Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Design Optimization of Composite Plate With Ga & Pso
Design Optimization of Composite Plate With Ga & Pso
In laminated composite structures, each ply has its greatest stiffness and strength properties,
along the direction, through which the fibers are oriented in. By orienting the layers at
different angles, the structure can be designed for a specific loading environment. Along with
structural performance and weight, cost is an area of great interest when considering
optimization studies in structural design. Obviously, reducing the amount of material required
for the structure minimizes the cost of a laminate composite.
4.1 Introduction
This chapter deals with design problem of a composite laminated plate. The main objective is
to obtain the optimum solution in form of minimum composite weight for various type of
mechanical loading. The laminate angles and their stacking sequence are taken as design
variables while the constraints are supplied in the form of their failure strengths. Previously it
was discussed that by taking the initiating failure mode into consideration it is possible to
predict failure type quite accurately. So that here strength of composite is calculated based on
its mode of failure.
Another objective of this chapter is to compare the various popular methods of composite
design optimization. Minimum Constrained Optimization is used to design the laminated
plate for different cases of mechanical loading. Solution for two variable problems is also
obtained by optimizing stacking angles and number of plies.
PSO has proven to have superior computational efficiency when compared to GA and other
such evolutionary algorithms [64,65]. PSO has a flexible and well balanced mechanism to
enhance and adapt to the global and local exploration and exploitation abilities within a short
computation time [66]. Here, PSO seems like a more efficient alternative for the problem on
hand-the multi-objective design optimization of composites [67,68].
Two more popular optimization strategies are used one is Genetic algorithm and other one is
Particle swarm optimization. By taking different loading conditions it is shown that a
29
stacking sequence which is optimum design solution for one loading environment may not be
suitable for other loading cases or even it may give worst results.
(4.1)
30
The values of a & b are equal and taken as 10 meter for the sack of comparison with that of
Ref [65].
4.2.2 Design Variables
Design variables taken are stacking sequence, number of plies and ply angle. Here number of
plies is considered to be a continuous variable that can take non-integer values. The initial
assumption of stacking sequence considered is [ ] NS and then for [ ( 1 )N 1 /( 2 )N 2 ] .
a) Number of piles
0
0
b) Ply angle 0 90
c) Stacking sequence
Stacking sequence is not considered as design variable in problem formulation but few
discreet stacking sequences are explored. These stacking sequences are
a)
[( 90 )N 1 / ( 0 )2 N 2 / ( 45 )2 N 3 ]T
b)
[ 02 N 1 90 2 N 2 ]S
c)
[( 1 )N 1 /( 2 )N 2 ]
d)
[0]NS
e)
[ ] NS
XT
XC
YT
YC
e) Shear strength S
31
If
and
32
33
In Table 4.6 optimized weight of laminated plate is obtained. Different stacking sequences are
considered for comparison purpose. It is found that optimum cross ply laminate perform
better than other stacking sequences.
Table 4.9 express results of laminate weight optimization through GA. Design variable
considered are value of ply angle and number of plies. Single and double angle ply laminates
are observed under biaxial loading. Results are same for both cases.
4.4 Summary
Composite laminated plate is optimized for minimum thickness under various loading
conditions. Three optimization tools used are Minimum Constraint Optimization, GA and
PSO. It is seen that all three optimization methods give exactly same results.
Table 4.1: Minimum Constraint Optimization of composite plate in Region of fiber breaks
for tensile loading in X direction
S.
Loading Case
Stacking sequence
34
Optimum laminate
No
weight (Kg)
.
1
2
3
Nx=1800
N/mm
Nx=1800
N/mm
Nx=1800
[0]NS
N=8
256
[90N 1 , 0 N 2 ]S
N1=15;N2=5
640
N1=2;
N2=8; N3=3
416
[ ( 90 )N 1 / ( 0 )N 2 / ( 45 )N 3 ] S
N/mm
Table 4.2: Minimum Constraint Optimization of composite plate in Region of fiber compressive failure
for compressive loading in X direction
S.
No.
Loading Case
Nx=-1800
N/mm
Nx=-1800
N/mm
Nx=-1800
N/mm
Stacking sequence
Optimum laminate
weight (Kg)
[0]NS
N=9
288
[90N 1 , 0 N 2 ]S
N1=8;N2=3
352
[( 0 )N 1 ( 90 ) N 2 / ( 45 )N1=2;N2=9;N3=3
N 3 ]S
448
Table 4.3: Minimum Constraint Optimization of composite plate in Region of Matrix Cracking Failure
for tensile loading in Y direction
S.
No
Loading Case
Stacking sequence
Optimum laminate
weight (Kg)
.
1.
Ny=1800 N/mm
[0]NS
N=52
1664
2.
Ny=1800 N/mm
[90N 1 , 0 N 2 ]S
N1=14;N2=5
608
3.
