Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (4) (2018) 1643~1652

www.springerlink.com/content/1738-494x(Print)/1976-3824(Online)
DOI 10.1007/s12206-018-0319-1

Bi-level optimization of laminated composite structures using particle

swarm optimization algorithm†
Parviz Mohammad Zadeh, Mahdi Fakoor* and Mostafa Mohagheghi
Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies, University of Tehran, North Kargar St., Tehran, Iran

(Manuscript Received April 5, 2017; Revised December 11, 2017; Accepted January 7, 2018)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract

This paper presents an efficient bi-level optimization technique to obtain the optimal stacking sequence for symmetric composite struc-
tures. The proposed approach involves two levels of modeling and optimization. The first level of the optimization procedure is used to
minimize the weight of the composite structure. At this level, lamination parameters and the number of plies of specified angles (0, ±45
and 90 degree) are design variables, buckling load factor is treated as a constraint, and the weight of the structure is to be minimized us-
ing continuous-discrete particle swarm optimization algorithm. Next, at the second level the location of each ply orientation through the
thickness (i.e. the layup of the panel) is found. At the second level, optimum stacking sequence is sought to maximize the load bearing
capacity of the structure with respect to the buckling. The proposed methodology is applied to two test cases. Results show that the ap-
proach improves the buckling load factor of the structure without any weight penalty.
Keywords: Bi-level optimization; Buckling; Lamination parameters; Particle swarm optimization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

biaxial loading. In this work, the minimization of total thick-

1. Introduction
ness was formulated and buckling load was considered as a
In the design of composite structures (e.g. wind turbine constraint. The problem was then solved for uniaxial and biax-
blade) weight plays an important role, while a detailed and ial load cases for various plate aspect ratios. Le Riche and
rigorous analysis is required to ensure the strength of the Haftka [3] studied the problem of buckling load maximization
structure. Using optimization techniques is a prominent ap- of a laminated plate using genetic algorithm (GA). The au-
proach that helps designers to reach the best possible structure, thors also studied the effect of contiguity constraints, in which
satisfying required constraints. In the optimization process, the number of plies with the same ply orientation is not al-
unlike weight evaluation which is of a routine and easy proce- lowed to be more than four plies. Ref. [4] studied optimization
dure, the calculation of mechanical constraints such as buck- of a laminated composite beam with a rectangular cross sec-
ling load factor and strain are usually much more sophisticated, tion. The authors concluded that for the cases in which the
and in general, finite element models are used to reach this dimensions of the skin are small in comparison to the length
evaluation [1]. of the beam, the loads on the skin can be only considered as
However, analysis of these models for the mentioned goals in-plane, and the out-of-plane loads are negligible. Therefore,
can be complicated, entailing time-consuming computations. the classical lamination theory (CLT) can be used for such
Thus, the framework of optimization, which determines the problems.
number of iterations, is of great importance in such problems. In recent years, there has been a growing research interest in
Using multi-level optimization methods in a right manner can multi-level optimization of complex composite structures. In
decrease the iterations required to reach the global optimal this approach the main idea is to separate the optimization
point. problem into two levels for decreasing the complexity of the
Significant research work has been reported in the field of problem and therefore increasing the efficiency of the algo-
optimization of composite structures. Haftka and Walsh [2] rithm. The objective of the first level is to minimize the num-
employed the integer programing approach for the optimum ber of plies in a composite structure. The answer of this level
design of symmetric and balanced composite plates under is not the final solution of the problem but restricts the main
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 61115754, Fax.: +98 21 88497324
problem and reduces the unknown design variables. Follow-
E-mail address: mfakoor@ut.ac.ir ing this, the second level is used to calculate the objective of a
†
Recommended by Associate Editor Kyeongsik Woo more detailed sub-problem (e.g. stacking sequence optimiza-
© KSME & Springer 2018
1644 P. M. Zadeh et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (4) (2018) 1643~1652
tion problem with a given number of plies as constraints). This
procedure will reduce the computational cost as well as the
design uncertainties. Levels of the problem can be defined in
different manners. For example, using high fidelity and low
fidelity models in two levels is an approach implemented in
Ref. [5]. Another bi-level method for composite structural
problems is to optimize one set of variables (often lamination
parameters) in a global level (first level) and other set (that is a
representative of lay-up) in the local one (second level). As a
pioneer in the use of a two-level optimization strategy for
composite structures in the latter manner, B. Liu used a two-
level optimization algorithm with response surface approxi-
mations [6]. Furthermore, a bi-level lamination parameter-
based algorithm considering the continuity constraint between
adjacent panels was proposed in Refs. [7, 8]. In this regard,
Liu [6] developed a permutation GA for lower level optimiza-
tion and continuity measure for improving continuity con-
straints among adjacent panels. While GAs have been popular
for optimizing composite laminated plates, they usually suffer
from time-consuming computations [9]. It should be noted
that some authors use “bi-level” for approaches in which the
procedure is implemented in two levels, while both terms “bi-
level” and “multi-level” are used interchangeably through this
paper.
Particle swarm optimization (PSO) is a meta-heuristic op-
timization technique that may require less computational ef-
fort to obtain the same high-accuracy solution than a GA [10,
11]. Using PSO for a multi-level structural optimization prob-
lem can be traced back to Ref. [12] for sever numerical noises.
In Ref. [13] the applicability and reliability of the proposed
algorithm is also indicated. Unlike other evolutionary algo-
rithms, individuals of PSO population retain good solutions
during algorithm implementation. Fast convergence rate, the
ease of implementation and the number of parameters set are
other advantages of PSO which have led to its wide applica-
tion [14, 15]. Suresh et al. [11] has adopted PSO as a multi-
agent search method to maximize elastic coupling of a com-
posite helicopter rotor blade. Other proposed application in-
cludes the use of both gradient based and PSO algorithms in
the optimization of a helicopter rotor blade [16]. It has been
found that being a stochastic method, the PSO does not need
to start from different initial points. Chang et al. [17] make
some changes to adapt standard PSO for stacking sequence
design, which is a discrete problem. They developed a discrete
PSO with new rules for abstraction operator in the formula. Li
and Chandrashekhara [18] applied this method to the design
of composite hydrokinetic turbine blades. They also devel-
oped a permutation discrete PSO model which maximizes the
out-of-plane load carrying capacity of the composite blade.
Although composite structures can be tailored using appro-
priate ply orientations and ply stacking sequences [13] to meet
specific design requirements [11], some research work (e.g. [8,
19, 20]) focused on the use of lamination parameters in the
composite optimization procedure. The emphasis of Ref. [8] is
on the solution of top level optimization while Ref. [19] intro-
duces a set of constraints on the lamination parameters to de-
termine the feasible region of search in the optimization algo-
rithm. Although some research work used lamination parame-
ters as variables in PSO algorithm to optimize stacking se-
quence of composite plates [21, 22], few studies integrate the
PSO into the bi-level procedure. Some researchers utilized
gradient based methods [23] and some others implemented the
solution via one of the evolutionary optimization algorithms
such as a GA. In the PSO algorithm, used in the present study,
a condition is added to eliminate the similar stacking se-
quences that are generated in one generation. This will in-
crease the efficiency of the algorithm.
This paper focuses upon the development of an efficient
multi-level particle swarm optimization for complex compos-
ite structures and the main novelties can be stated as:
(1) Defining two actual and design related objectives
(weight and buckling load factor) in two levels and using
lamination parameters as a guide to impose constraints (in
some previous works the difference between lamination pa-
rameters of two levels, that has no physical result, have been
considered as objective function).
(2) Calculating new velocity and position of particles for
continuous variables (lamination parameters) and discrete
variables (the number of plies) simultaneously (in a single
run).
In order to avoid the undesired effects of coupling, a sym-
metric stacking sequence is supposed. These assumptions
together with some other design and manufacturing considera-
tions are added to define the feasible region of lamination
parameters. Additionally, in the population generation step,
stacking sequences with more than four same orientations are
eliminated to obtain a solution observing the continuity condi-
tion.
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Laminated composite structures analysis
In the present work, CLT is used to analyze the mechanical
behavior of composite structures. According to this approach,
the relationship between forces and displacements is described
as:
ì N ü é A B ù ìe ü
í ý=ê úí ý (1)
î M þ ë B D û îk þ
where N and M are forces and moments per unit width, A, B
and D are stiffness matrices, e and k are strain and curvature
vectors, respectively.
To evaluate stiffness matrix D in the optimization algorithm,
lamination parameters are used as design variables. Tsai and
Hahn presented the stiffness properties of a single-material
laminated composite in terms of 12 lamination parameters
[24]:
 P. M. Zadeh et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (4) (2018) 1643~1652 1645

