Struct Multidisc Optim (2008) 36:159–167
DOI 10.1007/s00158-007-0207-2
RESEARCH PAPER
Design of laminated composite structures for optimum
fiber direction and layer thickness, using optimality criteria
Peyman Khosravi · Ramin Sedaghati
Received: 30 July 2007 / Revised: 24 September 2007 / Accepted: 17 October 2007 / Published online: 12 January 2008
© Springer-Verlag 2007
Abstract In this study, two optimality criteria are pre-
sented for optimum design of composite laminates
using finite element method. Thickness of the layers
and fiber orientation angles in each finite element are
considered as the design variables. It will be shown
that the optimum design of composite laminates with
varying fiber orientations and layers thicknesses may be
found by using these optimality criteria in an efficient
way, without performing the sensitivity analysis.
Keywords Design optimization · Optimality criteria ·
Composite structures · Composite laminates ·
Thickness optimization
1 Introduction
Nowadays, composite laminates are increasingly used
in areas where weight saving is crucial. Laminates are
usually optimized by varying the layer thicknesses and
fiber angles to improve the performance of the struc-
tures at the lowest possible weight for the cases where
manufacturing cost is not a primary consideration. Sev-
eral studies related to the optimization of laminated
composite structures are available in the literature.
Fukunaga and Sekine (1993) derived an optimal re-
lation for fiber angles and layer thickness ratios in a
P. Khosravi (B) · R. Sedaghati
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
e-mail: peyma_kh@encs.concordia.ca
R. Sedaghati
e-mail: sedagha@encs.concordia.ca
single element. Plane stress finite elements have been
used by Kasap and Oral (1997) for weight optimiza-
tion of composite laminates with curved fibers. Parnas
et al. (2003) presented a methodology for the opti-
mum design of laminated composites with curved fiber
courses using Bezier curves for fiber orientations and
Bezier surfaces for layer thicknesses. Nonlinear pro-
gramming methods (Lin and Yu 1991; Fukunaga and
Vanderplaats 1991), multilevel optimization algorithms
(Watkins 1987; Weiji and Boohua 1986; Watkins and
Morris 1987; Schmit and Mehrinfar 1982; Kam and
Lai 1989; Sadr et al. 1989; António et al. 1995; Mota
Soares et al. 1995), and genetic algorithms (Le Riche
and Haftka 1996; Kodiyaiam et al. 1996) have also
been used for optimization of composite structures. For
more studies on optimization of laminated compos-
ite structures, the reader is referred to the references
at the end of this article (Hyer and Lee 1991; Fang
and Springer 1993; Morton and Webber 1997; Burns
and Cherkaev 1997; Kalamkarov 1997; Verijenko and
Johnson 1996; Landriani and Rovati 1991; Muc 1988;
Rao et al. 1991; Fukunaga and Vanderplaats 1990;
Kam and Snyman 1991; Miravete 1990; Gürdal and
Olmedo 1993; Olmedo and Gürdal 1993; Hyer and
Charette 1991).
The efficiency of the nonlinear mathematical pro-
gramming methods of optimization depends very
much on the performance of the sensitivity analysis
(Haftka and Prasad 1981; Adelman and Haftka 1986;
Haftka and Adelman 1989; Zynczowski 1992; Grandhi
1993). Design sensitivity analysis for rectangular or-
thotropic laminated plates have been presented by
Pedersen (1987) and Reiss and Ramachandran (1987).
Adali (1983) and Kengtung (1986) presented the de-
sign sensitivities with respect to the fibers angles.
160 P. Khosravi, R. Sedaghati

