Composite Structures 52 (2001) 217231

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Stacking sequence design of composite laminates for maximum

strength using genetic algorithms
J.H. Park, J.H. Hwang, C.S. Lee, W. Hwang *
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology, Pohang 790-784, South Korea

Abstract
This paper uses genetic algorithms (GAs) for the optimal design of symmetric composite laminates subject to various loading and
boundary conditions. To analyze these laminates, the nite element method based on shear deformation theory is used. The Tsai
Hill failure criterion is taken as the tness function, and the ply orientation angles are the design variables. In the GA, tournament
selection and the uniform crossover method are used. The elitist model is also used for an eective evolution strategy and the
creeping random search method is adopted in order to approach the solution with high accuracy. Optimization results are given for
various loading and boundary conditions. The results show that optimization via a GA can nd the global optimal solution leading
to a substantial decrease in the failure index. 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Composite laminates; Optimum design; Genetic algorithm; Strength; Finite element method; Failure index; Load-carrying eciency index

1. Introduction laminates under buckling load. Optimization algorithms

Use of ber-reinforced composites in mechanical,
aerospace, automobile, shipbuilding, and other branches
of engineering has been growing. This is because of their
high strength-to-weight and stiness-to-weight ratios,
and better mechanical properties than other materials
[1,2]. The anisotropic nature of ber reinforced com-
posite provides the unique opportunity of tailoring such
properties as the stacking sequence, ber orientation,
and thickness of laminate according to design require-
ments. Consequently, design may be optimized over
various objective functions and design variables.
Many search methods in the optimum design of
composites seek the maximum or minimum of particular
functions. Initially, researchers were interested in weight
reduction. Schmit and Farshi [3] found the thickness
that minimizes weight subject to strength and stiness
constraints and a given stacking sequence. They later
attempted optimum design for applicable ply orienta-
tion [4]. Tauchert and Adibhatla [5] obtained the mini-
mum strain energy of laminates under transverse load,
taking the stacking sequence and thickness of plies as
design variables. Adali [6] studied the optimal design of
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-54-279-2174; fax: +82-54-279-
5899.
E-mail address: whwang@postech.ac.kr (W. Hwang).
generally seek only local minima or maxima; however,
Kam and Synman [7] introduced a global optimization
technique. Taucher and Adibhatla [5] conducted opti-
mal design from a starting point obtained from a ran-
dom jump technique. Traditional search methods [8]
such as the gradient technique requires much auxiliary
information to work properly. Hill climbing is a good
example of a search strategy that needs derivatives in
order to climb the current peak, but because of its lim-
ited view it is apt to seek only local maxima that may be
far from the global solution. Powell's conjugate gradient
technique [9] is one method for nding the optimum
solution without using derivatives. However, it requires
that the objective function is unimodal, and it therefore
needs several starting points not to become trapped at
local extrema.
Genetic algorithms (GAs) are fundamentally dierent
from traditional search techniques. GAs are based on
the mechanics of natural selection and genetics, and seek
the optimal solution through random probability
methods without auxiliary information such as deriva-
tives or intelligently chosen starting points. GAs have
been used in composite structural design [1015]. Minga
[10] designed a honeycomb structure using a GA. Riche
and Haftka [13] solved the laminate stacking sequence
design problem subject to buckling and strength
constraints. Jaunky et al. [14] analyzed weight optimi-

0263-8223/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S 0 2 6 3 - 8 2 2 3 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 7 0 - 7
218 J.H. Park et al. / Composite Structures 52 (2001) 217231

zation strategy for grid-stiened composite circular cy- oNx oNxy

lindrical shells subject to axial load under a global 0;
ox oy
buckling design constraint as well as strength con-
straints. Kim et al. [15] minimized the weight of com- oNxy oNy
0;
posite laminates with ply drop under a strength ox oy
constraint. In all these researches, the GA discovered a
variety of alternative designs with similar performance, oQx oQy
q 0; 3
giving the designer a choice. GAs are increasingly used ox oy
where traditional optimization methods are not appro- oMx oMxy
priate. Qx 0;
ox oy
This paper uses a GA to nd the optimal stacking
sequence of laminated composites under various loading oMxy oMy
and boundary conditions, optimized for maximum Qy 0;
ox oy
strength. The plate stresses are calculated by the nite
element method based on the rst-order shear defor-
mation theory. The design variables are the ply orien- where Nx ; Ny ; Nxy are the resultant forces, Mx ; My and
tation angles. In general, quadratic failure criteria such Mxy are resultant moments, Qx and Qy are resultant
as the TsaiHill and TsaiWu theories have been widely forces in the transverse direction, and q is the distributed
used to predict the failure of composite materials. There load for the transverse direction.
is an inconsistency, however, in the application of Tsai Fig. 1 shows the stacking sequence and principal
Wu theory to stacking sequence optimization, as pub- material axes with reference to coordinate axes. The
lished by Kim et al. [16]. Therefore, in the present work, constitutive equations of composite laminates, taking
the TsaiHill failure criterion is used as the tness shear deformation into account, are
function.