æ A11 ö é1 x1A x 2A 0 0ù
ç ÷ ê A ú æ U1 ö
ç A22 ÷ ê1 -x1 x 2A 0 0ú ç ÷
U2
ç A12 ÷ ê0 0 -x 2A 1 0 ú çç ÷÷
ç ÷ = hê ú U3 (2)
ç A66 ÷ ê0 0 -x 2A 0 1ú ç ÷
çA ÷ ê0 x A / 2 x A çU 4 ÷
ç 16 ÷ 0 0ú ç ÷
ê 3 4
ú U5
çA ÷
è 26 ø êë0 x3A / 2 -x 4A 0 0 úû è ø
æ D11 ö é1 x1D x 2D 0 0ù
ç ÷ ê D ú æ U1 ö
ç D22 ÷ ê1 -x1 x 2D 0 0ú ç ÷
U2
ç D12 ÷ h3 ê0 0 -x 2D 1 0 ú çç ÷÷
ç ÷= ê ú U3 (3)
ç D66 ÷ 12 ê0 0 -x 2D 0 1ú ç ÷
çD ÷ ê0 x / 2 x D çU 4 ÷
ç 16 ÷
D
0 0ú ç ÷
ê 3 4
ú U5
çD ÷
è 26 ø ê
ë 0 x 3
D
/ 2 -x D
4 0 0 úû è ø