Valido and Cardoso (2003a, b) presented design sensi-

tivity analysis and optimization of nonlinear composite
laminate beam structures, considering the thicknesses
of the laminates and the lamina orientations as the
design variables.
It has been shown that optimality criterion meth-
ods can significantly reduce the computational time
in the optimization process because these methods
skip the time-consuming step of sensitivity analysis.
There are different forms of optimality criteria avail-
able in the literature. Those with the most application
are “Fully Stress (FS)” design, “Simultaneous Failure
Mode (SFM)” design, “Uniform Strain Energy Density
(USED)” design, and “Constant Internal Force Distri-
bution (CIFD)” design (Lógó 2005). Recently, appli-
cations of optimality criteria in mass minimization of
shells subject to stability and displacement constraints
and in optimum design of stiffened panels have been
presented by Khosravi et al. (2007a, b). For a detailed
literature survey on optimality criteria methods, the
reader is referred to a recent paper by Lógó (2005).
In this study, two optimality criteria are presented
for optimum design of composite laminates. Thickness Fig. 1 Definition of the parameters for a composite laminated
of the layers and fiber angles are considered as the structure
design variables in the first and second criteria, re-
spectively. Finite element analysis is performed using
a triangular finite element that has recently been de-
subject to the equality constraint
veloped for composite shells (Khosravi et al. 2007c).
Results of this study are compared with those found by  − opt = 0 (2)
gradient-based method of optimization, available in the
literature. It will be shown that minimum weight design where Ai is the area of the ith element,  is the total
of the composite laminated structures may be found in potential energy, and opt is the total potential energy
a more efficient way using these criteria. associated with the optimum design. It should be men-
tioned that, although changing the fiber angles does
not directly change the mass of the structure, it has an
2 Optimization problem and optimality criteria indirect effect on the optimum design by affecting the
optimum thickness.
Figure 1 shows an example of a composite laminated  can be written as
structure. The composite laminate is made of n layers 
N
through the thickness and has been modeled by N flat = ei − {u}T { f } = U − {u}T { f } (3)
shell elements. ρ p , tip and θip represent the material i=1
density, thickness, and angle of the fibers of layer p
where U is the total strain energy and {u} is the global
in the ith element, respectively. It is also assumed that
nodal displacement vector. From the principle of sta-
this structure is under the constant applied nodal force
tionary total potential energy, we have
vector { f }.
In this study, the optimization problem is to find the ∂ ∂U
optimum value for thickness tip and angle of the fibers = − { f } = {0} (4)
∂{u} ∂{u}
θip of a general layer p in the ith element to minimize
the total mass M: Based on (1) and (2), the Lagrangian is
  n    n 
 N  N 
M= Ai ρk tik (1) L= Ai ρk tik − λ( − opt ) (5)
i=1 k=1 i=1 k=1
Design of laminated composite structures for optimum fiber direction and layer thickness, using optimality criteria 161

where λ is the Lagrange multiplier. Minimization of L recurrence relation is found by multiplying both sides
with respect to the design variables tip and θip (KKT of (10) by tip and taking the rth root:
conditions, (Arora 1989)) leads to
(tip )η+1 = (tip )η . (λētip )1/r
η (15)
∂L
=0 (6) where η + 1 and η are the iteration numbers and r is
∂tip
the step size parameter. The value of λ at the optimal
design is determined by minimizing the sum of the
∂L squares of the residuals at iteration η:
=0 (7)
∂θip 
Resη = (1 − λētip )2 (16)
From (3), (5), and (6) we have i, p
⎛ ⎞ 
where i, p means that the sum is on all the thickness
∂e m
∂ ∂u
Ai ρ p − λ ⎝ ⎠=0
i j
+ (8) design variables in all elements. Thus,
∂tip j=1
∂u j ∂tip 
i, p ētip
λ=  2
(17)
where m is the number of the nodal displacement de- i, p ētip
∂
grees of freedom. Considering (4), the term ∂u vanishes
j Substituting (17) into (15), we finally obtain
and (8) is simplified to
 1/r
∂ei i, p ētip
Ai ρ p − λ =0 (9) (tip )η+1 = (tip )η .  2
. ētip (18)
∂tip i, p ētip η

or The second recurrence relation for the fiber angle θip

is found by using (13) in a similar manner:
1 = λētip (10)  1/r
(θip )η+1 = (θip )η . 1 + ēθip η (19)
where
The optimization process repeats until the following
1 ∂ei condition for the convergence is satisfied:
ētip = (11)
Ai ρ p ∂tip
(M)η ≤ (tol). (M)1 (20)
Equation (10) states that at the optimum point, the
where (M)1 and (M)η are the changes of the total
value of ētip is the same for all thickness design
mass in the first and ηth iteration, respectively, and tol
variables.
is a small value that is usually chosen depending on the
Similarly, (3), (5), and (7) lead to the following
accuracy required.
relation:
∂ei
=0 (12)
∂θip 3 Derivatives of the strain energy

