotes the elements of
tion problem [25]. NSGA-II was developed to reduce the computa-
the bending stiffness matrix and w is the out-of-plane deection
tional complexity, to improve the diversity among non-dominated
of the plate. These equations take into account the bending/twisting
solutions and to add elitism to non-dominated sorting genetic
coupling terms, i.e. D16 and D26 of the bending stiffness matrix. We
algorithm (NSGA) [26]. Simplicity, effectiveness, and independency
note that these terms were neglected by previous researchers to
on user-dened parameters, make NSGA-II a exible and robust EA
simplify the calculations [10,14]. However, neglecting even small
procedure for solving various multi-objective optimization prob-
D16 and D26 terms may result in a signicant error in the buckling
lems using a common framework [27]. As mentioned in the intro-
load estimation [24]. The potential energy due to the external force
duction, NSGA-II needs a large number of function evaluations to
can be obtained by
" # nd the Pareto optimal set. However, for the case of this study
Z Z  2  2
1 b a
@w @w @2w since the objective functions are evaluated through expensive sim-
X Nx Ny 2Nxy dydx 7 ulations, the high computational cost of the multi-objective opti-
2 0 0 @x @y @x@y
mization becomes a major challenge.
Since the material properties, i.e. stiffness and Poissons ratio, For this reason, we resort here to a surrogate model that
change within the plane due to varying ber angles, the compres- approximates the computationally expensive simulations through
sion load at the plate edge may not be constant. Thus, N axv e , the a multi-dimensional parametric surface [28,29]. The surrogate
average compression load (per unit length) along the plate edge, model, which is signicantly cheaper to evaluate than the high
can be dened as delity simulation, replaces the expensive simulations during the
R 2a optimization process; as a result, the computational cost of the
2a Nx 2a ; ydy optimization process can be signicantly reduced.
Naxv e 8
Substituting Eq. (4) into Eqs. (6) and (7) and then replacing into 4.2. Surrogate modeling
Eq. (5) yields an eigenvalue problem as follows
 There are a variety of techniques to construct surrogate models.
J i; m 1; 2; 3; . . . ; I Since their performance is problem-dependent, the best surrogate
Gmnij  kbmnij wij 0 9
i1j1 j; n 1; 2; 3; . . . ; J model is not known at the outset. We thus emphasize that a com-
parative study of the performance of various surrogate models
where the elements of [G] are the summation of the integral terms in
should be performed before selecting the best surrogate model
Eqs. (6) and (7) containing the Dijs and the elements of [b] are the
for a specic design problem. This task, however, is beyond the
sums of the integral terms containing Nx, Ny and Nxy The lowest eigen-
scope of this work. In this section, the method of polynomial regres-
value (load multiplier) corresponds to the lowest buckling load [23].
sion (PR), which is the simplest non-linear model for constructing a
surrogate model, is selected and its formulation is briey described.

4. Formulation of the optimization problem

4.2.1. Polynomial regression (PR)
A second-order polynomial can be expressed as
Variable stiffness design provides exibility for trade-offs be-
tween different structural properties. The involvement of two or X
n X
n X
n X
~f x b bi xi bii x2i bij xi xj 11
more conicting objectives results in a multi-objective optimization 0
i1 i1 i1 ji1
problem. The solution of this problem is not unique; instead of a sin-
gle optimum solution, there is a set of optimum solutions represent- where b0, bi, bii and bij(i, j = 1, . . . , n) are the regression coefcients,
ing the trade-off between the objectives. In this work, buckling xi(i = 1, . . . , n) are the design variables, and ~f denotes the approxi-
resistance and in-plane stiffness of a plate, which are generally con- mate value for the objective function. The coefcients of the surro-
icting to each other, are considered as objective functions. The goal gate model are evaluated through tting the model to the initial
here is to nd the ber path parameters (design variables) that data samples using the least square method [28]. For a number of
simultaneously maximize the in-plane stiffness and buckling data samples (Ns) and two design variables (x1 and x2), the set of
resistance. One way to convert a maximization problem into a min- equations specied in Eq. (13) can be written in matrix form as
2310 M. Arian Nik et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 23062313