2. General theory

The displacement eld based on the rst-order shear

deformation theory [17] takes the form
ux; y; z u0 x; y zhx ; vx; y; z v0 x; y zhy ;
wx; y; z wx; y; 1
where u0 and v0 are displacements of u and v on the mid-
plane. Because the vertical line to the mid-plane of the
laminates is not necessarily perpendicular to the de-
formed mid-plane, the terms hx and hy are independent
of ow=ox and ow=oy.
The displacementstrain relations, taking Eq. (1) into
account are
0 1 0 ou0 1 0 ohx 1
ex ox ox
@ ey A B ov C
@ oy0 A z@ oy A;
B ohy C
cxy ou0
ovox0 ohx oh
oxy
oy oy

e e0 zj; 2
0 1
cxz !
ow
B C ox
hx
@ cyz A ow ;
oy
hy

c c:
The equilibrium equations of the rst-order shear Fig. 1. Stacking sequence and principal material axes with reference
deformation are given by coordinate axes.
 J.H. Park et al. / Composite Structures 52 (2001) 217231 219

0 1 2 30 1
rx Q11 Q12 Q16 0 0 ex
B ry C 6 Q12 Q22 Q26 0 0 7B ey C
7B
B C 6 C
B C 6 7B C
B sxy C 6 Q16 Q26 Q66 0 0 7B cxy C; 4
B C 6 7B C
@ sxz A 4 0 0 0 Q44 Q45 5@ c xz
A
syz 0 0 0 Q45 Q55 cyz
 
where Qij is the transformed stiness matrix. By in-
tegrating the stresses of Eq. (4) with respect to the z-
direction, we obtain the resultant forces, resultant
moments, and resultant shear forces as
! " # !
N A B e0
;
M B D j
0 1 2 30 1 5
Qx DS44 DS45 cxz
B C 6 7B C
Q @ Qy A 4 DS45 DS55 5@ cyz A DS c ;

where
Z h

2
Fig. 2. Nine node Lagrange plate element with ve degrees of free-
Aij ; Bij ; Dij Qij 1; z; z2 dz; i; j 1; 2; 6; dom.
h
2
Z h
6
2
DSij k Qij dz; i; j 4; 5; where
h
2
2 oN 3
and k is the shear correction factor. This shear correc- ox
i
0 0 0 0
tion factor is derived from corrections to the rst-order 6 7
6 oNi
07
shear deformation theory from exact solutions. In this Bei 6 0 oy
0 0 7;
4 5
paper, k is assumed to be 5/6 [18]. oNi oNi
0 0 0
oy ox
2 oNi
3
0 0 0 ox
0
3. FEM analysis 6 7
6 oNi 7
Bbi 6 0 0 0 0 oy 7;
4 5
The variable nite element method based on rst- 0 0 0 oNi oNi
oy ox
order shear deformation theory and the penalty plate-
bending element, proposed by Reddy [19], are used for " oNi #
0 0 ox
Ni 0
the analysis of composite laminates. A Lagrange plate Bsi ;
oNi
element with nine second-order nodes is used as shown 0 0 oy
0 Ni
in Fig. 2, in which there are ve degrees of freedom
(u; v; w; hx ; hy ). and subscripts e; b, and s, respectively, dene extension,
The interpolation function of the displacement eld is bending, and shear.
dened as The strain energy (u) is obtained by integrating over
0 1 the area of the element:
u
Bv C Z Z
B C X n 1 1
T T
B C u N e0 dA M j dA
Bw C N i di ; 7 2 2
B C A A
@ hx A i1
Z
1
hy QTc dA: 9
2 A

