Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Benjamin Schlpfer
Optimal Design of
Laminated Structures with
Local Reinforcements
A dissertation submitted to
ETH Z URICH
for the degree of
Doctor of Sciences
presented by
Abstract
Composite materials, such as fiber-reinforced plastics, have outstanding
mass-specific mechanical properties along the fiber reinforced direction, wherefore they are increasingly used for light-weight applications. They are highly
anisotropic due to the much lower stiffness and strength values in directions
perpendicular to the fibers. Consequently, they are typically used as layers
building a multidirectional laminate. The design parameters of laminates include the fiber orientations, the laminate thickness or the number of layers,
respectively, their stacking position and the choice of the material. They can be
used to tailor the laminate properties to local stiffness and strength requirements under defined loadcases. The internal load distribution of a structure
depends on the problem domain geometry and boundary conditions and is generally inhomogeneous and direction-dependent. The search for best structural
performance, particular regarding lightweight applications, must include an
adaption of the local laminate properties to the local load distributions. Aligning the local anisotropies of the material elements according to the load directions improves the material utilization.
This dissertation investigates the optimal design of laminated composites
with local reinforcements. The work introduces a new sensitivity- and finiteelement-based method, called Ghost Layer Method, for finding structural designs with much improved mechanical performance. Sensitivities of minimum
compliance, natural frequencies, displacement, stability and strength are derived analytically with respect to the layer thicknesses of each finite element
which allows an efficient evaluation without numerical errors. They provide
information on how and where to adapt the laminate properties in order to
change the objective most effectively in terms of additional mass. The underlying parameterization concept predefines layers with given fiber orientations and stacking positions which guarantees the obtained solutions to be
manufacturing-friendly. A ghost layer is defined to have material properties
and a fiber orientation but its thickness is specified to zero wherefore it does
not contribute to the structural performance. However, its sensitivity values
are non-zeros which allows generating information on the structural design by
adding a set of these layers at the interfaces of the regular layers. Local reinforcements are generated by assigning a real thickness to parts of the ghost
layers according to the sensitivities.
For verification, a set of different structural design problems of academic
nature, which can be proved to be optimal, are directly compared to the corresponding solutions obtained with the presented method. The verification
II
indicates that the method finds optimal design solutions for convex problems
and it may be expected that the method steps towards an optimal solution
starting from an initial design in search space. A set of laminate design solutions is presented regarding eigenfrequencies, nodal displacements, stability
and strength. A panel, whose natural frequencies are shifted by the application
of local reinforcements in order to create a resonance-free band, and a locally
reinforced notched plate with increased strength performance are physically
realized using a sequential curing process. There, the basic laminate and the
reinforcements are cured and bonded in two separate temperature cycles. The
laminate quality is good and the complex reinforcement contours can be patterned exactly. According to the results of the validation, the eigenmodes and
eigenfrequencies of the panel, which are measured with a scanning vibrometer, match the simulation results very well and the resonance-free band is confirmed. The strength increase of the notched plate, which is experimentally determined with digital image correlation and acoustic emission measurements,
is less high than predicted but still high with respect to the additional material needed. The presented design process allows to efficiently generate locally
reinforced laminate designs having an outstanding structural performance.
Zusammenfassung
Verbundmaterialien, wie zum Beispiel faserverstrkte Kunststoffe, haben
hervorragende masse-spezifische mechanische Eigenschaften in Richtung der
Verstrkungsfasern, weshalb sie besonders im Leichtbau verwendet werden.
Aufgrund der signifikant schlechteren Steifigkeits- und Festigkeitseigenschafen quer zur Faserrichtung sind sie stark anisotrop. Deshalb werden sie typischerweise als Lagen in einem multidirektionalen Verbund verwendet. Die
Design-Parameter von Laminaten sind die Faserorientierung, die Laminatdicke respektive die Anzahl Lagen, die Schichtreihenfolge sowie das Material
selbst. Sie knnen verwendet werden, um die Laminateigenschaften auf die
lokalen Steifigkeits- und Festigkeitsanforderungen, bezglich definierter Lasten, anzupassen. Die interne Lastverteilung einer Struktur ist abhngig von
der Bauteilgeometrie sowie von den Randbedingungen und ist im Allgemeinen orts- und richtungsabhngig. Die Suche nach dem besten Strukturdesign,
speziell bei Leichtbauanwendungen, fordert eine Anpassung der lokalen Laminateigenschaften an die lokale Lastverteilung. Die Ausrichtung der lokalen
Anisotropie bezglich der Lastrichtung verbessert die Materialausnutzung.