in which the lamination parameters are,

Fig. 1. A bi-axial loaded composite plate.
A
x [1,2,3,4] =
(4) In general, a composite laminate can have following cou-
1 n
å[cos 2qi ,cos 4qi ,sin 2qi ,sin 4qi ]( zi - zi -1 )
h i =1
plings:
D
(i) The condition of Bij ≠ 0 that is named in-plane coupling
x[1,2,3,4] = (extension or membrane) and out-of-plane (bending or flex-
4 n
3
(5) ural) actions,
å[cos 2q ,cos 4q ,sin 2q ,sin 4q ]( z
i i i i i - z 3i -1 )
h3 i =1 (ii) The situation of A16 = A26 ≠ 0 that is in-plane shear and
extension, and
where qi is the ply angle of the i-th layer, and zi is the dis- (iii) When D16 = D26 ≠ 0 that is called out-of-plane bending
tance from mid-plane to the bottom of the ith layer. Based on and twisting [25].
this definition and with the assumption of using only 0, ±45
and 90 degree orientations, it can be inferred that: In this work, the laminate is forced to be balanced, that is,
every ply with a positive fiber orientation angle is of a corre-
(n0 - n90 )t n0 - n90 sponding ply with the negative fiber orientation angle. This
x1A = = (6)
Nt n0 + n90 + 2n±45 leads to no normal-shear extensional couplings [26]. As seen
n0 + n90 - n±45 in the Eq. (1) non-zero B matrix implies extensional-flexural
x 2A = (7) couplings. In other words, if B is not zero, a small axial force
n0 + n90 + 2n±45
may create a curvature (out-of-plane deformation). Therefore,
x3A = x 4A = x 4D = 0 . (8)
to prevent this problem symmetric stacking sequence is con-
sidered.
In Eqs. (6)-(8), n0, n±45, n90 are the number of plies of each
orientation. Since only laminates with ply orientations of 0o,
2.2 Critical buckling load calculation
±45o and 90o are considered, the minimum and maximum
values of x1D can be determined. These bounds with some In this paper, two case studies are investigated. The first one
other relations between lamination parameters can be seen in is a composite panel under bi-axial compression loading
Ref. [1]. (shown in Fig. 1). One of the failure modes of such laminated
The material intervals are shown by U1, U2, U3, U4 and U5 composite panel is buckling that may occur in m and n half
in Eqs. (2) and (3) and are defined as below, waves in the x and y directions. For example, the simply sup-
ported composite plate, shown in Fig. 1, has buckled with
U1 = [3Q11 + 3Q22 + 2Q12 + 4Q66 ] / 8 (9) three half waves (m = 3) in the x-direction. The dimensions of
U 2 = [Q11 - Q22 ] / 2 (10) the panel in x and y directions are named a and b, respectively.
U 3 = [Q11 + Q22 - 2Q12 - 4Q66 ] / 8 The buckling load for a symmetric composite plate is ob-
(11) tained through Eq. (14) [17]:
U 4 = [Q11 + Q22 + 6Q12 - 4Q66 ] / 8
(12)
U 5 = [Q11 + Q22 - 2Q12 + 4Q66 ] / 8 (13) lb( m ,n )
=
p2
(14)
in which Qij denotes reduced stiffness elements for unidirec- D11 (m / a ) 4 + 2( D12 + 2 D66 )(m / a ) 2 (n / b) 2 + D22 (n / b) 4
.
tional lamina. ( m / a ) 2 N x + ( n / b) 2 N y
1646 P. M. Zadeh et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (4) (2018) 1643~1652
Suppose that m and n are integer numbers and should be
evaluated to obtain the smallest value of lb( m ,n ) , which is
called critical buckling load factor.
The second case study is minimization of a composite wing
box, in which the buckling load factor is calculated using fi-
nite element software.
3. Bi-level optimization approach
The proposed multi-level particle swarm optimization algo-
rithm is described in detail in Secs. 3.2 and 3.3. The single
population approach of PSO algorithm as a practical and effi-
cient strategy in structural problems [27-29] is used in both
levels. It should be added that, multi-swarm variant of PSO is
efficient specifically in dynamic problems, in which optimum
may be changed over time [30]. In composite structural opti-
mization problems, however, single swarm PSO is commonly
used as a suitable approach to deal with the problem, and to
obtain the optimal solution [14, 18, 31].
The proposed bi-level approach based on PSO algorithm
presents an efficient way of solving composite optimization
problems. First, in the proposed bi-level method, modeling
and optimization are separated into two levels. The first level
is utilized to minimize weight in which there are six design
variables. The second level is used to maximize buckling load
factor where the first level design variables are frozen as con-
stant values. Second, two optimizers using PSO algorithm are
used both at the first and second levels. These characteristics
of the algorithm is reflected in computational time reduction
and computational efficiency increase.
The algorithm contains a swarm of particles where each
particle shows a potential solution to the optimization problem.
The position of the particle i is modified by adding a velocity
vector ( Vki +1 ) to the current position, i. e.:
Xik +1 = Xik + Vki +1 t
where Vki +1 is the velocity vector at iteration k+1 and depends
on both the intended particle experience and the experience of
other particles in the swarm:
Vki +1 = wVki + c1r1 (Pbest i - x ik ) + c2 r2 (Gbest kg - x ik ) . (16)
In Eq. (15) t is time interval and is considered equal to 1.
In Eq. (16), r1 and r2 are random numbers [32]; c1 and c2 are
user defined parameters showing how much the next position
of the particle depends on itself or on the swarm. The parame-
ter w is the inertia weight and controls the space to explore
[31].
3.1 Pre-optimization phase
As used in the procedure of Fig. 2, there are three variables,
associated to the number of layers of each orientation (n0, n±45
for i = 1 : n do
if X(i) ≤ n0 then
X(i) is decoded to 0;
else if X(i) ≤ n0 + n±45 then
X(i) is decoded to ±45;
else
X(i) is decoded to 90;
end if
end for
Fig. 2. The procedure of conversion.
and n90). These variables initially are of broad range and there-
fore the corresponding search space is wide. While for PSO as
a heuristic optimization method, the less extent of the search
space, the less number of iterations is required to perform a
global search, and to obtain the optimum point. Hence, the