T
where di ui ; vi ; wi ; hxi ; hyi , Ni Ni I, where Ni is the
Eq. (9) can be written as
interpolation function, and di represent the nodal vari-
ables. The mid-plane strains and curvatures are given by X1
u dTe KTe de ; 10
e0 Bei di ; j Bbi di ; c Bsi di ; 8 e
2
220 J.H. Park et al. / Composite Structures 52 (2001) 217231

where Ke is the stiness matrix of element: species when reproduction occurs. An initial population
Z of chromosomes explores the search space for optimal
Kij BTi DBj dA solutions by means of a randomized process of selection,
A
crossover, and mutation. All individuals have their t-
Z
 ness value for new search points, and the selection
BTei ABej BTbi BBej dA process permits those individuals of superior tness to
A
Z reproduce more than others. Selected individuals gen-
 erate new ospring by combining their features. The
BTei BBbj BTbi DBbj dA
A mutation process provides the new search space by al-
Z tering the genes on a chromosome.
BTsi DSBsj dA; 11 GAs are dierent from traditional searching tech-
A niques such as gradient technique. Because they are not
and limited by such conditions as continuity of the variables,
0 1 the number of design variables, problems of local min-
Bei
ima, and do not have to decide starting points according
Bi @ Bbi A; 12
to the type of problem, they can readily be designing
Bsi
composite materials.
2 3
A B 0
D 4 B D 0 5: 13 4.2. Fitness function, failure index, design variables, and
0 0 DS ply orientations

The total potential energy, p of the plate is
pU V;
where U is strain energy and V is the potential energy
due to external loads. By minimizing p with respect to
the displacement di , we can obtain the nal matrix
equation
Kd f:
The strains in Eq. (2) are obtained from the strains
and curvatures on the mid-plane on putting displace-
ment di into Eq. (8). The stresses are calculated at the
integration point about each laminate by putting the
strains into the constitutive Eq. (4). Finally, r1 , r2 , s12
can be obtained by transforming the calculated stresses
into the ber orientation. Failure indices can therefore
be obtained by using the TsaiHill theory.
4. Optimization procedure
4.1. Genetic algorithms
GAs [20] are a subset of evolutionary algorithms
(EAs) and are derived from the study of biology, arti-
cial intelligence and numerical optimization. They are
equally applicable in engineering. The GA is inspired by
adaptation in natural and articial systems [21], and its
usefulness in optimization has been veried. As better
GAs have been developed, the idea has been widely
applied in the science, economics and engineering.
Technically, the GA is a probabilistic search technique
based on natural selection. Nature tends to make more
copies of chromosomes that cause benecial adaptations
to a given environment, and introduces variation in a
The aim of this study is to maximize the strength of
14 composite laminates by altering the ply orientation for a
given thickness of layer. The ply orientation angles of
composite laminates are taken as design variables, and
the failure index of TsaiHill theory is used as the tness
function [22]. Chromosomes are dened as shown in
Fig. 3. Each gene consequently represents a ply angle.
15 The ply angle is coded as a binary number and is
mapped to a decimal number.
The optimization problem can be expressed in
mathematical form:
r21 r1 r2 r22 s212
Minimize fTH h 2 2
X2 X2 Y S 16
subject to 90 6 h 6 90;
where fTH h is the TsaiHill quadratic failure criterion,
taken as the failure index. The tness function is cal-
culated by the nite element method under various
boundary conditions. The total number of elements is
denoted p, the number of integration points within one
element is q, and the number of piles is r. The tness
function is calculated at each point of fp; q; rg. Among
these calculated tness functions, the maximum tness
Fig. 3. Denition of chromosome.
 J.H. Park et al. / Composite Structures 52 (2001) 217231
function is sought and minimized. This procedure can be
written as
2 1 1 1
fTH h1 ; fTH h2 ; . . . ; fTH hr
6 f 2 h ; f 2 h ; . . . ; f 2 h 7
6 TH 1 TH 2 TH r 7
Minimize Max6 6 ..
4 5 17
.
pq pq pq
fTH h1 ; fTH h2 ; . . . ; fTH hr
subject to 90 6 h 6 90:
4.3. Operation of the genetic algorithm
The roulette wheel method is widely used for ran-
domization. But this method cannot select dominantly
the best individuals as the population of next genera-
tion, although individuals have high tness. By contrast,
tournament selection chooses a random set of individ-
uals and picks out the best among them. Tournament
selection also has the characteristic of controlling the
next generation according to reproduction of dominant
individuals by varying the tournament size. Therefore,
in this research, we use tournament selection, with
tournament size of two (binary tournaments). Elitist
selection ensures that the best chromosome is passed
into the new generation if it is not selected through
another process. We also use the elitist model.
Crossover is the main genetic operator. It operates on
two chromosomes and generates ospring by combining
features of both chromosomes. One-point crossover
combines two chromosomes by choosing a random cut-
point; two-point crossovers combine two chromosomes
by choosing two cut-points; and uniform crossover
combines chromosomes by choosing random cut-points,
as shown in Fig. 4. In this paper, we use uniform
crossover with a strong crossover eect; the crossover
rate is 0.5 [23].
221
Mutation expands the search space by random
changes of string bits in the chromosome that alter the
3 chromosome overall. Consequently, we can prevent the
existing population from seeking local minima using
mutation. In this study, the search space is expanded by
7
7
restarting the GA with the new population (involving
mass mutation) if there is little dierence between elite
tness and the average tness of the population.
The creeping random search method, proposed in
1958 by Brook [24], nds the individual that has supe-
rior tness by shifting a random value of design vari-
ables using a restricted probability density distribution.
The iteration rule of a creeping random search is to nd
a minimum
 k k


