arXiv:1304.7226v1 [] 26 Apr 2013

Lay-up Optimization of Laminated Composites:
Mixed Approach with Exact Feasibility Bounds on Lamination
Parameters
F. Gubarev, V. Kunin, A. Pospelov
DATADVANCE
Pokrovsky blvd. 3 building 1B, 109028, Moscow, Russia
Abstract
We suggest modified bi-level approach for finding the best stacking sequence of laminated composite structures subject to mechanical, blending and manufacturing constraints. We propose to use both the number
of plies laid up at predefined angles and lamination parameters as independent variables at outer (global)
stage of bi-level scheme aimed to satisfy buckling, strain and percentage constraints. Our formulation allows
precise definition of the feasible region of lamination parameters and greatly facilitates the solution of inner
level problem of finding the optimal stacking sequence.

Introduction
Due to the excellent mechanical properties laminated composite materials are widely used nowadays in various
industries (see, e.g., Ref. [1] for review). The common problem is to develop composite structures of minimal
weight subject to mechanical, blending and manufacturing (technological) constraints, the degrees of freedom
being the number of plies laid-up at a particular orientation (angle). Therefore, the industry faces with extremely
difficult high dimensional mixed-integer optimization problem, in which both total plies percentage and the
concrete stacking sequence of plies are to be found in order to get optimal design satisfying all the imposed
constraints.
It is important to note that substantial part of constraint functions are stacking sequence independent.
Indeed, the weight of laminated composite structure is simply proportional to the total number of plies. On
the other hand, imposed constraints could be naturally divided into two classes: i)“universal” mechanical
loads written in terms of various stiffness tensors; ii) “non-universal” manufacturing constraints, which vary
for different applications and dictate, for instance, particular laminate blending rules (see Ref. [6] for details
and further examples). Let us consider the most important mechanical constraints, which according to classical
laminate plate theory [2] (for review see, e.g., Ref [3] and references therein) are formulated in terms of in-plane
A, coupling B and out-of-plane D stiffness tensors



 

N
A B
ǫ
=
·
,
(1)
M
B D
κ
linearly relating mid-plane strains ǫ and plate curvatures κ to vectors of running loads N and out-of-plane
moments M . To simplify analysis we follow well-established industry requirements according to which only
the case of symmetric laminates with finite (usually small) number of possible ply orientation angles θi ∈ Θ =
{Θ1 , ..., ΘNΘ }, are to be considered. Then B tensor vanishes identically while in-plane and out-of-plane stiffness

1

matrices can be expressed as linear functions of four-dimensional lamination parameters ξiA , ξiD , i = 1, 2, 3, 4
P
~(0) ∆z
ξ~A = h−1 N
i=1 ζi
PN (0)
ξ~D = 3 h−3 i=1 ζ~i zi2 ∆z

(2)

(0)
ζ~i = [ cos(2θi ), cos(4θi ), sin(2θi ), sin(4θi ) ]T .

Here N is the half of total number of plies each of thickness ∆z, with h = N ∆z being the panel half-thickness, θi
denotes orientation of i-th ply, zi stands for the distance between mid-planes of laminate panel and i-th ply and
we used vector notations instead of explicit indices (this nomenclature is followed below). It is apparent that
in-plane mechanical loads are independent upon the stacking sequence ~θ and are the functions of lamination
parameters ξ~A only, while for out-of-plane constraints stacking sequence dependence is totally hidden in ξ~D
vector. Note that ξ~A lamination parameters are functions of only the number of plies ni laid up at particular
angle θi (ply numbers ~n). Hence dependence upon ξ~A could equally be written as ~n dependence, but reverse
statement does not hold in general, the function ξ A (n) is invertible only in special case NΘ = 4. As far as
buckling load constraint is concerned it brings essentially nothing new to the above picture. Indeed, buckling
load factor is linear in D matrix coefficients (see, e.g., Ref. [3]) and hence depends on stacking sequence only
through the ξ~D lamination parameters.
Unfortunately, it is hardly possible to perform similar analysis for “non-universal” constraints mentioned
above. These are extremely case-to-case dependent, include specific manufacturing requirements for each particular product and thus are to be taken as most general stacking sequence dependent constraints. Therefore,
the composite weight optimization problem can be summarized as
P
min i ni

P (~n) ≥ 0




L(ξ~D ) ≥ 0
s.t.