bounds of the search space, which are determined by design
variable limits, are of considerable importance. In the pro-
posed method, before starting the optimization process, the
upper limits of the design variables are redefined so that the
unwanted space is removed. This technique can be considered
as a pre-processing phase and contains the following tasks:
(1) Calculating the buckling load factor for n0 = n0i, n±45 =
n±45i, n90 = n90i named λi. The parameters n0, n±45 and n90 are
initial upper bounds that are usually too conservative;
(2) Obtaining the buckling load factor for three group of
layers: λ1 for (n0 = n0i-6, n±45 = n±45i, n90 = n90i), λ2 for (n0 = n0i,
n±45 = n±45i-3, n90 = n90i), λ3 for (n0 = n0i, n±45 = n±45i, n90 = n90i-
6).
(3) Determine the effect of reduction in the number of lay-
ers of each orientation (Δ1= λi - λ1 , Δ2= λi - λ2, Δ3= λi – λ3), and
obtain the least effective case:
Least effective case = index (min (Δ1, Δ2, Δ3));
(4) Update the number of layers and repeat the procedure.
(15) For example if Δ3 is less than Δ1 and Δ2, then n0i,new = n0i,
n±45i,new = n±45i, n90i,new = n90i – 6.
It is worth noting that for obtaining the buckling load factor,
six lamination parameters are required. Three first one,
x1A , x 2A , x3A are obtained using Eqs. (6)-(8) and, x1D , x 2D ,
x3D are randomly evaluated satisfying feasibility constraints
(stated in Ref. [7]). Another constraint, buckling load factor, is
applied using a penalty function. For this purpose, if this fac-
tor is less than 1 (the minimum allowable value), a term is
added to the objective function. Next, the final values of the
number of layers are fed to the bi-level optimization procedure.
The main steps involved in the proposed approach are de-
scribed below.
3.2 First level optimization
In the present work a bi-level framework is proposed for the
optimization of composite structures, in which at the first level
the number of plies of each fiber orientation (n0, n±45, n90) and
 P. M. Zadeh et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (4) (2018) 1643~1652
the out-of-plane lamination parameters related to stiffness
matrix D ( x1D , x 2D , x3D ) are design variables. Hence, the num-
ber of design variables, which is expressed as particle size in
PSO [33], is equal to 6. In order to eliminate the extensional-
flexural couplings, symmetric stacking sequence is assumed
and therefore x1B , x 2B , x3B are fixed and equal to zero. As well,
more constraints than unsymmetrically laminated plates can
be used [34, 35].
There exist some improvements in PSO method to be appli-
cable in the ply stacking sequence optimization of composite
laminates. In the present paper, PSO is used at both levels of
the bi-level optimization approach. Some consistent con-
straints are derived to be used in the first level.
The objective of this level is to minimize the weight of the
structure (Eq. (17)), which means to minimize total thickness
of panels because the density and also other dimensions of the
structure are assumed invariable.
W º rV = r (n0 + 2n±45 + n90 )abt . (17)
In the above equation r is the density of the considered
composite material, and V is the total volume, t is the thick-
ness of one ply. As a result, the first level optimization can be
formulated as:
Minimize(n0 + 2n±45 + n90 ) . (18)
Subject to:
Feasibility of lamination parameters (laminate is symmetric
and balanced) (buckling) lb ³ 1 where lb indicates the
buckling load factor as calculated by Eq. (14) (for an individ-
ual rectangular panel), or by finite element analysis (for com-
plex structures such as a wing model including spars, ribs, and
upper and lower panels).
In the beginning of the algorithm, three first variables that
represent the number of plies are randomly generated integers
satisfying corresponding constraints. Next, updating the posi-
tion of each particle (number of plies and also lamination pa-
rameters) using Eqs. (15) and (16), the new position may not
be integer. In this situation the three first ones, which specify
the number of plies, are rounded to the nearest integers. Also
if the new position is out of bounds, it is replaced by the near-
est limit to maintain in the desired search space.
The first level algorithm is repeated until it reaches the
maximum number of generations. The output of this level is
three integers specifying optimum number of plies (for mini-
mum weight), that is fed to the next level. Although lamina-
tion parameters are also design variables, they are not used in
the second level. This is because different lay-ups generate
some discrete lamination parameters, while they are treated as
continuous variables before, and it has been shown that the
optimal point of continuous lamination parameters is not nec-
essarily the closest one to the optima of discrete space [36].
1647
for i=1 : n do
for j=1 to n do
if particle(i) == velocity(j) then
Temp = particle(i) ;
particle(i) = particle(j) ;
particle(j) = Temp ;
end
end for
end for
Fig. 3. The procedure of calculating new particle positions.
3.3 Second level optimization
There exist some improvements in PSO method to make it
applicable in the ply stacking sequence optimization of com-
posite laminates. In Ref. [37] it was shown that for continuous
problems of layup optimization and also for problems in
which the number of possible ply orientations is considerable,
PSO outperforms other meta-heuristic techniques such as ant
colony optimization (ACO) and GA.
In the second level of the present work, the numbers of plies
from the first level are considered fixed, and ply orientations,
θ, are the design variables. Therefore, particle size in this level
will be n0 + n±45 + n90.
The optimization formulation is given:
Minimize :buckling load factor (lb ) . (19)
Subject to: Laminates are symmetric and balanced, ply con-
tinuity requirements and manufacturing limitations.
Here, the stacking sequence of the structure is determined
by implementing PSO algorithm, which is specific to compos-
ite structure problems. This procedure is based on the follow-