x z if fTH xk zk 6 fTH xk success;
xk1 k
x otherwise failure;
18
where zk denotes a random vector.
In this study, the creeping random search is per-
formed by changing the elite individual's design variable
when the GA restart with the newly generated popula-
tion. A ow chart for the process of optimum design is
presented in Fig. 5.
5. Numerical examples
Optimum designs of composite laminates subject to
various loading and boundary conditions were sought
using the GA. Material properties of composite and GA
parameters are given in Tables 1 [25] and 2, respectively.
Throughout the calculations, plates have thickness h
4 mm, a=b 1, and a=h 25. The population number
is 10 and chromosomes have 15 bitstrings per variable.
Fig. 4. Crossover.
222 J.H. Park et al. / Composite Structures 52 (2001) 217231

Fig. 5. Flow chart of optimization process.

Table 1 Table 2
Material properties GA-parameters
CFRP T300/N5208 graphite/epoxy Population size 10
E1 132.5 GPa Length of chromosome 15 bits
E2 10.8 GPa Selection strategy Tournament and elitist
G12 G13 5.7 GPa Crossover strategy Uniform crossover with
G23 3.4 GPa 0.5 probability
m12 0.24 Mutation strategy Mass mutation and creeping
X 1515 MPa random search
Y 43.8 MPa Maximum parameter value 90
S 86.9 MPa Minimum parameter value )90

Optimum solutions are obtained by iteration of the de- 5.1. Optimum design for various loading conditions
sign variables. The interval is
Optimum designs of the symmetric composite lami-
90 90 nate subject to various loading conditions have been
Dhi 0:005493 . . . 19
215 1 performed. Fig. 6 shows the layout of composite lami-
 J.H. Park et al. / Composite Structures 52 (2001) 217231 223

p
worst f:i:=optimum f:i:
34.6
34.6
34.6
6.9
6.8
7.2
2.5
3.1
3.6
1.5
1.9
2.1

4.7
5.5
5.6
Optimum f.i.
0.0068
0.0068
0.0068
0.758
0.835
0.766
0.722
0.489
0.361
0.229
0.139
0.111

2.356
1.801
1.77
45:17s
52:1s

61:68= 54:91= 44:62=44:71s

1:41s

51:3=51:0= 50:5= 51:4s

45:58s
43:57= 44:27=

44:76=

70:47=41:81= 47:61s
45:0= 43:21s
54:47=54:91= 48:93s
2:81= 1:05= 0:53=
0:03=0:019= 0:04s

44:99s

74:78= 21:14s
45:31= 44:75=
45:92= 44:25=
Optimum angle

4:31= 61:78s
51:13=50:99s
0:002=0:01s

80:33=
31:05=
42:77=
Fig. 6. Layout of composite laminate and boundary conditions for the
evaluation of loading eect: (a) one side simply supported with center
point xed and the other three edges free; (b) all sides simply sup-
Worst f.i.

ported.
8.144
8.144
8.144

4.823
4.842
4.822
0.525
0.527
0.526

53.934
55.063
55.907
36.71
38.66
39.74

nate and boundary conditions for the evaluation of

loading eect. The boundaries are all side simply sup-
0:45s

ported except for the case of uniaxial tensile loading. To 44:97=45:31=46:42=45:05s