which is actually the “minimum strain energy” criterion Equations (11) and (14) contain the derivatives of the
in the element level. Equation (12) can be rewritten strain energy of the ith element with respect to the
in the following form to make it easier for recurrence thickness and fiber angle of layer p. To find these deriv-
relation: atives, we start by writing the force–strain relationship
in the xyz local coordinate system of the ith element
1 = (1 + ēθip ) (13) (Berthelot 1999):
⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
◦
where ⎪ Nx ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ εx ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ◦ ⎪⎪
∂ei ⎪ Ny ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ εy ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
ēθip = ⎪
⎪ ⎪
Nxy ⎪ ⎡ ⎤ ⎪ ⎪ γxy ⎪
◦ ⎪
(14) ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
∂θip ⎨ ⎬ An Bn [0]3×2 ⎨ ◦⎪ ⎬
Mx ⎣ ⎦ κ
= Bn Dn [0]3×2 . x
(21)
Equations (10) and (13) are the optimality criteria, ⎪
⎪ My ⎪⎪ ⎪
⎪ κ y◦ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ [0] [0] F ⎪ ⎪
which should be satisfied to get the optimum solution. ⎪
⎪ Mxy ⎪
⎪
⎪
2×3 2×3 n ⎪
⎪
⎪ κxy◦ ⎪⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
An iterative relation (called “recurrence relation”) is ⎪
⎪ Qy ⎪⎪ ⎪
⎪ γ̄ ⎪
⎪
⎩ ⎭ ⎪
⎩
yz ⎪
⎭
usually used to satisfy the optimality criteria. The first Qx γ̄xz
162 P. Khosravi, R. Sedaghati

or with transformation Tik as

⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ ⎡ 2 ⎤
⎨ {N} ⎬ ⎨ {ε◦ } ⎬ c s2 0 0 0 cs
⎢ s2 c2 0 0 0 −cs ⎥
{M} = [D◦ ]8×8 . {κ◦ } (22) ⎢ ⎥
⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭ ⎢ 0 0 1 0 0 0 ⎥
{Q} {γ̄ } Tik = ⎢⎢ ⎥ (26)
0 0 c −s ⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥
⎣ 0 0 0 s c 0 ⎦
where {ε◦ } and {κ◦ } are the membrane and flexural
strains in the midsurface of the plate, respectively, and −2cs 2cs 0 0 0 (c2 − s2 )
{γ̄ } is the transverse shear strains. {N}, {M} and {Q} are in which c = cos θik and s = sin θik .
in-plane force resultants, moment resultants, and trans- The strain energy of the ith element may be
verse shear resultants, respectively. An , Bn , Dn , and Fn expressed as
are the stretching stiffness matrix , membrane-bending 
1 
coupling stiffness matrix, bending stiffness matrix, and ei = {ε◦ }T .{N} + {κ◦ }T .{M}
shear stiffness matrix, respectively (Berthelot 1999): 2 Ai

+ {γ̄ }T .{Q} dAi (27)

n

An = zik − zi(k−1) Eik or
k=1 
1 

n
1 ei = {ε◦ }T An {ε◦ } + {ε◦ }T Bn {κ◦ }
Bn = 2
zik − 2
zi(k−1) Eik 2 Ai
2
k=1 +{κ◦ }T Bn {ε◦ } + {κ◦ }T Dn {κ◦ }

n
1 3 +{γ̄ }T Fn {γ̄ } dAi (28)
Dn = z − zi(k−1)
3
Eik
3 ik
k=1 Using Eq. 28, we have:

n
5  
Fn = zik − zi(k−1) Cik ∂ei 1 ∂ An ∂ Bn
= {ε◦ }T {ε◦ } + {ε◦ }T {κ◦ }
k=1
6 ∂tip 2 Ai ∂tip ∂tip
k = 1, ..., n (n = numb er of layers) (23) ∂ Bn ∂ Dn
+ {κ◦ }T {ε◦ } + {κ◦ }T {κ◦ }
∂tip ∂tip
where the coefficient 56 is the shear correction factor 
∂ Fn
and z is measured from the midplane surface (see + {γ̄ }T {γ̄ } . dAi (29)
∂tip
Fig. 1). Eik and Cik are components of the plane stress
reduced stiffness and 3D stiffness matrices in xyz sys- To evaluate ∂∂tAipn , ∂∂tBipn , ∂∂tDipn , and ∂∂tFipn , we start by
tem for the kth layer of the element: writing zik in terms of the thicknesses of the layers:
⎧ ⎫ ⎡ ⎤ 1
zik = (ti1 + · · · + tik ) − (ti1 + · · · + tin ) (30)
⎪
⎪ σx ⎪ ⎪ E11 E12 E16 0 0 2
⎪
⎪ σ ⎪
⎪ ⎢ 0 ⎥  
⎨ y ⎬ ⎢ 12 E E22 E26 0 ⎥ {ε◦ } + z{κ◦ } or
τxy = ⎢⎢ E16 E26 E66 0 0 ⎥⎥
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎣ 0 {γ̄ } 1 1
⎪ τ yz ⎪
⎪ ⎪ 0 0 C44 C45 ⎦ zik = (ti1 + · · · + tik ) − (ti(k+1) + · · · + tin ) (31)
⎩ ⎭ 2 2
τxz 0 0 0 C45 C55 ik
Thus,
(24) ⎧
⎪
⎪
1
[C ] [C ]
where [Eik ]gh = [Cik ]gh − ik[Cg3ik ]33ik h3 ; g, h = 1, 2, 6. Ma- ∂zik ⎨ 2 ; if p ≤ k
⎪
= (32)
trix Cik is found using the following transformation: ∂tip ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ − 1 ; if p > k
⎡ 1 −ν12 −ν13
⎤−1 2
E1 E1 E1
0 0 0
⎢ ⎥ Using (23) and (32), we can easily get the following
⎢ −ν12 −ν23
⎢ E1
1
E2 E2
0 0 0 ⎥
⎥ relations:
⎢ −ν13 −ν23 ⎥
T⎢ 0 ⎥ ∂ An
1
0 0
Cik = Tik ⎢ E1 E2 E3 ⎥ Tik (25) = Eip (33)
⎢ 0 1
0 ⎥ ∂tip
⎢ 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ G23
1 ⎥
⎣ 0 0 0 0 G13
0 ⎦ ∂ Fn 5
1 = Cip (34)
0 0 0 0 0 G12 ik ∂tip 6
Design of laminated composite structures for optimum fiber direction and layer thickness, using optimality criteria 163

 n  where ∂∂θAipn , ∂∂θBipn , ∂∂θDipn , and ∂∂θFipn can be evaluated using

∂ Bn  1
= zik − zi(k−1) Eik (23), (25), and (26) or using the following finite differ-
∂tip 2
k=1 ence relation with a small value for θip :
 p 
 ∂ (θip + θip ) − (θip )
− zik − zi(k−1) Eik + zip Eip (35) = (43)
k=1
∂θip θip

 n 
∂ Dn  1
= z − zi(k−1) Eik
2 2 4 Design optimization methodology
∂tip 2 ik
k=1
 p  In this study, the objective of the optimal design is to

− zik − zi(k−1) Eik + zip
2 2 2
Eip (36) find the fiber angle and the thickness of each layer
k=1 to minimize the total mass of the structure subject
to the stress constraint. The optimization problem is
Equations (35) and (36) can be written in the following solved using a two-level optimization procedure. At the
simple form: first level, the fiber direction of each ply in each finite
element is optimized using (19). At the second level,
∂ Bn 1 the thickness of each ply is optimized, using (18) to
= An − A p + zip Eip (37)
∂tip 2 minimize the total mass of the material. Both of these
∂ Dn equations are applied using the strain energies com-
= Bn − 2B p + zip
2
Eip (38) puted at the final load level. The new thicknesses are
∂tip
then scaled to satisfy the stress constraint in the form of
in which A p and B p are found using an equation similar failure criterion. In the case where the failure occurs at
 p a lower load than the applied load, the thicknesses are
to Eq. (23), substituting nk=1 by k=1 .
In case of symmetric laminates (Bn = [0]) where increased by a scale factor greater than one, and vise
symmetry is preserved during the thickness optimiza- versa. The two-level procedure is then repeated until
tion, p is selected among the layers in half thickness of convergence based on (20 is achieved.
the laminate ( n2 + 1 ≤ p ≤ n). In this case, one can eas- In this study, failure is assumed to occur in accor-
ily find the following relations using a similar method as dance with the Tsai–Hill ply failure criterion (Tsai and
above: Hahn 1980):
       
∂ An σ1 2 σ2 2 τ12 2 σ1 σ2
= 2Eip (39) + + − − 1 ≤ 0 (44)
∂tip σ1 f σ2 f τ12 f σ12f