ing steps:
(1) The algorithm parameters including w, c1, c2 are set to
proper values (1, 0.6, 0.4, respectively);
(2) A random permutation of the integers 1 to n, denoted by
X, is generated where n = n0 + n±45 + n90. For instance, for n0 =
5, n±45 = 4, n90 = 2, (n = 11), X as a randomly generated vector
can be: X = [7 / 4 / 6 / 10 / 11 / 3 / 2 / 5 / 1 / 9 / 8]; this string is
identical to a unique lay-up: [±45/0/±45/90/90/0/0/0/0/±45/
±45]s. The procedure of conversion can be stated as:
(3) Calculate objective function (buckling load factor that is
a representative of the load bearing capability of the structure)
for all of the particles;
(4) Evaluate particles and obtain the best positions of each
individual Pbesti and the best position of the whole swarm
Gbestk (i denotes the particle i and k denotes the iteration
number).
(5) Particle velocities are determined using Eq. (16),
rounded to integer values, and checked to be in the right do-
main;
(6) Then new particle positions (lay-ups) are calculated as
shown in Fig. 3.
1648 P. M. Zadeh et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (4) (2018) 1643~1652
Table 1. Parameters of PSO algorithm used in this study.
Parameter Value
Initial velocity Random [0 1]
Inertia weight (w) 1 Lopez [38]
c1, c2 0.6, 0.4
First level: 6
Particle size
Second level: n0 + n±45 + n90
Number of swarms 1
Population size 60
Number of iterations 100
(7) If the iteration reaches the ultimate value, save the last
Pbesti and Gbestk and finish the loop, else go to step 3.
In the proposed technique the particle positions (ply orienta-
tions) are discrete values. Based on the definition (Eq. (16)),
the longer the velocity vector is, the farther the particle posi-
tion is from the optimum point. Next, as shown in the proce-
dure of step 6, the orientations of previous lay-up is replaced
by corresponding ones of the velocity vector. In other words,
if the particle position is close to the optimum point, nearly all
elements of the velocity vector will be zero, and therefore will
have a little effect on particle position updating.
As mentioned above, new population is a string of numbers,
which in this step is converted to ply angles. These data to-
gether with material properties are sufficient to calculate buck-
ling load factor. So lamination parameters only are used in the
first level to ensure the feasibility of the solutions.
4. Evaluation and discussion of the results
4.1 Validation
For validation of the proposed procedure, the bi-level
framework has been applied to a rectangular, simply sup-
ported panel that is subjected to compressive in-plane loads
[38]: Nx = 1716 N/mm and Ny = 858.1 N/mm. In both ap-
proaches the optimum value for the number of plies (the first
level objective function) is 48. The obtained stacking se-
quence is presented in Table 1.
In updating the particle position, the velocity is obtained us-
ing Eq. (16) in each iteration. Based on the study of Ref. [39],
setting w in range [0.8 1.2] yields a faster convergence. In the
present work w = 1 has been set. Furthermore, for initial ve-
locity three convectional ways [40] were examined and ran-
domly generated values from [0 1], that gives a proper con-
vergence behavior [16], has been set.
In selecting algorithm parameters, also, it is required to
achieve an appropriate balance between population size and
number of generations to minimize the number of function
calls. Considering this fact, we run the program for some val-
ues of population size and investigated the convergence dur-
ing generations. Based on the observations, it was obtained
that selecting population size of 60 and recording results after
Table 2. Result comparison for a rectangular bi-axial loaded panel.
Optimal design λb
Present work [±45/902/±45/903/±452/904/±452/90/0/90]s 1.019
[902/±45/(902/±45)2/±455]s 0.990
Table 3. Material properties for carbon/epoxy.
Material IM7/8552 (case 1) Graphite epoxy (case 2)
E11 (GPa) 141 128
E22 (GPa) 9.03 13
E12 (GPa) 4.27 6.4
ν 0.32 0.3
t (mm) 0.191 0.127
100 generations, for laminated composite structure optimiza-
tion problems in the scale of the above case, gives the optimal
answer in appropriate number of function calls.
In addition, because stochastic optimization algorithms may
converge to different results in each run, the optimization of
the case was performed 100 times.
With above mentioned settings, the success rate was over
90 percent. Therefore, these values are taken for the following
computations to ensure the convergence to the right global
optima.
As the result shows, the buckling load factor that is obtained
from present approach is about 3 percent higher than the result
of Ref. [38]. This parameter has been considered as objective
function in the present work, while is a constraint in some
previous researches [1].
4.2 Test case 1: Individual composite panel
To show the performance of the proposed procedure, two
test problems are selected. The first one is a set of graphite-
epoxy panels that are considered individually and is investi-
gated in Ref. [38]. The second one is a composite wing box
model presented in Refs. [6, 7]. The material properties for
these two cases are given in Table 2.
In both examples the weight (proportional to the number of
plies) is minimized subject to lamination parameters con-
straints and buckling constraint. Furthermore, the stacking
sequence is assumed to be symmetric (no membrane-bending
coupling).
Before implementing the wing structure design optimization
using the PSO based bi-level approach, the process is applied
to several individual panels. The resulting number of plies and
buckling load factor are listed in Table 3 and the optimal
stacking sequences are shown in Table 4. In this case study the
laminates are assumed to be balanced (no stretching-shearing
coupling). The length and the width of panels 1, 2, 9-12 are
610 mm and 457 mm, respectively, and other panels are 508
mm by 305 mm.
 P. M. Zadeh et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (4) (2018) 1643~1652 1649