Diese Dissertation untersucht die optimale Gestaltung von laminierten Faserverbundwerkstoffen mit lokalen Verstrkungen. Die Arbeit stellt eine neue,
Sensitivitts- und Finite-Elemente-basierte Methode, genannt Ghost Layer
Methode, fr das Finden von Strukturlsungen mit verbesserten mechanischen Eigenschaften vor. Sensitivitten bezglich minimaler Nachgiebigkeit,
Eigenfrequenzen, Verschiebung, Stabilitt und Festigkeit werden analytisch
bezglich der Lagendicken in jedem Finiten Element hergeleitet, wodurch eine
effiziente Auswertung ohne numerische Fehler mglich wird. Sie bieten Informationen, wie und wo die Laminateigenschaften angepasst werden mssen,
um mit geringster zustzlicher Masse mglichst grossen Einfluss auf das Optimierungsziel zu haben. Das zugrunde liegende Parametrisierungskonzept definiert Lagen mit vorgegebener Faserorientierung und Schichtreihenfolge, wodurch sichergestellt wird, dass fertigungsnahe Lsungen entstehen. Ein Ghost
Layer hat definierte Materialeigenschaften und Faserorientierung, besitzt jedoch keine Dicke, womit er keinen Beitrag zum Strukturverhalten leistet. Seine Sensitivitten verschwinden jedoch nicht. Durch das Platzieren dieser Lagen an den Grenzflchen der realen Schichten knnen zustzliche Informationen ber das Strukturdesign generiert werden. Die lokalen Verstrkungen entstehen, indem, unter Bercksichtigung der Sensitivitten, Teilen dieser Ghost
Layer eine reale Dicke zugewiesen werden.
IV
Eine Auswahl an Strukturproblemen akademischer Natur, fr welche Optimalitt nachgewiesen werden kann, wird mit den entsprechenden Lsungen
der prsentierten Methode verglichen. Die Verifikation zeigt, dass die Methode
optimale Lsungen von konvexen Strukturproblemen findet. Fr komplexere
Probleme kann angenommen werden, dass die Methode, ausgehend von einer
Startlsung, in Richtung der optimalen Lsung schreitet. Eine Auswahl von
Laminatlsungen fr Strukturprobleme bezglich Eigenfrequenz, Knotenverschiebungen, Stabilitt und Festigkeit werden prsentiert. Ein Panel, dessen
Eigenfrequenzen durch die Anwendung von lokalen Verstrkungen verschoben
werden um ein Resonanz-freies Band zu generieren, sowie eine lokal verstrkte, gelochte Platte mit gesteigerten Festigkeitseigenschaften werden in einem
sequentiellen Aushrtungsprozesses realisiert. Dabei werden das Grundlaminat und die Verstrkungen in zwei separaten Temperaturzyklen ausgehrtet
und miteinander verbunden. Die Laminatqualitt ist gut und die Konturen der
lokalen Verstrkungen knnen exakt nachgebildet werden. Die Eigenmoden
und die Eigenfrequenzen des Panels, welche mit einem Scanning-Vibrometer
experimentell ermittelt werden, stimmen sehr genau mit den Resultaten aus
der Simulation berein und die Existenz eines Resonanz-freien Bands wird
besttigt. Die Festigkeitssteigerung der gelochten Platte, welche mit Hilfe von
Bildkorrelation und akustischen Methoden gemessen wird, ist weniger hoch
als erwartet aber trotzdem in einem guten Bereich, bezogen auf das zustzliche Gewicht. Die vorgestellte Designmethode ermglicht eine effiziente Generierung von lokal verstrkten Laminatlsungen mit hervorragenden strukturellen Eigenschaften.
Acknowledgements
This thesis has been carried out at the Institute for Mechanical Systems at
ETH Zrich. The work has been supported by the Commission for Technology and Innovation (CTI-project 10279.1) and the the Swiss National Science
Foundation (SNSF-project 200021-131921).
Numerous people have contributed in various and important ways to this thesis. My special thanks go to:
The Swiss Federation and its tax payers for giving me the great opportunity to enjoy this outstanding education.