∂ Fn 5 where σ1 , σ2 , and τ12 are the stress components referred

= Cip (40)
∂tip 3 to the material axes and σ1 f , σ2 f , and τ12 f are the
corresponding allowable strengths.
∂ Dn
= −4B p + 2zip
2
Eip (41) In design optimization of laminated composites
∂tip
modeled by finite elements, it frequently happens that
the fiber angles or layer thicknesses need to be kept
where again B p is found using an equation similar to
 p constant over several elements. In such cases, it can be
(23), substituting nk=1 by k=1 , and ei is found using
easily shown that (11) and (14) are modified as
(28) with Bn = [0].
Similar to (29), for the derivative of the strain energy 1  ∂ei
ētip =  (45)
of the ith element with respect to the fiber angle of layer Ai ρ p ∂tip
p, we have
and
   ∂ei
∂ei 1 ∂ An ∂ Bn
= {ε◦ }T {ε◦ } + {ε◦ }T {κ◦ } ēθip = (46)
∂θip 2 Ai ∂θip ∂θip ∂θip
∂ Bn ∂ Dn where the mathematical sums are over all the elements
+ {κ◦ }T {ε◦ } + {κ◦ }T {κ◦ }
∂θip ∂θip with the same fiber angles or layer thicknesses.
 The element in this study is a facet triangular shell el-
T ∂ Fn
+ {γ̄ } {γ̄ } . dAi (42) ement with three nodes and six degrees of freedom per
∂θip node, three translations, and three rotations (Khosravi
164 P. Khosravi, R. Sedaghati

et al. 2007c). This element is based on the first-order

shear deformation theory and is a combination of the
discrete Kirchhoff–Mindlin triangular bending element
(DKMT) (Katili 1993) and the optimal triangular mem-
brane element (OPT) (Felippa 2003). Formulation of
the OPT membrane element is based on assumed nat-
ural deviatoric strain (ANDES) template, and its strain
energy is accurate for any arbitrary aspect ratio. It has
been shown that using this element leads to acceptable
results even in relatively coarse meshes (Khosravi et al.
2007c).
An unnatural result with artificially high stiffness,
called “checker board pattern,” may frequently hap-
pen in topology optimization (Díaz and Sigmund 1995;
Jog and Haber 1996). Several techniques have been
proposed to avoid this pattern as an optimal solution
(Poulsen 2002; Sigmund and Petersson 1998; Zhou et al.
2001). In this study, we follow a procedure similar
to the one presented by Gáspár et al. (2002) using
the primary and secondary elements. First, a primary Fig. 3 Results of the thickness optimization (mm) for the rectan-
mesh is considered with square elements, and then each gular plate with a central hole
square is divided into two triangular elements. The
thickness and fiber angle in each square element in
the primary mesh is found by taking the average of
the values of its two triangular elements. Finally, 5.1 Thickness optimization of a rectangular plate
smooth thickness and fiber angle contours may be cre- with a central hole
ated by interpolation using the optimum values.
As the first example, minimum weight design of a
152.4 × 304.8 mm rectangular laminated composite
plate with a 25.4 mm radius hole at the center is
5 Numerical applications
considered, as shown in Fig. 2. The plate is subject
to a distributed load of 2.63 kN/mm and is made of
In this section, the optimization methodology is applied
eight layers with [0/90/ + 45/ − 45] S lay-up and the
to two case problems. The first problem deals only
following material properties:
with the thickness optimization of the layers. In the
second problem, both thickness and fiber angles are op-
E1 = 206.8 GPa , E2 = 18.6 GPa ,
timized using the proposed criteria. In both examples,
G12 = 4.5 GPa , υ12 = 0.21 ,
the objective is to minimize the weight of the composite
σ1 f (Tensile) = 1213 MPa , σ1 f (Comp.) = 2689 MPa ,
structure subject to the failure criterion.
σ2 f (Tensile) = 79 MPa , σ2 f (Comp.) = 308 MPa ,
τ12 f = 15 MPa

In Parnas et al. (2003), this plate has been optimized

Fig. 2 Rectangular plate with a central hole
for layer thicknesses using bicubic Bezier surfaces (to
reduce the number of design variables) and sequential
quadratic programming. Here, the layer thicknesses
are optimized using the proposed criterion and the
results are compared with those given by Parnas et al.
(2003). Initially, each layer is assumed to have a thick-
ness of 3.078 mm and the initial plate volume is V0 =
1093.913 cm3 . Fiber directions are not considered as the
design variable in this example. Only a quarter of the
plate with appropriate boundary conditions is analyzed
due to the symmetry.
Design of laminated composite structures for optimum fiber direction and layer thickness, using optimality criteria 165