30:54=19:66=16:86=18:29s
demonstrate the validity of the method used in this
54:8=56:8=59:14=65:03s
study, the worst solutions are evaluated as well as the
0:002= 19:67=0:02=
90= 90=90= 90s

44:81=45:46=44:96s

30:99=22:73=22:64s
89:81= 89:99=90s

optimum solutions. The worst failure index is evaluated

35:16=33:1=28:11s
0:15=16:86=0:17s
89:96= 89:79s

by maximizing the failure index of TsaiHill theory us-

0:008=14:76s

45:03=44:71s

35:46=31:32s

28:55=20:48s
Worst angle

ing the GA. The load-carrying eciency index ILC , is

dened as the square-root of the ratio of the worst
failure index to the optimum failure index, which means
load carrying capability of composite laminates having
optimum ply angles relative to that of composite lami-
nates having worst failure index.
Optimum design for various loading conditions
Ply
4
6
8
4
6
8
4
6
8
4
6
8

4
6
8

s
worst failure index
ILC : 20
optimum failure index
Combined (uniform + biaxial)

Table 3 represents the optimum stacking sequence of

laminates under various loading conditions in the sym-
metric composite laminates (h1 =h2 s ). For 4-ply sym-
Loading condition

metric laminate the tness functions of all possible ply

angles under the all loading conditions and the tness
Uniform
Uniaxial

values (failure index) as the generations change under

Table 3

Biaxial

Point

uniaxial and biaxial loadings are presented in Figs. 7

and 8, respectively.
224 J.H. Park et al. / Composite Structures 52 (2001) 217231

Fig. 7. Fitness function of 4-ply symmetric laminate for various loading conditions: (a) uniaxial loading; (b) biaxial loading; (c) uniform loading; (d)
point loading; (e) combined loading (uniform + biaxial).

5.1.1. Uniaxial loading
Uniaxial tensile loading (Nx 0:5 MN=m) is applied
to symmetric laminate with the boundary condition of
Fig. 6(a). It is obvious that the maximum strength of
laminates occurs when all layer angles are parallel to the
ber orientation, 0s and that the worst ply angle of
maximum failure index is 90s . The load-carrying ca-
pability of the best designed plate is about 34 times
better than that for the worst design angle in Table 3.
Fig. 8(a) shows that the GA seeks the minimum value in
fewer generations because the tness function has no
local minimum as shown in Fig. 7(a).
5.1.2. Biaxial loading
Optimum designs of in-plane biaxially loaded plates
with a loading condition of Nx :Ny 1:2 (Nx 0:5
MN=m, Ny 1 MN=m) which is similar to a cylindri-
cal pressure vessel under internal pressure were sought.
 J.H. Park et al. / Composite Structures 52 (2001) 217231
Fig. 8. Evolution of failure index 4-ply symmetric laminate under
uniaxial and biaxial loading conditions: (a) uniaxial loading; (b) biaxial
loading.
For a laminate of 4-ply, the optimum ply angle is
[51.1]s , which is close to the solution of [54.7]s from
the netting analysis considering only the ber load-car-
rying capability. In Fig. 8(b), more generations are
needed for convergence than uniaxial loading case due
to local minimum as shown in Fig. 7(b). Fig. 9 shows the
distribution of chromosomes on the contour of the t-
ness function and the eect of crossover in nding the
maximum tness value. For initialized chromosomes as
shown in Fig. 9(a), the elite tness is 24.0 and the av-
erage tness is 6.79. Fig. 9(b) shows the distribution of
population of the second generation. The elite tness
and the average tness are 29.4 and 12.66.
5.1.3 Uniform loading
Optimum designs under uniform load q 1 MN=m2 )
were sought. The tness functions of 4-ply laminates are
given in Fig. 7(c). The worst stacking sequence is 45s .
The optimum failure index is more sensitive to the
number of plies than the other loading conditions, and
can support loads 2.5 or more times larger than the
worst design as shown in Table 3.
225
Fig. 9. Initialization and evolution of chromosome for 4-ply composite
laminate under biaxial loading: (a) initialization; (b) after crossover.
5.1.4. Point loading
Optimum designs, when a point load (P 1 kN) is
applied to the center of the plate, were sought. It is
found that the load-carrying factors have relatively
small values compared to these under other loading
conditions, as shown in Table 3. The tness functions of
4-ply laminates are given in Fig. 7(d).
5.1.5. Combined loading
Optimization of laminate design under a combination
of in-plane biaxial loading (Nx 0:5 MN=m, Ny
1 MN=m) and uniform loading q 1 MN=m2 ) was
performed. The tness functions of 4-ply laminates are
given in Fig. 7(e). In this case the optimized laminate
can carry external loads more than 4.7 times greater
than for the worst designed laminate.
According to the above results, the failure index of
the laminates subjected to inplane loading is not highly
sensitive of the number of plies overall for optimal de-
sign as well as worst stacking sequence. On the other
hand, for the laminates subjected to transverse loading,
226 J.H. Park et al. / Composite Structures 52 (2001) 217231