Table 4. Result comparison for individual panels. Table 5. Stacking sequence of rectangular panels.

Present work Panel Optimal stacking sequence

Panel Nx, Ny (N/mm)
Number of plies l buckling 1 [±454/902/02/(90/0)2]s
1 122570, 70040 32 1.110 2 [±452/45/90/-45/906/0]s
2 65662.5, 63036 28 1.046 3 [03/±453/90]s
3 47277, 56907.5 20 1.037 4 [04/±452/902]s
4 43775, 35020 20 1.268 5 [03/±452/902]s
5 36771, 17510 18 1.191 6 [03/±45/0/±45/903]s
6 53405.5, 63036 22 1.204 7 [04/±452/902]s
7 50779, 34144.5 20 1.334 8 [03/±454/902]s
8 105060, 84048 26 1.036 9 [±453/902/±452/0/90/0/90/03]s
9 192610, 105060 38 1.210 10 [±452/903/±452/902/04]s
10 157590, 70040 34 1.161 11 [±455/90/02/902]s
11 65662.5, 91927.5 30 1.009 12 [±452/90/±45/902/02/90/02]s
12 70040, 56032 28 1.072 13 [04/±45/90/±45/902]s
13 57783, 57783 22 1.169 14 [02/±453/90]s
14 33269, 35895.5 18 1.084 15 [02/±452/02/±45/902]s
15 52530, 106811 24 1.286 16 [03/±45/04/±45/902/±45]s
16 142706.5, 175100 30 1.058 17 [03/±453/90]s
17 56032, 31518 20 1.043 18 [03/±453/902]s
18 52530, 71791 22 1.180
Number of function evaluations (mean)

7000 Without pre-optimization

With pre-optimization
6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 5 10 15 20
Panel number

Fig. 5. Comparison of number of function evaluations with and with-

Fig. 4. Weight reduction vs. iteration.
In the proposed approach, since the buckling load factor is
maximized in the second level, in the final stacking sequence
the buckling load factor not only satisfies the constraint, but
maximizes the load bearing capacity of the structure.
From a structural point of view, the first ply orientation of
obtained optimal stacking sequence for panels 1, 2, 9-12, that
are of same dimensions, is ±45 degree (Table 4), while in
other panels the first ply orientation is 0 degree. This can be
due to the fact that a (the length of the panel perpendicular to
Nx) is greater than b, and also Nx is greater than Ny in panels 1,
2, 9-12.
In other panels that a is less than b and Nx is more than Ny in
most of them, the critical buckling mode is in x direction and
the optimal stacking sequence (outer plies) are 0 degree that
out pre-optimization phase.
increase the bending stiffness of the panel.
The objective function reduction by generation is illustrated
in Fig. 4 for the first panel. In most cases the algorithm con-
verges before fifty generations, but a challenge of heuristic
algorithms such PSO is premature convergence. The parame-
ters of w, r1, r2 in the main relation, Eq. (15), are set to prevent
this issue.
Defining a pre-optimization phase is an idea that is used in
this work to reduce the required structural analysis, which is
the time consuming part of optimization process, especially in
complicated structures. For illustrating the effect of the sug-
gested phase, the number of constraint evaluations, that is
equal to the number of structural analysis, are shown in Fig. 5.
For panels with more buckling load factor (Table 3) the influ-
ence of using pre-optimization phase is more considerable.
1650 P. M. Zadeh et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (4) (2018) 1643~1652

Table 6. First level results (total number of plies). Table 7. Second level results (stacking sequence).

Objective function Buckling

n0 n±45 n90
(Total number of plies) Obtained Stacking sequence load factor
Present work (With and (λb)
without the assumption 34 8 26 152 [±45/02/45/90/-45/0/902/02/45/902/
of balanced laminate) Present -45/(0/90)2/90/02/90/0/±45/45/0/
Ref. [7] 34 8 26 152 work -45/45/902/-45/0/45/902/02/-45/ 1.0868
No assump-
(PSO) 45/90/0/90/04/(90/0)2/0/
Ref. [6] 32 12 28 168 tion of
903/04/(90/0)3/0/90/03/-45/0/902]s
balanced
layup [(±45)2/03/45/902/-45/903/45/902/-45/
0/904/45/02/-45/0/903/02/904 /0/45/0/
Ref. [7] 1.0837
-45/04/90/04/90/03/902/04/45/02/−45/
02/45/02/-45/903/02/90]s
Present [±45/04/902/±452/02/904/±45/02/±452/
With the
work 02/±452/04/904/(02/902)2/(04/902)2/ 1.0867
assumption
(PSO) (902/02)2/904/02]s
of balanced
layup [(±45)12/(904/02)2/(902/04)2/
Ref. [6] 1.0985
902/02/904/02/(02/902)2/(04/902)3]s

cessitates a large number of layers. In other words, for about

150 layers, this assumption has no significant effect in buck-
Fig. 6. Wing box model.
ling strength of the structure.