 S(~
θ) ≥ 0

“universal”; ply number dependent

“universal”; lamination parameters dependent

(3)

“non-universal”; stacking sequence dependent

Suitable solution methodology crucially depends upon the problem size. It is true that for thin laminates
consisting of only a few plies direct methods are applied well and outperform alternative approaches. However,
in engineering applications ply number N for each plate might be of order one hundred, not mentioning the
need to consider many different plates glued together. Then direct treatment becomes extremely inefficient and
alternative methods need to be developed. Nowadays the most widely used approach is to apply approximation
techniques (see Refs. [9] for review), in which “universal” constraints P , L are treated rigorously at outer level,
while the last set of “non-universal” S-constraints are accounted for only approximately at inner stage, iterating
the whole procedure in case of large discrepancies between outer and inner levels. The possibility of problem
decomposition into outer/inner levels arises from crucial observation that none of “universal” constraints depend
on stacking sequence directly. Thus at outer iteration we can formally consider ξ~A , ξ~D as independent variables
and solve the auxiliary task1
(
P (~n) ≥ 0
X
ni
s.t.
(4)
min
L(ξ~D ) ≥ 0
i

to get “optimal” lamination parameters ξ~∗A , ξ~∗D , while at inner iteration we have to ensure that ξ~∗A , ξ~∗D are
indeed realizable in term of particular stacking sequence
minθ |ξ~∗A − ξ~A (~θ)|2 + |ξ~∗D − ξ~D (~θ)|2
s.t.

S(~θ) ≥ 0

(5)

1 Here we’re slightly sloppy in notations and use ~
n instead of ξ~A in view of above mentioned correspondence between these
quantities.

2

Successful examples of the above methodology include bi-level composite optimization and lamination parameters approach [8], which differ only in formulation of outer level problem. In bi-level treatment one assumes
high homogeneity of laminated composite and then derives simple proportionality of A and D matrices thus
eliminating ξ~D parameters from the list of design variables. Then the outer level problem becomes relatively
easy to solve. However, these simplifications are not coming for free: once stacking sequence dependence is
abandoned “optimal” ply numbers ~n∗ are not obliged to respect L-type (e.g., buckling) constraints, which is the
prime disadvantage of bi-level optimization. Contrary to that, in lamination parameters approach one keeps the
stacking sequence dependence explicit at outer level and considers lamination parameters ξ~A , ξ~D as independent
design variables. It is crucial that no additional assumptions are introduced here, moreover, there is no need to
check strain or buckling constraints as long as inner level optimization matches the optimal ξ~∗A , ξ~∗D values coming
from outer iteration. However, the acute problem is to define the feasible region of lamination parameters (see
Ref. [5] and references therein) so that the inner problem might be solved successfully. Unfortunately, there are
only a few rigorous results on what is the feasible domain of ξ~A , ξ~D variables. Although it is known [10] that
feasible domain of lamination parameters is convex, up to our knowledge no complete explicit equations tightly
bounding allowed ξ~A , ξ~D values are available.
Our approach to composite materials optimization lies essentially in-between the above bi-level and lamination parameters methods. Namely, we suggest to retain both D-type lamination parameters ξ~D and ply
numbers ~n explicitly at outer optimization level, so that the formulation (4) remains valid verbosely. As far
as feasible region of ξ~D values is concerned, we show that at any fixed ply numbers feasible domain Ωξ (~n) of
realizable lamination parameters ξ~D is convex polyhedral body with NΘ ! vertices, each of which corresponds
to a particular “extreme” stacking sequences compatible of given ply numbers. Therefore, our approach is
essentially the equation (4) supplemented with feasibility requirement
ξ~D ∈ Ωξ (~n)

(6)

and explicit description of the feasible region Ωξ (~n) as the convex hull of NΘ ! points or equivalently as a set of
linear constraints:
Ωξ (~n) = {ξ~ : Aξ D ≤ b} .
(7)
Feasible Region of Lamination Parameters
Derivation of the explicit form of lamination parameters feasible region Ωξ (~n) at fixed ply numbers ~n =
{n1 , ..., nNΘ } is similar in spirit to what had been done in seminal paper [7]. Namely, for given vector ~λ
consider the problem
θ~∗ = arg max (ξ~D · ~λ) ,
Θ = {Θ1 , ..., ΘNΘ }
θi ∈Θ
(8)
PN
δ(θ
−
Θ
)
=
n
s.t.
i
k
k
i=1

which is an elementary step of constructing outer polyhedral approximation to Ωξ (~n), [11]. Here Θi denotes
allowed ply orientation angles, δ(x) stands for Kronecker delta-function and component-wise representation of
ξ~D is given in (2). We assert that stacking sequences, which deliver the maximum to (8) for various inputs ~λ,
are such that plies of the same orientation are adjacent
(µ)
~
θ∗
= {Θk1 , ..., Θk1 , Θk2 , ..., Θk2 , · · · ΘkNΘ , ..., ΘkNΘ } ,
{z
} |
{z
}
|
{z
}
|
nk1

nk2

nkN

µ = 1, ..., NΘ !