such as uniform or point loads, the optimum failure
index decreases as the number of plies increases, while
the worst failure index is relatively independent of the
number of plies. This means that a greater number of
plies can carry a greater load for the same overall
thickness. These results may apply to the aspect ratio of
a=b 1 only.
5.2. Optimum design for various boundary conditions
Optimum designs of laminates under various
boundary conditions were sought. The boundary con-
ditions are presented in Fig. 10. Uniform (q 1
MN=m2 ) and point (P 1 kN) loads are respectively
applied [2628]. The corresponding optimal designs are

Fig. 10. Various boundary conditions: (a) boundary condition 1 (two opposite edges simply supported and the other two edges clamped);
(b) boundary condition 2 (three edges simply supported and one edge clamped); (c) boundary condition 3 (all edges clamped); (d) boundary condition
4 (one edge simply supported and the other edges clamped); (e) boundary condition 5 (two opposite edges simply supported, the third edge free,
and the forth edge clamped); (f) boundary condition 6 (three edges clamped and the fourth edge free); (g) boundary condition 7 (two opposite
edges simply supported, and the other two edges free).
Table 4
Optimum design for various boundary conditions under uniform loading
p
Boundary condition Ply Worst angle Worst f.i. Optimum angle Optimum f.i. worst f:i:=optimum f:i:
1 4 3:97=5:83s 3.175 89:98= 0:2s 0.134 4.8

J.H. Park et al. / Composite Structures 52 (2001) 217231

6 3:45=5:49=5:96s 3.177 87:24= 19:98=38:02s 0.119 5.1
8 3:57=5:71=5:5=6:22s 3.179 84:35= 37:7=14:02= 85:93s 0.115 5.2
2 4 38:84=35:63s 3.683 89:55= 19:66s 0.287 3.5
6 39:39=35:83=35:09s 3.690 81:11= 39:38=22:75s 0.249 3.8
8 39:67=35:87=36:07=35:79s 3.697 80:95= 48:39=39:15= 67:54s 0.225 4.0
3 4 45:05=45:19s 0.515 48:07= 45:49s 0.244 1.4
6 45:13=45:05=44:22s 0.515 44:29= 49:44=87s 0.164 1.7
8 44:97=44:89=45:02=46:25s 0.515 46:36= 27:79= 68:5=9:76s 0.145 1.8
4 4 89:97= 88:56s 1.184 37:96= 57:26s 0.302 1.9
6 89:99= 88:61=89:69s 1.184 42:94= 48:41=2:93s 0.206 2.3
8 88:59=85:82=86:12=76:04s 1.185 46:58= 27:77= 9:81=9:59s 0.175 2.6
5 4 85:77= 89:92s 16.169 29:26= 87:88s 1.783 3.0
6 85:83= 89:97=87:59s 16.151 46:37= 16:77= 42:05s 1.257 3.5
8 84:19=86:27=86:91=87:01s 16.253 50:62= 13:08= 5:91= 2:49s 0.965 4.1
6 4 88:21=78:52s 23.817 0=90s 0.303 8.8
6 80:37=78:64=79:11s 23.826 0:18=89:99= 1:0s 0.239 9.9
8 80:64=78:75=78:93= 90s 23.768 0:36= 89:73=1:17=0:75s 0.229 10.1
7 4 87:42= 89:52s 84.417 0:2= 0:21s 0.211 20.0
6 87:24= 89:91= 89:61s 84.502 0:17= 0:45= 81:58s 0.162 22.8
8 86:48= 89:99= 89:9= 89:64s 84.64 0:83=2:87= 62:9=1:88s 0.218 19.7