Fig. 4 Iteration history for optimization of the rectangular plate

with a central hole

Fig. 6 Results of the thickness optimization (mm) for the can-

Results of the thickness optimization are shown in tilever composite plate with end load
Fig. 3 for the 0◦ and ±45◦ layers. Similar to Parnas
et al. (2003), an almost uniform thickness of 0.13 mm
is found for the 90◦ layer, and majority of the load is 5.2 Optimization of a cantilever composite plate
carried by the 0◦ layer near the hole. Figure 4 shows for fiber directions and layer thicknesses
the iteration history for the proposed method and also
for the sequential quadratic programming (Parnas et al. As the second example, minimum weight design of the
2003). The proposed method converges in seven it- 1000 × 500 mm cantilever plate (also considered by
erations and needs 20 function evaluations, including
those required for scaling the design variables. How-
ever, the sequential quadratic programming method
converges in 20 iterations and obviously needs more
function evaluations to perform the sensitivity analysis
by finite difference method. Although the proposed
method results in a slightly higher volume compared
with the sequential quadratic programming method,
it converges faster without performing the sensitivity
analysis.

Fig. 7 Optimum form of a single fiber in each layer of the

cantilever composite plate with end load (fibers in each layer are
Fig. 5 Cantilever composite plate with end load assumed to be parallel)
166
Parnas et al. (2003) and shown in Fig. 5) is presented.
The plate is subject to a distributed load of 36 N/mm at
the end and is made of two layers with [5/ − 30] lay-up
and the following material properties:
E1 = 157 GPa , E2 = 8.5 GPa ,
G12 = 2.6 GPa , υ12 = 0.3 ,
σ1 f (Tensile) = 1349 MPa , σ1 f (Comp.) = 1349 MPa ,
σ2 f (Tensile) = 36 MPa , σ2 f (Comp.) = 36 MPa ,
τ12 f = 36 MPa
Initially, each layer is assumed to have a thickness of
0.85 mm, and the initial plate volume is V0 = 850 cm3 .
In this example, both fiber directions and layer thick-
nesses are considered as the design variables. However,
in each layer, the fiber direction is considered to be the
same for all elements with the same x coordinate. Us-
ing the proposed optimality criteria and the two-level
optimization procedure explained before, the thickness
and fiber directions of each layer are optimized, and
results are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Results are also com-
pared with those found using the sequential quadratic
programming method and Bezier surfaces and curves
(Parnas et al. 2003). The proposed method converges in
nine iterations and needs 28 function evaluations. How-
ever, according to Parnas et al., the sequential quadratic
programming method converges in 16 iterations, and
obviously, more function evaluations are required to
perform the sensitivity analysis. Again, it may be seen
that the proposed method leads to the optimum result
in a more efficient way, without performing the sensi-
tivity analysis.
6 Conclusions
The present study provided a design methodology for
minimum weight design of composite laminates using
optimality criteria. Fiber angles and layer thicknesses
in each finite element were considered as the design
variables, and two optimality criteria were presented
and applied in a two-level optimization procedure. It
was shown that, by using these optimality criteria, opti-
mum design of the composite laminated structures with
minimum mass is found efficiently without performing
sensitivity analysis.
One can easily see that the optimality criteria pre-
sented in this study are valid for geometrically non-
linear structures as well. The only difference is that
the analysis of geometrically nonlinear structures is
performed through an iterative process (e.g., Newton–
Raphson algorithm) and strain energies are computed
P. Khosravi, R. Sedaghati
based on the pure deformations, which are usually a
function of the global nodal displacement vector.
It should be mentioned that variable-thickness com-
posite structures are fabricated by ply drops and splic-
ing, which are not necessarily cost-efficient due to their
high manufacturing cost. As a result, such optimization
methods are justified only for those critical aerospace
structures in which tradeoff in cost, durability, stiffness,
and weight is not a primary concern. Ply drops and