Ny=1800 N/mm
[ ( 0 )N 1 ( 90 ) N 2 / ( 45 )N1=2;N2=9;
N 3 ]S
N3=3
448
Table 4.4: Minimum Constraint Optimization of composite plate in region of matrix crushing failure
for compressive loading in Y direction
S.
No
Loading Case
Stacking sequence
Optimum laminate
weight (Kg)
35
1.
Ny=-1800 N/mm
[0]NS
N=45
1440
3.
Ny=-1800 N/mm
[90N 1 , 0 N 2 ]S
N1=4;N2=11
480
3.
Ny=-1800 N/mm
[( 90 )N 1 / ( 0 )N 2 / ( 45 )N 3 ] S N1=9;N2=2;N3
448
=3
Table 4.5: Minimum Constraint Optimization of composite plate under biaxial loading
S.
No
.
1.
2.
3.
Loading Case
Stacking
sequence
Nx=500 N/mm
Ny=500 N/mm
Nx=500 N/mm
Ny=500 N/mm
Nx=500 N/mm
Ny=500 N/mm
Optimum laminate
weight (Kg)
[0]NS
N=45
1440
[90N 1 , 0 N 2 ]S
N1=4;N2=3
224
[( 90 )N 1 / ( 0 )N 2 / ( 45N1=2;N2=2;N3=2
)N 3 ]S
192
S.
No
.
1.
2.
3.
Loading Case
Stacking
sequence
Nx=500 N/mm
Ny=500 N/mm
Nx=500 N/mm
Ny=500 N/mm
Nx=500 N/mm
Ny=500 N/mm
Optimum laminate
weight (Kg)
[0]NS
N=42
1344
[90N 1 , 0 N 2 ]S
N1=3.00;N2=3
192
[( 90 )N 1 / ( 0 )N 2 / ( 45N1=2;N2=2;N3=3
)N 3 ]S
224
S.
No
.
1.
2.
Loading Case
Stacking
sequence
Nx=500 N/mm
Ny=500 N/mm
Nx=500 N/mm
Ny=500 N/mm
Optimum laminate
weight (Kg)
[0]NS
N=42
1344
[90N 1 , 0 N 2 ]S
N1=3.00;N2=3
192
36
3.
Nx=500 N/mm
Ny=500 N/mm
[( 90 )N 1 / ( 0 )N 2 / ( 45N1=2;N2=2;N3=3
)N 3 ] S
224
Table 4.8: Minimum Constraint Optimization results under biaxial loading for angle ply
S.
No
.
1
Loading Case
Nx=500 N/mm
Ny=500 N/mm
2
Nx=500 N/mm
Ny=500 N/mm
Stacking
Optimized
sequence
angle
=.7854
[ ]NS
[( 1)N 1 /(2 )N 2 ] S
1=.7853
2=.7853
Optimum laminate
N
weight (Kg)
N=5
160
192
N1=3
N2=3
Table 4.9: GA Optimization results under biaxial loading for angle ply
S.
No
.
1
Loading Case
Optimized
sequence
angle
Optimum laminate
N
weight (Kg)
160
Nx=500
N/mm
Ny=500
Stacking
[ ]NS
N/mm
Nx=500
[( 1)N 1 /(2 )N 2 ] S
N/mm
Ny=500
=.7854
1=.7853
2=.7853
N=5
192
N1=4
N2=2
N/mm
Table 4.10: PSO Optimization results under biaxial loading for angle ply
S.
No
.
1
Loading Case
Nx=500
Stacking
Optimized
sequence
angle
[ ]NS
=.79
37
Optimum laminate
N
weight (Kg)
N=5
160
N/mm
Ny=500
2
N/mm
Nx=500
N/mm
Ny=500
[( 1)N 1 /(2 )N 2 ] S
1=.785
2=.785
192
N1=4
N2=2
N/mm
Table 4.11: Optimum weight of the laminate by Optimization techniques for biaxial loading
(Nx= 500 N/mm, Ny= 500 N/mm).
S.
N
Laminate weight by
Stacking sequence
o.
Min Constraint
Laminate weight by
GA Optimization
Laminate weight by
PSO Optimization
Optimization
[0]NS
1440
1344
1344
[90N 1 , 0 N 2 ]S
224
192
192
192
224
224
[( 0 )N 1 ( 90 ) N 2 / ( 45 ) N 3 ] S
38
0.005
Constraint violation
4
5
6
7
Iteration
Maximum Constraint Violation: 1.8839e-008
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
4
5
Iteration
[( 0 )N 1 ( 90 ) N 2 / ( 45 ) N 3 ]S
-3
x 10
8
7
Function value
0.01
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Iteration
39
3.5
4.5
Figure 4.4: Solution Convergence of GA Optimization results for biaxial loading and unidirectional ply laminate
40