f Ub 12 edges (case II-a). Fig. 4 shows the result of the each algorithm,
which are averaged over ve trials. The result clearly shows supe-
where f is a Ns  1 matrix of function values at data samples, and U
riority of the surrogate-based optimization approach in reducing
is a Ns  6 matrix, also known as Gramian matrix, of the design
the computational cost of the optimization compared to the GA.
variable values as the data samples dened by
2 3 In a similar approach, the performance of GA and surrogate-
1 x11 x21 x11 x21 x211 x221 based GA in maximizing the buckling load is compared in Fig. 5,
6 7 where the results are averaged over ve trials. Also this graph indi-
6 1 x12 x22 x12 x22 x212 x222 7
6 7 cates superiority of the surrogate based optimization in reducing
6. .. .. .. .. .. 7
6 .. . . . . . 7 the computational cost over the GA.
6 7
U6 2 7
6 1 x1i x2i x1i x2i x21i x2i 7
6 7
6. .. .. .. .. .. 7 5.2. Multi-objective optimization results
6 .. . . . . . 7
4 5
1 x1Ns x2Ns x1i x2Ns x21Ns x22Ns The surrogate-based NSGA-II (NSGA-II + PR) is used to solve the
The vector b of the coefcients of Eq. (13) can then be obtained multi-objective optimization problems (Eq. (10)). In each case, the
by stopping criterion is set to be the maximum number of function
evaluations, i.e. 500. The in-plane stiffness and the buckling load
b UT U1 UT f 14 of the variable stiffness plate are normalized using the correspond-
ing values for a constant stiffness quasi-isotropic laminate with
[45/0/45/90]2s layup.
4.3. Multi-objective optimization framework
The optimization results for a plate with free transverse edges
(cases I-a and II-a) and xed transverse edges (cases I-b and II-b)
In the conventional NSGA-II, all individuals in the population
are illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. A wide extent of the
are evaluated by the true function, whereas in the surrogate-based
Pareto front was captured for each case. A designer can select
NSGA-II only some of the individuals are evaluated by the true
any solution placed on the Pareto front considering the desirable
functions [30]. The main steps implemented here for a surrogate-
trade-off between in-plane stiffness and buckling.
based NSGA-II are (Fig. 3):

Step 1: The initial sample points are generated by the Latin 6. Discussion
Hypercube (LH) method [28]. The LH method is used to gener-
ate an initial population that is predominantly random, but is Figs. 4 and 5 show that PR surrogate-based optimization algo-
uniform in each dimension. rithms perform better than the GA. In stiffness optimization prob-
Step 2: Two different surrogate models are constructed based on lem, GA reaches the optimum solution after performing 200
the initial sample points: the rst one predicts the equivalent function evaluations, whereas surrogate-based GA requires 116
plate stiffness, and the second one predicts the corresponding function evaluations only. Buckling load optimization also con-
buckling load. rms the dominance of the surrogate-based GA over GA. The
Step 3: The intermediate population (offspring) is generated by [h90|15i]4s solution achieved by the surrogate-based GA after 72
the standard genetic operators. function evaluations is achieved by GA after 225 function evalua-
Step 4: The individuals in the offspring are divided into two tions. Therefore, it can be concluded that in this design problem
groups (based on their Euclidean distance to the parent individ- PR surrogate model signicantly increases the efciency of the
uals): those which lie in the local vicinity of the individuals of optimization process.
the parent population are evaluated by the surrogate model; Fig. 6 shows the Pareto fronts obtained with surrogate-based
the remaining individuals (second group) are assessed through NSGA-II for a at plate maximizing both in-plane stiffness and
true function evaluation. buckling load and subjected to free transverse edges. According
Step 5: The non-dominate sorting algorithm is applied to create to classical lamination theory, the obvious solution for maximum
a new population. stiffness is [0]16T laminate with all bers aligned along the loading
Step 6: If any individual in the new population has been evalu- direction (x). By comparing cases I-a and II-a it can be observed
ated by the surrogate model, then it must be re-evaluated by that the direction of the ber orientation angle variation does not
the true functions before proceeding to the next step. play a major role in the maximum achievement in stiffness, i.e.
Step 7: Proceed to step 2 unless the stopping criteria (which 160% higher compared to the quasi-isotropic laminate. However,
requires reach the maximum number of true function evalua- the direction is important for buckling load maximization. It
tion) is satised. should be recalled that for case I-a the ber orientation changes
along the loading direction (h = h(x)), whereas for case II-a the ber
5. Results orientation varies perpendicular to the loading direction (h = h(y)).
In case II-a, an improvement of 116% in the buckling load can be
In this section, rst the viability of PR surrogate model in obtained for laminate at the cost of 46% reduction in the stiffness
increasing the performance of the design optimization of variable over the quasi-isotropic laminate. On the other hand, case I-a can
stiffness composite structures is veried. In particular, single only achieve 20% improvement in the buckling load for [45]4s
objective optimization problems, which have known solutions, laminate along with 62% reduction in stiffness. For cases I-a and
are examined. Then, the surrogate model is integrated into II-a, there is a set of optimum solutions in which both stiffness
NSGA-II to solve multi-objective optimization problems. and buckling load are higher compared to the quasi-isotropic lam-
inate (Fig. 6). Case II-a generally provides a better set of non-
5.1. PR surrogate model performance in single objective optimization dominated solutions compared to case I-a. Thus, plates with
problems varying ber orientation perpendicular to the loading direction
(h = h(y)) can provide a better performance for stiffness and buck-
The PR surrogate model is integrated into a conventional GA to ling load compared to the case where the ber orientation changes
maximize the in-plane stiffness of a at plate with free transverse along the loading direction.
M. Arian Nik et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 23062313 2311