splicing can also affect the strength of the structure
significantly; however, this is not included in the stress
constraint. More detailed studies are required to im-
prove the proposed method with more realistic stress
constraints.
References
Adali S (1983) Design sensitivity analysis of an antisymmetric
angle ply laminate. Eng Optim 7:69–83
Adelman HM, Haftka RT (1986) Sensitivity analysis for dicrete
structural systems. AIAA J 24:823–832.
António CAC, Marques AT, Soeiro AV (1995) Optimization
of laminated composite structures using a bilevel strategy.
Compos Struct 33:193–200
Arora JS (1989) Introduction to optimum design. McGraw-Hill,
New York
Berthelot JM (1999) Composite materials: mechanical behav-
iour and structural analysis. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg
New York
Burns T, Cherkaev A (1997) Optimal distribution of multimater-
ial composites for torsional beams. Struct Optim 13(1):4–11
Díaz AR, Sigmund O (1995) Checkerboard patterns in layout
optimization. Struct Optim 10:40–45
Fang C, Springer GS (1993) Design of composite laminates by a
Monte Carlo method. J Compos Mater 27(7):721–753
Felippa CA (2003) A study of optimal membrane triangles
with drilling freedoms. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
192(16):2125–2168
Fukunaga H, Vanderplaats GN (1990) Optimum design of lam-
inated composite structures. In: de Wilde WP, Blain WR
(eds) Composite materials design and analysis. Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 493–497
Fukunaga H, Vanderplaats GN (1991) Strength optimization of
laminated composites with respect to layer thickness and/or
layer orientation angle. Comput Struct 40(6):1429–1439
Fukunaga H, Sekine H (1993) Optimum design of composite
structures for shape, layer angle and layer thickness distri-
butions. J Compos Mater 27(15):1479–1492
Gáspár ZS, Lógó J, Rozvany GIN (2002) On design-dependent
constraints and singular topologies. Struct Multidisc
Optim 24(4):338–342
Grandhi RV (1993) Structural optimization with frequency
constraints—a review. AIAA J 32:2296–2303
Gürdal Z, Olmedo R (1993) In-plane response of laminates with
spatially varying fiber orientations: variable stiffness con-
cept. AIAA J 31(4):751–758
Haftka RT, Adelman HT (1989) Recent developments in struc-
tural sensitivity analysis. Struct Optim 1:137–151
Haftka R, Prasad B (1981) Optimum structural design with plate
bending elements—a survey. AIAA J 19:517–522
Design of laminated composite structures for optimum fiber direction and layer thickness, using optimality criteria
Hyer MW, Charette RF (1991) Use of curvilinear fiber format in
composite structure design. AIAA J 29:1011–1015
Hyer MW, Lee HH (1991) The use of curvilinear fibre format to
improve buckling resistance of composite plates with central
circular holes. J Compos Struct 18:236–261
Jog CS, Haber RB (1996) Stability of finite elements models
for distributed-parameter optimization and topology design.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 130:203–226
Kalamkarov AL (1997) Optimal design of fiber-reinforced lami-
nates. ASTM Spec Tech Publ 1309:237–249
Kam TY, Lai MD (1989) Multilevel optimal design of laminated
composite plate structures. Comput Struct 31:197–202
Kam TY, Snyman JA (1991) Optimal design of laminated com-
posite plates using a global optimization technique. Compos
Struct 19:351–370
Kasap I, Oral S (1997) The effect of curved fiber courses in the de-
sign of composite laminates. In: Gutkowski W, Mroz Z (eds)
Proceedings of the second world congress of structural and
multidisciplinary optimization, Zakopane, Poland pp 675–
679, 26–30 May 1997
Katili I (1993) A new discrete Kirchhoff–Mindlin element based
on Mindlin–Reinssner plate theory and assumed shear strain
fields—part I: an extended DKT element for thick-plate
bending analysis. Int J Numer Methods Eng 36:1859–1883
Kengtung C (1986) Sensitivity analysis and a mixed approach to
the optimization of symmetric layered composite plates. Eng
Optim 9:233–248
Khosravi P, Sedaghati R, Ganesan R (2007a) Optimization of
geometrically nonlinear thin shells subject to displacement
and stability constraints. AIAA J 45(3):684–692
Khosravi P, Sedaghati R, Ganesan R (2007b) Optimization of
stiffened panels considering geometric nonlinearity. J Mech
Mater Struct 2(7):1247–1263