4.3 Test case 2: Wing box structure (finite element analysis)
The benchmark wing box model, which is shown in Fig. 6,
is used to illustrate the bi-level optimization procedure pre-
sented in Sec. 3. In Ref. [7] the structure was assumed to be
balanced, while in Ref. [6] this assumption was not included.
Hence, to compare the results with these references, the opti-
mization is done two times with two different assumptions.
Top skin panels are treated in the composite design optimi-
zation whereas other parts are considered with the fixed stack-
ing sequence, i, e, spars and ribs with [±4511]s and the bottom
skin panels with [±45/(90/0)3/06]s. The actual loading on the
structure is replaced by four concentrated forces: F1 = 90,009
N, F2 = F3 = 187888 N, F4 = 380176 N.
The results of optimization are compared with those pre-
sented in Refs. [6, 7] in the table above.
Although the number of each layer (n0, n±45, n90) as design
variables which contribute to the objective function are of
unique convergence point in different runs, the lamination
parameters are not converged to a single point. So in the pre-
sent study, unlike some previous work, only the number of
layers is transferred to the second level and lamination pa-
rameters are yet variable in the second level. As stated in Ta-
ble 6, this allows to reach a higher value of buckling load fac-
tor in the latter level. Table 5 shows a considerable weight
reduction in comparison to Ref. [7].
The optimal weight, which is obtained in first level, is simi-
lar to the results of Ref. [6], and the buckling load factor,
which is maximized in the second level, is a little higher than
buckling load factor calculated in Ref. [7].
The difference between optimal lay-up with balanced stack-
ing sequence and without this assumption is very small in this
case. This could be due to the magnitude of loading that ne-
5. Conclusions
In this study, a two-level composite optimization procedure
was presented. The procedure was demonstrated using two
composite structure examples. This approach includes a con-
ventional PSO algorithm at the first level, that uses both inte-
ger and continuous variables, and a permutation discrete PSO
at the second level. In the first level, the number of 0o, ±45o,
90o stacks are determined. Then, at the second level problem
becomes a combinatorial optimization problem, with fixed
number of variables. Shuffling of layers is performed to
maximize the buckling load factor. The process decreases
computations and increases the efficiency of the optimization
problem of selecting the optimal stacking sequence. This ap-
proach results in a realistic objective function and it was
shown that rounding off at the mentioned step does not influ-
ence the final stacking sequence as the optimal point.
Regarding the effect of the size of search space in the com-
putation time of the algorithm, a pre-optimization step was
added to the first level, in which the upper bound of the num-
ber of layers for each orientation is determined.
The number of layers in each orientation, as design vari-
ables at the first level, is transferred to the second one and is
used as fixed parameters at this level, but lamination parame-
ters are not transferred. Lamination parameters in the first
level are of continuous values, while variables in the second
level (the arrangement of orientations) are actually discrete,
and sometimes the optimum discrete designs are not equal to
the continuous optima in the lamination parameter space. In
large structures with a large number of layers, the distance
between discrete design points decreases. Case studies in the
paper show this conclusion and in wing box example there is a
minor difference between present result and Ref. [7].
 P. M. Zadeh et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (4) (2018) 1643~1652
In conclusion, using a two level approach including two ac-
tual objective functions and pre-optimization phase offers a
practical procedure to optimize laminated composite struc-
tures with a reasonable accuracy and confidence.
References
[1] D. Liu, V. V. Toroporov, O. M. Querin and D. C. Barton,
Bilevel optimization of blended composite wing panels,
Journal of Aircraft, 48 (1) (2011) 107-118.
[2] R. T. Haftka and J. L. Walsh, Stacking-sequence
optimization for buckling of laminated plates by integer
programming, AIAA Journal, 30 (3) (1992) 814-819.
[3] R. Le Riche and R. T. Haftka, Optimization of laminate
stacking sequence for buckling load maximization by
genetic algorithm, AIAA Journal, 31 (5) (1993) 951-956.
[4] S. A. Ragon, Z. Gürdal, R. T. Haftka and T. J. Tzong,
Bilevel design of a wing structure using response surfaces,
Journal of Aircraft, 40 (5) (2003) 985-992.
[5] P. M. Zadeh, A. Mehmani and A. Messac, High fidelity
multidisciplinary design optimization of a wing using the
interaction of low and high fidelity models, Optimization
and Engineering, 17 (3) (2015) 503-532.
[6] B. Liu, R. T. Haftka and M. A. Akgün, Two-level composite
wing structural optimization using response surfaces,
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 20 (2) (2000)
87-96.
[7] D. Liu, V. V Toropov, D. C. Barton and O. M. Querin,
Weight and mechanical performance optimization of
blended composite wing panels using lamination parameters,
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 52 (3) (2015)
549-562.
[8] D. Liu and V. V. Toropov, A lamination parameter-based
strategy for solving an integer-continuous problem arising in
composite optimization, Computers & Structures, 128
(2013) 170-174.
[9] S. Chen, Z. Lin, H. An, H. Huang and C. Kong, Stacking
sequence optimization with genetic algorithm using a two-
level approximation, Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization, 48 (4) (2013) 795-805.
[10] A. P. Engelbrecht, Fundamentals of computational swarm
intelligence, John Wiley & Sons (2006).
[11] S. Suresh, P. B. Sujit and A. K. Rao, Particle swarm
optimization approach for multi-objective composite box-
beam design, Composite Structures, 81 (4) (2007) 598-605.
[12] G. Venter and J. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, Multidisci-
plinary optimization of a transport aircraft wing using
particle swarm optimization, Structural and Multidisci-
plinary Optimization, 26 (1) (2004) 121-131.
[13] Z. Jing, X. Fan and Q. Sun, Global shared-layer blending
method for stacking sequence optimization design and
blending of composite structures, Composites Part B:
Engineering, 69 (2015) 181-190.