Prof. Edoardo Mazza for being my supervisor and Prof. Paolo Ermanni
for giving me the opportunity to carry out this work at ETH.
Dr. Gerald Kress for being my doctoral advisor, for help, corrections and
support.
Prof. Wilfried Becker for being my co-examiner.
The workmates Florian Bachmann, Oliver Hfner, Alex Hasse, David
Keller and Thomas Mayer for any kind of support and for making me
laugh.
The students Benedikt Rentsch, Benjamin Schneuwly, Veit Gabatuler
and Marco Marinelli for their work contributing to this thesis.
Dr. Andreas Brunner for carrying out the acoustic measurements.
All my friends for letting me enjoy the time beyond the work.
My parents and my family for their lifelong support.
VI
Contents
Notation
1 Introduction
1.1 Laminated Composites . . . . . .
1.1.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.2 Material characteristics .
1.2 State-of-the-art . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.1 Laminate Design Process .
1.2.2 Laminate Optimization . .
1.2.3 Commercial Solutions . . .
1.3 Environment, Motivation & Goal
1.3.1 Initial Situation . . . . . .
1.3.2 Project Funding . . . . . .
1.3.3 Motivation and Goal . . . .
1.4 Thesis Outline . . . . . . . . . . .
XI
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
1
3
5
5
10
16
17
17
18
18
20
2 Fundamentals
2.1 Governing Equations of Linear Elasticity . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Classical Laminate Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1 Plane-Stress State and Stiffness Transformation
2.2.2 Stiffness Homogenization . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Laminate Failure Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.1 Tsai-Hill Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.2 Tsai-Wu Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Finite Element Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.1 Equation of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.2 Stability Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.3 Layered Shell Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
21
26
27
29
32
33
34
35
36
39
41
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
VIII
CONTENTS
3 Sensitivities
3.1 Finite Element Based Sensitivities . . . . . . .
3.1.1 Stiffness Matrix Sensitivities . . . . . .
3.1.2 Mass Matrix Sensitivities . . . . . . . .
3.1.3 Stress Stiffness Matrix Sensitivities . .
3.1.4 Displacement Sensitivities . . . . . . . .
3.2 Eigenfrequency Sensitivities . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Minimal Compliance Sensitivities . . . . . . . .
3.4 Sensitivities of Nodal Displacement . . . . . .
3.5 Buckling Load Factor Sensitivities . . . . . . .
3.5.1 Simplifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6 Strength Sensitivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6.1 Pseudo Strength Function Sensitivities
3.6.2 Failure Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7 Hybrid Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.8 Smoothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
51
51
56
57
58
61
65
68
71
73
76
77
77
83
84
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
89
89
92
93
96
98
104
105
105
105
106
109
5 Verification
5.1 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . .
5.1.1 Finite Element Model . . . . .
5.1.2 Reference Solutions . . . . . .
5.2 Minimal Compliance . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.1 Loadcase 1: Single load . . . .
5.2.2 Loadcase 2: Distributed load .
5.3 Minimal Deflection . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4 Eigenfrequency . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5 Buckling Load Factor . . . . . . . . .
5.6 Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
115
115
115
116
118
119
123
126
127
133
136
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CONTENTS
IX
5.7 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 Laminate Applications
6.1 Vibrating Panel (Eigenfrequency) . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.1 Maximization of the Lowest Eigenfrequency .
6.1.2 Maximization of -Weighted Eigenfrequencies
6.1.3 Eigenfrequency Splitting . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 Grabber (Nodal Displacement) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3 Buckling Plate (Buckling) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4 Notched Plate (Strength) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
136
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
137
137
138
142
144
149
151
155
7 Manufacturing-Related Aspects
7.1 Sequential Curing Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Reinforcement Layer Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3 Process Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