227
 228
Table 5
Optimum design for various boundary conditions under point loading
p
Boundary condition Ply Worst angle Worst f.i. Optimum angle Optimum f.i. worst f:i:=optimum f:i:
1 4 25:3=22:04s 0.475 88:22= 12:01s 0.097 2.2

J.H. Park et al. / Composite Structures 52 (2001) 217231

6 25:75=23:76=19:11s 0.476 86:08= 10:7= 38s 0.082 2.4
8 25:96=23:91=23:07=15:63s 0.476 77:01= 32:6= 33:11= 52:44s 0.075 2.5
2 4 28:62=25:38s 0.504 87:17= 16:4s 0.138 1.9
6 29:21=27:14=22:76s 0.506 78:27= 33:03= 32:08s 0.11 2.1
8 29:39=27:58=27:01=19:46s 0.505 64:46= 40:92= 40:77= 42:13s 0.09 2.3
3 4 44:91=45:08s 0.327 89:85= 0:88s 0.105 1.7
6 45:02=44:92=44:69s 0.327 5:75= 72:87= 68:75s 0.08 2.0
8 45=45:16=44:74=44:49s 0.327 15:45= 60:94= 59:82= 40:71s 0.07 2.1
4 4 52:53=56:41s 0.364 0= 89:95s 0.101 1.8
6 52:52=53:96=60:93s 0.366 7:93= 63:98= 57:04s 0.08 2.1
8 51:95=53:46=54:95=65:49s 0.365 16:43= 55:04= 53:98= 47:37s 0.07 2.2
5 4 87:92= 87:11s 0.672 63:03= 26:15s 0.214 1.7
6 86:86= 87:87=90s 0.679 26:42= 56:89= 59:01s 0.133 2.2
8 85:99= 87:69= 86:81=89:65s 0.682 25:86= 57:86= 58:48= 61:44s 0.108 2.5
6 4 58:4=60:24s 0.385 2:4= 73:47s 0.107 1.8
6 58:71=58:72=63:37s 0.387 12:21= 58:05= 56:17s 0.085 2.1
8 58:17=58:13=58:9=67:91s 0.386 14:31= 56:77= 59:01=55:24s 0.075 2.2

7 4 82:67= 88:36s 3.076 7:56= 59:56s 0.211 3.8

6 81:89= 89:49= 88:19s 3.116 20:39= 51:85= 53:38s 0.139 4.7
8 81:02= 89:1= 88:43= 88:74s 3.152 20:32= 50:76= 50:62= 53:14s 0.119 5.1
 J.H. Park et al. / Composite Structures 52 (2001) 217231 229

given in Tables 4 and 5. The tness functions of h1 =h2 s Boundary Two opposite edges simply supported,
for each boundary condition are presented in Fig. 11. condition 5 the third edge free, and the fourth edge
clamped
Boundary Three edges built in and the fourth edge
Boundary Two opposite edges simply supported condition 6 free
condition 1 and the other two edges built in Boundary Two opposite edges simply supported
(clamped) condition 7 and the other two edges free
Boundary Three edges simply supported and one
condition 2 edge clamped
Boundary All edges clamped For boundary condition 1, optimal stacking sequence
condition 3 of 4-ply laminate has 90=0s under uniform load. For
Boundary One edge simply supported and the other boundary condition 2, the load-carrying capability of
condition 4 edges clamped the optimal ply angle against the worst ply angle is lower

Fig. 11. Fitness function of 4-ply symmetric laminate for various boundary conditions.
230 J.H. Park et al. / Composite Structures 52 (2001) 217231

Fig. 11. (Continued).