Fig. 3. Flowchart of surrogate-based optimization.

185 19.0

180 18.5
Critical buckling load (kN)

Eeq (GPa)


155 15.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Number of function evaluations Number of function evaluations

Fig. 4. Performance comparison of surrogated based optimization. The results are Fig. 5. Performance evaluation of surrogated based optimization. The results are
averaged over ve trials. averaged over ve trials.

Fig. 7 shows the Pareto fronts for a at plate with xed trans- changes along the loading direction (h = h(x)), whereas for case II-
verse edges. Similar to the previous cases, [0]16T gives the maxi- b the ber orientation varies perpendicular to the loading direction
mum improvement in stiffness. For case I-b, the ber orientation (h = h(y)). In case II-b, at the extreme value of the buckling load, an
2312 M. Arian Nik et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 23062313

2.4 For a at plate with free transverse edges, varying ber orienta-
Case I-a tion perpendicular to the loading direction can improve the buck-
Case II-a ling load by 116% over the quasi-isotropic laminate. On the other
2.0 hand, for a at plate with xed transverse edges, the maximum
achievable improvement in the buckling load is only 37%. For all

cases, the use of curvilinear ber paths results in a set of optimum
1.6 solutions in which both stiffness and buckling load are higher than
1.4 a quasi-isotropic laminate. For example, [h0|49i]4s laminate can
increase both buckling load and stiffness over quasi-isotropic lam-
1.2 inate by 32% and 51%, respectively. Hence, the optimum direction
1.0 of varying the ber angle is dependent on the loading and bound-
ary conditions. For free edges, the optimum direction is perpendic-
0.8 ular to the loading direction, while for xed transverse edges it is
0.6 along the loading direction.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Alternative ber paths, e.g. constant curvature ber path, might
Eeq/quasi-isotropic bring additional improvement in the simultaneous optimization of
stiffness and buckling load. Further work, however, is required to
Fig. 6. Pareto set obtained by maximizing the buckling load and the overall plate investigate this matter. In addition, a future work will compare
the performance of alternative surrogate models to identify the
one that can most efciently reduce the computational cost re-
quired to solve the multi-objective optimization of composite lam-
inate structures with curvilinear bers.
Case I-b
Case II-b
1.3 Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the National Research Council of