161
162
166
171
8 Validation
8.1 Vibrating Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.1.1 Panel with Basic Laminate . . . .
8.1.2 Panel with Local Reinforcements
8.2 Notched Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2.1 First Ply Failure . . . . . . . . . .
8.2.2 Ultimate Failure Load . . . . . .
8.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
173
173
175
176
178
180
191
193
195
195
198
A Material Properties
A.1 T300/Epoxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.2 Aluminum 2014-T6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
i
ii
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
iii
v
vii
vii
x
xiii
Bibliography
CONTENTS
xvi
Own Publications
xxxv
Curriculum Vitae
xxxvii
Notation
A
A(x)
B
C
C i jkl
c
E
e
kl
0
F
fi
f
FI
kl
I z (x)
K
k
K
L
L
cr
M
Element area
Variable cross section area
Strain-displacement matrix
Material stiffness matrix
Material stiffness tensor
Wave propagation speed
Youngs modulus
Specific strain energy
Strain tensor
Strain vector
Strain
Membrane strain vector
Single force
Internal body force tensor
Internal body force vector
Failure index
Surface of the domain
Engineering shear strains
Area moment of inertia (along z-axis)
Global stiffness matrix
Element stiffness matrix
Plate curvatures
Shear correction factor
Global stress stiffness matrix
Differential matrix operator
Lagrangian
Eigenvalue
Buckling load factor
Global mass matrix
XII
M
m
M
Mb
Mb
(x)
N
x , y
Q
Q
q
R
R
r
S
S
s
s
s(x)
i j
T
T
t
tmat
t
t ctrl
t(x)
U
ui
u
Notation
Notation
u
W
X
Xc
Xt
Y
Yc
Yt
XIII
Prescribed displacements
Nodal point displacement vector
Potential of external forces
Strength in fiber direction
Compression strength in fiber direction
Tensile strength in fiber direction
Strength perpendicular to fiber direction
Compression strength perpendicular to fiber direction
Tensile strength perpendicular to fiber direction
XIV
Notation
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Laminated Composites
1.1.1
History
Aviation is posing the challenge of building load carrying structures with minimal weight since the start of the 20th century. The Wright Brothers built
their first aircraft of wood and cotton fabrics. Wood is a good light weight material and therefore still used for special aircraft applications, e.g. acrobatic
flight vehicles. Between World War I and World War II, also called the Golden
Figure 1.1: Wilbur & Orville Wright with a glider, 1901 [120]
Introduction
With the new understanding of the global warming and the increasing price
of fossil fuels, the reduction of fuel consumption becomes interesting not only
for the aerospace industry but for the entire transportation sector. Besides of
the efficiency of the engine system, the weight of a vehicle has a strong impact on the fuel consumption. Today, the higher costs of FRP materials can
be compensated with lower operating costs. The first generation of large civil
aircrafts, where the primary structure including fuselage and wing are made
of composite materials, has been put into operation recently. The reduction
of the fuel consumption, which is effected by more efficient engines, improved
aerodynamic design and the replacement of aluminum with CFRP is in the
range of 20%. Currently, a huge research effort is done by the automotive industry which is driven by the increasing fuel costs, strict regulations by the
governments and a general demand for low consumption vehicles. While some
high-end cars are almost entirely made of laminated composites, the industry
tries to enhance the technology to mass production in order to provide light
cars at affordable prices.
1.1.2
Material characteristics
Introduction
In order to simplify the handling in the manufacturing process, FRP are usually prefabricated. Fiber rowings are joined to laminar plies, the so-called laminae. The fibers are processed to textiles with two or multiple fiber directions
or to unidirectional plies with a single principal fiber orientation. In so-called
PREPREGs, the fiber plies are already pre-impregnated with the polymer resin.
This ensures an ideal mixing ratio of the components and a simple handling of
the fabrics which results in a high quality of the final laminated composite.
1.2 State-of-the-art
becomes complex and time consuming. The experience and the intuition of
structural engineers may be pushed to the limit and, excepting structures with
a low degree of complexity, e.g. plates or cylinders, finding solutions with good
light weight properties is hard to be accomplished manually. The application
of computer-based design methods is indispensable aiming for high quality designs in a reasonable time frame.
1.2 State-of-the-art
1.2.1
Introduction
90
2
60
120
1.5
150
30
180
210
330
unidirectional
quasiisotropic
240
300
270
aerospace max
aluminum (reference)
1.2 State-of-the-art
90
3
60
120
2
30
150
1
180
210
330
unidirectional
quasiisotropic
240
300
270
aerospace max
aluminum (reference)
S 11 ()
/ S11
alu
can be characterized with only one or two1 parameters, at least five parameters
are needed for a reasonable evaluation of the composite strength. The identification of these parameters is time-consuming and the statistical spread may be
wide. The aerospace industry mitigates this problem by using a strain-based
design criterion. They require that the maximal strain occurring anywhere
in the structure and in any direction may not exceed a given threshold which
is usually between 0.3% and 0.4%. Instead of five strength parameters, only
the minimal failure strain is needed which simplifies the design process significantly. This value is usually reached in the fiber-perpendicular direction.