Khosravi P, Ganesan R, Sedaghati R (2007c) An efficient facet
shell element for corotational nonlinear analysis of thin and
moderately thick laminated composite structures. Comput
Struct (in press)
Kodiyaiam S, Nagendra S, DeStefano J (1996) Composite sand-
wich structure optimization with application to satellite com-
ponents. AIAA J 34(3):614–621
Landriani GS, Rovati M (1991) An optimal design for two-
dimensional structures made of composite materials. J Eng
Mater Technol 113:341–354
Le Riche R, Haftka RT (1995) Improved genetic algorithm for
minimum thickness composite laminate design. Compos Eng
5(2):143–161
Lin CC, Yu AJ (1991) Optimum weight design of composite
laminated plates. Comput Struct 38(5/6):581–587
Lógó J (2005) New types of optimal topologies by iterative
method. Mech Struct Mach 33:149–171
Miravete A (1990) Analysis and optimization of simple compos-
ite structures. In: de Wilde WP, Blain WR (eds) Composite
materials design and analysis. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg
New York, pp 529–547
Morton SK, Webber JPH (1997) Heuristic design of compos-
ite laminates for strength stiffness and multiple load cases.
Aeronaut J 101(1001):35–45
Mota Soares CM, Correia VF, Mateus H, Herskovits J (1995)
A discrete model for the optimal design of thin compos-
ite plate-shell type structures using a two-level approach.
Compos Struct 30:147–157
167
Muc A (1988) Optimal fiber orientation for simply-supported
angle-ply plates under biaxial compression. Compos Struct
9:161–172
Olmedo R, Gürdal Z (1993) Buckling response of laminates with
spatially varying fiber orientations. In: Proceedings of the
AIAA/ ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC 34th SDM Conference,
La Jolla, CA, pp 2261–2269, 19–21 April 1993
Parnas L, Oral S, Ceyhan Ü (2003) Optimum design of composite
structures with curved fiber courses. Compos Sci Technol
63:1071–1082
Pedersen P (1987) On sensitivity analysis and optima1 de-
sign of specially orthotropic laminates. Eng Optim 11:305–
316
Poulsen TA (2002) A simple scheme to prevent checkerboard
patterns and one node connected hinges in topology opti-
mization. Struct Multidisc Optim 24:396–399
Rao KP, Issac JC, Viswanath S, Murthy SS (1991) Optimum de-
sign of composite laminates for strength by ranking. J Reinf
Plast Compos 10:477–494
Reiss R, Ramachandran S (1987) Maximum frequency design of
symmetric angle-ply laminates. Composite structures 4(1).
In: Marshall IH (ed) Analysis and design studies. Elsevier,
London, pp 1476–1487
Sadr H, Afzali M, Sabzevari H (1989) Calcul et optimisa-
tion des structures composites stratifiees. Rapport CETIM
Senlis
Schmit LA, Mehrinfar (1982) Multilevel optimum design of
structures with fiber-composite stiffened panel components.
AIAA J 20:138–147
Sigmund O, Petersson J (1998) Numerical instabilities in topol-
ogy optimization—a survey on procedures dealing with
checkerboards, mesh—dependencies and local minima.
Struct Optim 16:68–75
Tsai SW, Hahn HT (1980) Introduction to composite materials.
Technomic, Lancaster, PA
Valido AJ, Cardoso JB (2003a) Geometrically nonlinear com-
posite beam structures: optimal design. Eng Optim 35(5):
553–560
Valido AJ, Cardoso JB (2003b) Geometrically nonlinear com-
posite beam structures: design sensitivity analysis. Eng
Optim 35(5):531–551
Verijenko VE, Johnson JD (1996) Design synthesis of compos-
ite structures through the integration of optimization tech-
niques and finite element analysis. Computer aided design in
composite material technology—international conference.
Computational Mechanics, Southampton, pp 197–206
Watkins RI (1987) Multilevel optimization of composite struc-
tures. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference
on composite structures. Elsevier Applied Science, Paisley,
Scotland pp 1393–1403
Watkins RI, Morris A (1987) A multicriteria objective func-
tion optimization scheme for laminated composites for
use in multilevel structural optimization schemes. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 60:233–251
Weiji L, Boohua S (1986) Multilevel optimization procedure of
composite structures. Comput Struct 26:1357–1367
Zynczowski M (1992) Recent advances in optimal structural de-
sign of shells. Eur J Mech A Solids 11:5–24
Zhou M, Shyy YK, Thomas HL (2001) Checkerboard and min-
imum member size control in topology optimization. Struct
Multidisc Optim 21:152–158