 J.H. Park et al. / Composite Structures 52 (2001) 217231
than for boundary condition 1. For boundary condition
3, the worst ply angle of 4-ply laminate is nearly 45=45s
under two loading conditions. The optimal ply angle is
45= 45s under uniform load and 90=0s under point
loading. For boundary condition 6, the load-carrying
capability is obviously dierent under uniform load and
point loading. It follows that the failure index for the
worst ply angle under uniform loading is very large
because the stresses in the region of connecting free and
clamped edges are much larger than under point load-
ing. Also, under uniform load, the failure index for the
worst ply angle is much larger than that for boundary
condition 4 because of the free edge eect. For boundary
condition 7, tness values are distributed over a wide
range as shown in Fig. 11. Under uniform load, the
optimal ply angle is 0s and the worst ply angle is 90s .
The load-carrying capability under uniform load is
much larger than under point load, as for boundary
condition 6.
6. Conclusions
1. The optimum designs are easily obtained using GAs
without auxiliary information such as derivatives of
the objective function or an initial guessing point.
2. The creeping random search method with the GA is
an eective search technique for more accurate opti-
mum solution.
3. In the optimum design of composite laminates with
aspect ratio of a=b 1, the optimum failure index de-
creases as the number of plies increases for transverse
loading, while the failure index of the laminates sub-
jected to inplane loading is not highly sensitive of the
number of plies.
4. From the optimization results for various boundary
conditions, the load-carrying eciency index for uni-
form loading has better values in the laminates under
boundary conditions 6 and 7. Under point loading,
however, the load-carrying eciency index is similar
for all boundary conditions except for boundary con-
dition 7.
References
[1] Jang BZ. Advanced polymer composites: principles and applica-
tions. ASM International, 1994.
[2] Kondo K, editor. Advanced Composite Materials 1995;4(3):197
298.
231
[3] Schmit Jr LA, Farshi B. Optimum laminated design for strength
and stiness. Int J Numer Meth Eng 1997;7:51936.
[4] Schmit Jr LA, Farshi B. Optimum design of laminated ber
composite plates. Int J Numer Meth Eng 1977;11:62340.
[5] Tauchert TR, Adibhatla S. Design of laminated plates for
maximum stiness. J Compos Mater 1984;18:5869.
[6] Turvey GJ, Marshall IH. Buckling and postbuckling of composite
plates. London: Chapman & Hall; 1995. p. 32765.
[7] Kam TY, Snyman JA. Optimal design of laminated composite
plates using a global optimization technique. Compos Struct
1991;19:35170.
[8] Arora JS. Introduction to optimum design. New York: McGraw-
Hill; 1989.
[9] Powell MJD. An ecient method for nding the minimum of a
function of several variables without calculating derivatives.
Comput J 1964;7:15562.
[10] Minga AK. Honeycomb design using a genetic algorithm. Paper
presented at the AIAA Southeastern Resional Student Confer-
ence, Atlanta, GA., April 1987.
[11] Callahan J, Weeks GE. Compos Eng 1992;2:14960.
[12] Ball NR, Sargent PM, Ige DO. Arti Intell Eng 1993;8:99108.
[13] Riche RL, Haftk RT. AIAA J 1993;31:9516.
[14] Jaunky N, Knight NF, Ambur DR. Compos Struct 1998;41:243
52.
[15] Kim JS, Kim CG, Hong CS. Compos Struct 1999;46:17187.
[16] Kim CW, Song SR, Hwang W, Park HC, Han KS. On the
failure indices of quadratic failure criteria for optimal stacking
sequence design of laminated plate. Appl Compos Mater 1994;
1:815.
[17] Ochoa OO, Reddy JN. Finite element analysis of composite
laminates. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1992.
[18] Whitney JM. Structural analysis of laminated anisotropic plates.
Technomic Publishing Company Inc, 1987.
[19] Reddy JM. A penalty plate-bending element for the analysis
including transverse shear eects for applications to laminated
plates. AIAA J 1971;9(5):9127.
[20] Tomas B. Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice. New
York: Oxford; 1996.
[21] Holland JH. Adaption in natural and articial systems. The
University of Michigan Press, 1975.
[22] Rowlands RE. Strength (failure) theories and their experimental
correlation. In: Sih GC, Skudra AM, editors. Handbook of
composites: failure mechanics of composites, vol. 3. Amsterdam:
Elsevier; 1985. p. 912.
[23] Lawrence D. Handbook of genetic algorithms. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold; 1991. p. 4650.
[24] Hans-Paul S. Evolution and optimum seeking. New York: Wiley;
1995. p. 945.
[25] Reddy YSN, Reddy JN. Linear and non-linear failure analysis of
composite laminates with transverse shear. Compos Sci Technol
1992;44:22755.
[26] Timoshenko S, Woinowsky-Krieger S. Theory of plates and
shells. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1959. p. 180214.
[27] Kim CW, Hwang W, Park HC, Han KS. Stacking sequence
optimization of laminated plates. Compos Struct 1997;
39(34):2838.
[28] Song SR, Hwang W, Park HC, Han KS. Optimum stacking
sequence of composite laminates for maximum strength. Mech
Compos Mater 1995;31(3):393404.