Thus, matrix cracking can be avoided which is the primary failure event excluding some exceptions, e.g. uniaxial laminates under tensile load. Along the
fibers, this approach is rather conservative since a structure is designed well
when the margin against failure is homogeneous in all directions. However,
it is assumed here that the laminate fails at 0.3% strain, independent of load
1 The strength properties of isotropic materials are often characterized by two parameters, e.g.
the tension and compression yield strength. Common yield criteria such as Von Mises or Tresca
consider only one equivalent stress parameter since the tension and compression yield strength
are usually almost identical for metallic materials.
Introduction
90
6
60
120
4
30
150
2
180
210
330
unidirectional
quasiisotropic
240
300
270
aerospace max
aluminum (reference)
state or failure mode. The failure strain in fiber direction may be up to 1.8%.
There exist a few failure criteria that try to predict a damage event with more
sophisticated models. They basically require more knowledge of the considered
material in terms of material strength characterization. However, there exists
no standard criterion that should be applied preferably. It is state-of-the-art
in many companies to employ several criteria and take the results of the most
conservative.
Figure 1.5 shows a polar plot of the aluminum-normalized tensile strength.
In order to be able to express the strength of a laminate, a failure criterion
must be chosen. For this comparative study, the widely used criterion of
Tsai-Wu [169] is utilized. The yield strength R0.2,alu of an aluminum alloy
(Aluminum 2014-T6, see Appendix Table A.2) which is common for aerospace
applications has been used as reference again. The anisotropy of composite
materials becomes even more significant considering the strength properties.
For a unidirectional laminate, the tensile strength in fiber direction may be up
to two orders of magnitude higher then perpendicular to the fiber direction.
Compared to aluminum, the tensile strength of T300/Epoxy is more than 5
times higher and if normalized with density (see Figure 1.6) almost 10 times
1.2 State-of-the-art
90
10
60
120
8
6
30
150
4
2
180
210
330
unidirectional
quasiisotropic
240
300
270
aerospace max
aluminum (reference)
R t ( )
R
/ 0.2
alu
higher. However, the strength perpendicular to the fibers is very poor. In contrast to the stiffness, the strength is not equal in all direction for a quasiisotropic design. The Tsai-Wu criterion predicts first ply failure (FPF) for every single layer. Subsequently, the critical layer varies for all directions of
the load. For a quasi-isotropic laminate under uniaxial tensile load, the layer
whose fiber direction is most likely perpendicular to the load is usually critical. Due to the alternation of the critical layer, the octahedral curve results
as a consequence of the quasi-isotropic laminate with four orientation angles
(0/45/-45/90) (see Figures 1.5 & 1.6). Also the strength of the quasi-isotropic
laminate exceeds the strength of the aluminum alloy only if taking the lower
density into account. In summary, using a standard CFRP such as T300/Epoxy,
a quasi-isotropic laminate brings only small benefits from the mechanical point
of view wherefore quasi-isotropic laminates are sometimes called black aluminum. Taking into account the higher costs and the more complex manufacturing process, the use of a quasi-isotropic standard laminate does not seem
attractive.
This comparison considers only a small selection of laminates with a standard material for a simple unidirectional loadcase. However, it shows the po-
10
Introduction
tential, the freedom but also the problems of the design with composite material. From the theoretical point of view, using a quasi-isotropic laminate
makes only sense if it is loaded uniformly in all direction. Such a stress state is
unusual even if multiple loadcases are considered. But the usage of quasiisotropic laminates is widely spread. Commonly, the stresses in one direction are significantly higher than in the perpendicular direction. Moreover,
there exist applications where the stress in the main direction is more than
one order of magnitude higher than to the perpendicular direction, e.g. wind
turbine blades or helicopter rotor blades. On the other hand, a pure uniaxial stress state, in which a uniaxial laminate could be used, can usually not
been achieved for real applications as well. Considering a structure, where the
stresses are distributed homogeneous, there exists always an optimal layup
which is dependent on the material stiffnesses and/or strengths. With the exception of plates and cylinders under uniform loads, stress states are usually
dependent on the position. In order to find an optimal design, the laminate
properties must be tailored to the specific loads in different regions. This is
achieved by different design techniques. The laminar building technique of
laminated composites enables to add material to regions with increased stiffness or strength requirements or to remove it where it is less needed. Alternatively, there exist manufacturing techniques which are able to align the fibers
to the principal load directions. In general, an optimal-designed laminate takes
advantage of the anisotropic properties of the plies and the material principal
axes are roughly aligned with the principle load directions of each point. Of
course, such a material distribution cannot be found exactly due to the material conditions and the manufacturing process. The engineers must try to design laminates that come close to the optimal solutions in terms of anisotropy
utilization but are consistent with the manufacturing processes and the provided material. The design process becomes even more complex and more time
consuming and taking advantage of computer aided methods becomes indispensable.