1.2 Canada, Bombardier Aerospace and Composites Atlantic.


[1] Ghiasi H, Fayazbakhsh K, Pasini D, Lessard L. Optimum stacking sequence

design of composite materials Part II: variable stiffness design. Compos Struct
1.0 2010;93:113.
[2] Evans DO, Vaniglia MM, Hopkins PC. Fiber placement process study. In: 34th
International SAMPE symposium and exhibition. Reno, Nevada, USA; 1989. p.
0.9 182233.
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 [3] Grdal Z, Tatting BF, Wu KC. Tow-placement technology and fabrication issues
for laminated composite structures. In: 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Eeq/quasi-isotropic structures, structural dynamics and materials conference. Austin, Texas;
2005. p. 117.
Fig. 7. Pareto set obtained by maximizing the buckling load and the overall plate [4] Hyer M, Lee H. The use of curvilinear ber format to improve buckling
stiffness. resistance of composite plates with central circular holes. Compos Struct
[5] Lund E, Stegmann J. On structural optimization of composite shell structures
using a discrete constitutive parametrization. Wind Energy 2005;8:10924.
[6] Setoodeh S, Abdalla MM, Grdal Z. Design of variable-stiffness laminates using
improvement of 37% is achieved for [h90|10i]4s laminate which lamination parameters. Compos Part B: Eng 2006;37:3019.
comes at the cost of 14% reduction in stiffness over the quasi- [7] Setoodeh S, Abdalla M, Ijsselmuiden S, Grdal Z. Design of variable-stiffness
composite panels for maximum buckling load. Compos Struct
isotropic laminate. On the other hand, in case I-b for [h0|49i]4s
laminate both buckling load and stiffness can be increased by [8] Ijsselmuiden ST, Abdalla MM, Grdal Z. Optimization of variable-stiffness
32% and 51%, respectively. Unlike the case with free transverse panels for maximum buckling load using lamination parameters. AIAA J
edges (cases I-a and II-a), most of the solutions on the Pareto fronts 2010;48:13443.
[9] Grdal Z, Olmedo R. In-plane response of laminates with spatially varying ber
have both higher stiffness and buckling load compared to the qua- orientations: variable stiffness concept. AIAA J 1993;31:7518.
si-isotropic laminate. Case I-b gives a signicantly better set of [10] Olmedo R, Gdal Z. Buckling response of laminates with spatially varying ber
solutions compared to case II-b. Therefore, square plates with vary- orientations. SW, Washington, DC 20024-2518, USA: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics; 1993. p. 22619.
ing ber orientation parallel to the loading direction can provide an [11] Tatting BF, Grdal Z. Design and manufacture of elastically tailored tow placed
improved performance for stiffness and buckling load compared to plates. NASA contractor report no NASA/CR-2002-211919; 2002.
the case where the ber orientation changes perpendicular to the [12] Tatting BF, Grdal Z. Automated nite element analysis of elastically-tailored
plates. NASA contractor report no NASA/CR-2003-212679; 2003.
loading direction. [13] Alhajahmad AAM, Grdal Z. Optimal design of tow-placed fuselage panels for
maximum strength with buckling considerations. J Aircraft 2010;47:77582.
7. Conclusion and recommendations [14] Grdal Z, Tatting BF, Wu CK. Variable stiffness composite panels: effects of
stiffness variation on the in-plane and buckling response. Compos Part A: Appl
Sci Manuf 2008;39:91122.
This paper has examined the multi-objective optimization of [15] Deb K. Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley;
the in-plane stiffness and buckling load of a composite at plate 2001.
[16] Ghiasi H, Pasini D, Lessard L. Optimum stacking sequence design of composite
with variable stiffness. Surrogate-based GA and GA have been com- materials Part I: constant stiffness design. Compos Struct 2009;90:111.
pared for two single objective optimization problems, i.e. stiffness [17] Lee Y-J, Lin C-C. Regression of the response surface of laminated composite
and buckling load maximization. The surrogate-based optimiza- structures. Compos Struct 2003;62:91105.
[18] Lin C-C, Lee Y-J. Stacking sequence optimization of laminated composite
tion has been demonstrated to perform better than GA in solving structures using genetic algorithm with local improvement. Compos Struct
the optimization problem of a variable stiffness composite plate. 2004;63:33945.
M. Arian Nik et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 23062313 2313

[19] Lanzi L, Giavotto V. Post-buckling optimization of composite stiffened panels: [24] Turvey GJ. Buckling and postbuckling of composite plates. Springer; 1995.
computations and experiments. Compos Struct 2006;73:20820. [25] Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T. A fast and elitist multiobjective
[20] Irisarri FX, Laurin F, Leroy FH, Maire JF. Computational strategy for genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. Evol Comput IEEE Trans 2002;6:18297.
multiobjective optimization of composite stiffened panels. Compos Struct [26] Srinivas N, Deb K. Muiltiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in
2011;93:115867. genetic algorithms. Evol Comput 1994;2:22148.
[21] Vandervelde T, Milani AS. Layout optimization of a multi-zoned, multi-layered [27] Deb K. A robust evolutionary framework for multi-objective optimization.
composite wing under free vibration. In: Proceedings of SPIE, the international ACM; 2008. p. 63340.
society for optical engineering. San Diego, CA, USA; 2009. [28] Forrester A, Keane A. Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Prog
[22] Wang GG, Dong Z, Aitchison P. Adaptive response surface method a global Aerospace Sci 2009;45:5079.
optimization scheme for approximation-based design problems. Eng Optim [29] Wang GG, Shan S. Review of metamodeling techniques in support of
2001;33:70733. engineering design optimization. J Mech Des 2007;129:37080.
[23] Kollar LP, Springer GS. Mechanics of composite structures. Cambridge: [30] Li M, Li G, Azarm S. A kriging metamodel assisted multi-objective genetic
University Press; 2003. algorithm for design optimization. J Mech Des 2008;130:031401301410.