(9)

Θ

Indeed, let us consider i-th term in the objective function (8):

z 2 · [λ0 cos(2θi ) + λ1 cos(4θi ) + λ2 sin(2θi ) + λ3 sin(4θi )]

(10)

Suppose that it is maximized at a particular “best” ply orientation angle Θk . If there would be no constraints
in the problem, solution must have all plies aligned at the same angle as well (these solutions constitute the
vertices of famous Miki tetrahedron, Ref. [7]). In our case imposed constraints limit the maximal allowed
number of plies with “best” orientation and actual task is to place these plies optimally in the stack. Due to the
3

positivity of measure factor z 2 , which is maximal at composite skin layer and vanishes at laminate mid-plane,
it is evident that the preferable position for ply with Θk orientation is near the composite skin. Repeating the
same arguments for all nk plies laid-up at Θk we conclude that they occupy continuous stack located near the
boundary layer. For the remaining ply orientations the same reasoning applies verbosely, the only difference is
that boundary layer is now located at smaller z.
It follows immediately from the above that all realizable values of lamination parameters ξ~D are located
(µ)
within the convex hull of “extreme” stacking sequences (9): Ωξ (~n) ∈ Conv(~θ∗ ). Confronting this with known
D
concavity of lamination parameters feasible domain [10] we conclude that ξ~ feasible region at fixed ply numbers
(µ)
must coincide with Conv(~
θ∗ )
(µ)
Ωξ (~n) = Conv(~θ∗ ) .
(11)
This is the prime theoretical result of our paper, which opens the possibility to construct efficient bi-level
optimization scheme for laminated composite optimization problem (3). Indeed, Eq. (11) might be used to
ensure that outer level iterations always produce realizable optimal lamination parameters so that no difficulties
can arise at inner level. Moreover, the number of vertices in corresponding convex polytope is relatively small
and admits its efficient description in terms of linear inequalities. Indeed, in the most practically important case
we have NΘ = 4 and hence only NΘ ! = 24 vertices, for which convex hull construction rises no computational
issues whatsoever.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge thankfully fruitful discussions with S.M. Morozov and S. Lupuleac.

References
[1] Z. Gurdal, R.T. Haftka, P. Hajela, “Design and Optimization of Laminated Composite Materials”, Wiley,
1999.
[2] S.W. Tsai, H.T. Hahn, “Introduction to composite materials”, Stamford, CT: Technomic Publishing Co.,
Inc (1980).
[3] D. Bettebghor, “Optimisation bineveau de structures aeronatiques composites”, Institut Superieur de
l’Aeronautique et de l’Espace,2011-12-09 (2011).
[4] D. Liu, “Bi-level Optimization of Blended Composite Wing Panels”, PhD Thesis, The University of Leeds
(2010).
[5] M.W. Bloomfield, C.G. Diaconu, P.M. Weaver, “On feasible regions of lamination parameters for lay-up
optimization of laminated composites”, Proc. R. Soc. A (2009) 465 (1123-1143).
[6] M. Zhou, R. Fleury, M. Kemp, “Optimization of Composite: Recent Advances and Application”, Altair
Engineering, Inc. 2011.
[7] M. Miki, “Material design of composite laminates with required in-plane elastic properties”, In Progress in
science and engineering of composites (eds T. Hayashi, K. Kawata & S. Umekawa), ICCM-IV (1982), pp.
1725-1731, Tokyo: JSCM.
M. Miki, Y. Sugiyama, “Optimum design of laminated composite plates using lamination parameters”,
AIAA J. (1993) 31, 921-922.
[8] D. Liu, V.V. Toroporov, O.M. Querin, D.C. Barton, “Bilevel Optimization of Blended Composite Wing
Panels”, Journal of Aircraft, 48(1) (2011), 107-118.
[9] B. Liu, R.T. Haftka, M.A. Akgun, “Two-Level Composite Wing Structural Optimization Using Response
Surface”, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 20 (2000) 87-96.
B. Liu, R.T. Haftka, P. Trompette, “Maximization of Buckling Loads of Composite Panels Using Flexural
Lamination Parameters”, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 26 (2004) 28-36.
4

[10] J.L. Grenestedt, P. Gudmundson, “Lay up optimization of composite material structures”, In Proc. IUTAM
Symposium on Optimal Design with Advanced Materials, 1993, p. 311-336. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Elsevier Science.
[11] B.A. Dubrovin, A.T. Fomenko, S.P. Novikov, “Modern Geometry-Methods and Applications”, Springer,
1985.

5