1.2 State-of-the-art
11
into account. This theory is today state-of-the-art and used for the analysis of
laminates but it does not directly address the problem of how to design a laminate.
Having a given loadcase, the structural response and the internal laminate
stresses can be determined easily taking advantage of the CLT. However, the
inverse problem of designing a laminate for a required structural response under the given loading conditions is not trivial at all. The large number of design
variables provides a great potential for tailoring the laminate properties to the
requirements but implies a complex engineering problem. Basically, this problem can be solved with a time consuming trial-and-error approach. The solution quality depends on the complexity of geometry and loadings as well as on
skills and experience of the designer. Better solutions in less time can usually
be found by taking advantage of computational optimization methods. These
methods search iteratively for improved designs using deterministic, heuristic or stochastic mechanisms. The automated computation calls for a physical
model which is usually parameterized with the CLT.
Optimization of Simple Laminates
The first investigations on laminate optimization concepts have been initiated
by the American aerospace industry [39, 25]. Fiber volume and orientation
angles are taken as design variables and methods are restricted to simple laminates and simple loadcases. These technical reports have not been published
officially wherefore they are still hard to find.
Aiming for laminates with minimal weight, the layer thicknesses have to
be considered since neither fiber orientations nor stacking sequence are explicitly sensitive to mass. Some approaches [146, 82, 147, 137] preassign orientation angles and vary the layer thicknesses to find a weight minimal solution considering stiffness, strength and/or buckling constraints. The methods are enhanced by optimizing thickness and fiber orientation simultaneously
[162, 177, 43, 2, 9]. Bert [16] provides a method for eigenfrequency problems.
There, not only the stiffness but also the mass becomes important.
A couple of methods in literature use a sensitivity analysis to find optimal laminate layups. Sensitivities express the impact of a design variable
change on the objective function. They are built by taking the derivatives
of the objective function with respect to the design variables. The utilization
of sensitivities may increase the performance of the optimization drastically.
Moreover, they provide information on how to improve a design manually. An
overview of sensitivities in structural optimization is given by Lund [100] and
van Keulen [172]. The application of numerically derived sensitivities for laminate design is reported in [147, 3, 73]. Analytical sensitivities of orthotropic
12
Introduction
1.2 State-of-the-art
13
14
Introduction
Free Material Optimization (FMO). It is also based on a finite element representation. The method searches for an optimal material distribution taking advantage of direct search methods whereas the homogenized material properties
within each finite element are taken as design variables. They are assumed to
be continuous which results in virtual material properties. The obtained solutions must be transformed to a real laminate layup [61].
Lamination parameters which have been mentioned above can also be
used for finding designs with locally varying laminate properties [41]. The
method is presented for eigenfrequency [1], buckling [151, 64] and strength
problems [98, 80]. Again, the back-transformation from lamination parameters to the laminate involves a second optimization problem which has been
investigated by van Campen [170, 171]. A solution of an optimal buckling stiffness plate obtained with lamination parameters is shown in Figure 1.7(b).
(b) Optimal S buckling stiffness design of a simply supported, vertically loaded plate
(Setoodeh[151])
Figure 1.7: Examples of designs with locally varying fiber orientation angles
A slightly different approach for increasing the load-carrying capacity for
plates with holes through variation of orientation angles is presented by Huang
and Hafka [62].