[14] P. Y. Jiang, Z. M. Lin, J. Xu and J. Q. Sun, A particle
swarm optimization algorithm for minimizing weight of the
1651
composite box structure, Advanced Materials Research, 430
(2012) 470-475.
[15] I. C. Trelea, The particle swarm optimization algorithm:
Convergence analysis and parameter selection, Inf. Process.
Lett., 85 (6) (2003) 317-325.
[16] R. Kathiravan and R. Ganguli, Strength design of
composite beam using gradient and particle swarm
optimization, Composite Structures, 81 (4) (2007) 471-479.
[17] N. Chang, W. Wang, W. Yang and J. Wang, Ply stacking
sequence optimization of composite laminate by permutation
discrete particle swarm optimization, Structural Multidisci-
plinary Optimization, 41 (2) (2010) 179-187.
[18] H. Li and K. Chandrashekhara, Particle swarm-based
structural optimization of laminated composite hydrokinetic
turbine blades, Engineering Optimization, 47 (9) (2015)
1191-1207.
[19] M. W. Bloomfield, C. G. Diaconu and P. M. Weaver, On
feasible regions of lamination parameters for lay-up
optimization of laminated composites, Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences (2104) 1123-1143.
[20] A. E. Assie, A. M. Kabeel and F. F. Mahmoud, Effect of
loading and lamination parameters on the optimum design of
laminated plates, Journal of Mechanical Science and
Technology, 25 (5) (2011) 1149-1158.
[21] M. W. Bloomfield, Efficient optimization of laminated
composites, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bristol (2010).
[22] M. W. Bloomfield, J. E. Herencia and P. M. Weaver,
Enhanced two-level optimization of anisotropic laminated
composite plates with strength and buckling constraints,
Thin-Walled Structures, 47 (11) (2009) 1161-1167.
[23] M. Bloomfield, J. E. Herencia and P. M. Weaver,
Optimization of anisotropic laminated composite plates
incorporating nonconventional ply orientations, Proceeding
of the 49th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Struc-
tural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Schaumburg, IL
(2008) 1-15.
[24] J. E. Herencia, P. M. Weaver and M. I. Friswell,
Optimization of long anisotropic laminated fiber composite
panels with T-shaped stiffeners, AIAA Journal, 45 (10)
(2007) 2497-2509.
[25] F.-X. Irisarri, D. H. Bassir, N. Carrere and J.-F. Maire,
Multiobjective stacking sequence optimization for laminated
composite structures, Composites Science and Technology,
69 (7) (2009) 983-990.
[26] B. Liu, Two-level optimization of composite wing
structures based on panel genetic optimization, Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Florida (2001).
[27] R. E. Perez and K. Behdinan, Particle swarm approach for
structural design optimization, Computers & Structures, 85
(19) (2007) 1579-1588.
[28] M. H. Sadr and H. G. Bargh, Fundamental frequency
optimization of angle-ply laminated plates using Elitist-
Genetic algorithm and finite strip method, ASME 2010 10th
Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems Design and
1652 P. M. Zadeh et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (4) (2018) 1643~1652
Analysis (2010) 1-10.
[29] M. H. Sadr, H. G. Bargh, M. K. Nejadi and H. Pourzand,
Free vibration analysis of rotating laminated composite
panels using finite strip method with modified shape
functions, ASME 2011 International Mechanical Engineering
Congress and Exposition (2011) 787-793.
[30] T. Blackwell and J. Branke, Multi-swarm optimization in
dynamic environments, Applications of Evolutionary
Computing (2004) 489-500.
[31] M. G. Alonso and P. Duysinx, Particle swarm optimization
(PSO): An alternative method for composite optimization,
10th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization (2013) 1-10.
[32] X. Guo, X. Fu, H. Shang and J. Chen, Integrated aero-
structural optimization design of pre-bend wind turbine
blades, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 30
(11) (2016) 5103-5113.
[33] J.-F. Chang, S. C. Chu, J. F. Roddick and J.-S. Pan, A
parallel particle swarm optimization algorithm with
communication strategies, Journal of Information Science
and Engineering, 21 (2005) 809-818.
[34] J. E. Herencia, P. M. Weaver and M. I. Friswell, Local
optimisation of long anisotropic laminated fibre composite
panels with T shape stiffeners, Forty-seventh AIAA/ASME/
AHS/ACS Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials
Conference, Newport, RI, 1-4 May (2006) 1-25.
[35] D. Liu, V. V Toropov, M. Zhou, D. C. Barton and O. M.
Querin, Optimization of blended composite wing panels
using smeared stiffness technique and lamination parameters,
51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference (2010).
[36] J. E. Herencia, R. T. Haftka, P. M. Weaver and M. I.
Friswell, Lay-up optimization of composite stiffened panels
using linear approximations in lamination space, AIAA
Journal, 46 (9) (2008) 2387-2391.
[37] M. W. Bloomfield, J. E. Herencia and P. M. Weaver,
Analysis and benchmarking of meta-heuristic techniques for
lay-up optimization, Computers & Structures, 88 (5) (2010)
272-282.
[38] R. H. Lopez, M. A. Luersen and E. S. Cursi, Optimization
of laminated composites considering different failure criteria,
Composites Part B: Engineering, 40 (8) (2009) 731-740.
[39] Y. Shi and R. Eberhart, A modified particle swarm
optimizer, Proceedings of IEEE World Congress on
Computational Intelligence Evolutionary Computation
(1998) 69-73.
[40] A. Engelbrecht, Particle swarm optimization: Velocity
initialization, IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation
(CEC) (2012) 1-8.
Parviz Mohammad Zadeh is an Assis-
tant Professor in the Faculty of New
Sciences and Technologies at the Uni-
versity of Tehran. He has an extensive
research record on various aspects of
multidisciplinary design and optimiza-
tion, complex systems design, integra-
tion, concurrent design, computational
modelling, robust and reliability-based design optimization,
meta-modelling, design of experiments, optimization methods
that leading to variety of engineering applications.
Mahdi Fakoor is currently an Associate
Professor in the Faculty of New Sci-
ences and Technologies, University of
Tehran, Tehran, Iran. His research inter-
ests include the fields of fracture me-
chanics and composite materials and
optimization.
Mostafa Mohagheghi is currently Ph.D.
student in the Faculty of New Sciences
and Technologies, University of Tehran,
Iran. His interests lie in the field of com-
posite structures, bi-level design optimi-
zation, multi-objective optimization, and
engineering design.