Another approach based on finite element mesh discretization is
called Discrete Material Optimization (DMO) introduced by Stegmann and
Lund [161, 160, 102]. The method is based on ideas from multi-phase topology optimization by Sigmund [153, 44]. The material stiffness is computed as
a sum of candidate materials wherefore the discrete problem of finding an optimal material is converted to a continuous formulation where the scaling factors
are taken as design variables. The problem can be solved by taking advan-
1.2 State-of-the-art
15
16
Introduction
The concept of global plies introduced in [187, 188, 186] does not only
take materials and material orientations but also the laminate patch shapes
as design variables. The shapes are parameterized with sketches in a CADenvironment and thus are restricted to a set of predefined geometries. Sections of different laminate layups in different regions arise from the patch
overlapping. A GA optimizes patch shapes, material and orientations. Alternatively, shape contours can be parametrized with spline-curves [111, 78].
More freedom in terms of patch shapes can be achieved by reintroducing a
finite-element-based representation [45, 79]. There, the patch shapes are represented with a graph-based genotype containing the adjacencies of the finite
elements in order to ensure the connectivity of the patches.
Combined Shape and Laminate Optimization
In more sophisticated approaches, the laminate optimization is combined with
a simultaneous shape optimization of the laminated structure. The combined
optimization for structural problems with stress concentrations, e.g. in vicinities of cutouts, is investigated in several publications [11, 35, 155, 95]. A simultaneous shape and laminate optimization of stringer-stiffened composite
panels is proposed in [67].
17
are feasible for production. The three-step optimization process contains the
problem that the stacking sequence and the interaction between the layers
are neglected. However, this is essential when aiming for optimal laminates.
Especially for problems considering strength, the stacking sequence takes a
key role. Thin-ply laminates behave more like homogeneous materials since
coupling and free edge effects become less important. Moreover, the strain energy release rate per layer is less which is advantageous regarding fracture
mechanics. This is not taken into account in the first optimization step which
may result in sub-optimal designs, especially when considering strength.
Initial Situation
The basic idea of the presented work has been inspired in course of a Masters thesis [143] which has been accomplished by the author in autumn 2008
at the Centre of Structure Technologies at ETH Zrich. The thesis was done
in collaboration with RUAG Space AG. An automated preliminary design process for space structures has been developed which is based on a GA. Within
a finite element model, the fundamental natural frequencies are raised by virtually placing laminate patches. Since mass must not exceed a given threshold, it is considered as a side constraint. The reinforcement patch contours
are restricted to elliptical and rectangular shapes. On the other hand, also a
mass minimization can be performed by removing material while the fundamental natural frequencies may not drop below a given value. The algorithm
is capable of finding structural solutions with increased frequency-to-mass ratios. However, its application contains some problems due to the nature of
GAs. GAs require numerous evaluations to converge. Such an evaluation always contains a finite element run which is usually performed by a commercial
solver (in this case NASTRAN). In case of the mentioned satellite model, up to
100000 evaluations are needed for obtaining a satisfying solution. GAs can be
employed reasonably if the evaluations are parallelized. Thus, many licenses
of the commercial finite element software are needed. While the number of licenses at universities is relatively high, it is usually very low in the industrial
environments. Additionally, the solutions generated with GAs are hardly comprehensible. GAs are capable of finding exceptional solutions which cannot be
found intuitively. However, these solutions are often rejected since engineers
prefer to work with solutions whose physical behavior is comprehensible. Furthermore, solutions obtained with GAs are not reproducible. They base on
stochastic mechanisms so that the terminal solutions obtained by several runs
18
Introduction
all differ from each other. Due to these reasons, the developed design process
is hardly applicable in an industrial environment.
19
calls for automated design processes. The majority of the existing methods
have some drawbacks regarding efficiency, universal validity or realization of
the obtained designs.
This dissertation faces the challenge of tailoring the laminate properties
to the local loading states in order to employ the material in regions where
it is needed and to remove it where it is useless. Taking advantage of the
anisotropy of composite materials enables to obtain better designs in terms of
material utilization which is fundamental for aiming for mass minimal solutions. An automated design method has to be developed which has the ability to
find solutions with locally varying anisotropies. It is a major requirement that
the obtained solutions are manufacturing-friendly and can be realized directly
without further extensive processing. Due to the available manufacturing capabilities, solutions with locally varying orientation angles are not feasible.
Thus, an adequate parameterization scheme is needed which enables the generation of laminates with locally varying layers which can also be understood
as reinforcement layers. Some more demands are made on the method founded
on the lacks of existing optimization practices. The parameterization scheme
and the strategy of the automated design process have to be chosen appropriately to provide an efficient process which is potentially interesting for an
application in an industrial environment. Furthermore, solution to the mentioned problem of license shortage have to be found and the required external
commercial software must be as low as possible. The design method has to
be applicable to models with arbitrary degree of complexity. Finding weight
minimal solutions makes only sense if the mass is traded off against the mechanical performance of the structure. Criteria which are primarily used in
structural design are eigenfrequency, structural stiffness, buckling load factor
and strength. The method has to be verified on a couple of selected design
problems with known solutions.
Another major goal of the thesis is to demonstrate the potential, advantages
and problems of locally reinforced structures and the manufacturing process,
respectively. The potential of the locally reinforced designs considering the
design criteria mentioned above should be presented and discussed by means
of different simulations. Improvements of the obtained results with the automated design process compared to conventional designed solutions have to
be demonstrated. A selection of designs should be manufactured and tested
to validate the method and demonstrate the advantages of locally reinforced
laminates. Consequently, an adequate manufacturing process has to be chosen which is able to realize the obtained designs as exactly as possible. The
results may additionally help to find lacks and room for improvements of the
automated design method.
20
Introduction
Chapter 2
Fundamentals
This chapter presents fundamentals on which the method presented within
this thesis is based on. A short introduction of the Theory of Linear Elasticity is given in the first section. Based thereon, the Classical Laminate Theory is presented which is the standard calculus for the mechanical behavior of
laminated composites. Subsequently, the fundamentals of the Finite Element
Method are explained and a layered shell element is formulated. The contents
of this chapter are basically state-of-the-art in the design process. For more
detailed derivations and explanations, external literature should be consulted.
Figure 2.1: Solid body with kinematic and static boundary conditions
22
Fundamentals
body is deformed in an unknown way. The main objective is to find the deformation field and the corresponding strains and stresses. It is assumed that
all displacements are small and the relation between strains and stresses is
linear. The governing equations of the linear elasticity are the equilibrium
equations, the kinematic equations and the constitutive laws. The equilibrium
equation in Cartesian coordinates is formulated with the second Newtons law
on an infinitesimal volume element, which is illustrated in Figure 2.2, in the
three dimensions x1 , x2 , x3 . Newton postulates that the time rate change of
3
x3
x1
32
23
31
13
x2
12 21
(2.1)
Thereby, i j denotes the Cauchy stress tensor, f i the body forces, the material density and u i the displacements. The dots denote the time derivative
wherefore u i can be understood as the accelerations. The kinematic equations
connect the displacements with the strains. The strains kl can be expressed
as a function of the displacement derivatives whereas k, l = 1,2,3.
kl =
1
u k,l + u l,k
2
(2.2)
The constitutive law or the Hookes law relating stresses to strains can be expressed with a 4 th -order tensor C i jkl which holds 81 coefficients.
i j = C i jkl kl
i, j, k, l = 1,2,3
(2.3)
The equilibrium, the kinematic equations and the constitutive law can be
combined to the equation of motion that can be solved for the unknown
23
displacements u i .
1
C i jkl u k,l + u l,k , j + f i = u i
2
(2.4)
Considering a static problem, the time dependent term on the right side must
vanish wherefore the equation simplifies to
1
C i jkl u k,l + u l,k , j + f i = 0
2
(2.5)
(2.6)
kl = lk
(2.7)
U=
1
1
C i jkl kl i j = C kl i j i j kl C i jkl = C kl i j
2
2
(2.8)
C
12 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26
24
Fundamentals
Stresses
matrix
tensor
1
11
2
22
3
33
4
23
5
31
6
12
Strains
matrix
tensor
1
11
2
22
3
33
4
23 = 223
5
31 = 231
6
12 = 212
(2.12)
The number of coefficients of the Hookes law can be reduced considering the
symmetry of material properties. A material with one plane of symmetry for,
say, z = 0, which is however an arbitrary choice, is called monoclinic and has
13 independent elastic constants.
C11
C
12
C13
Cmono =
0
0
C16
C12
C22
C23
0
0
C26
C13
C23
C33
0
0
C36
0
0
0
C44
C45
0
0
0
0
C45
C55
0
C16
C26
C36
0
C66
(2.13)
Adding a second orthogonal plane of symmetry, the material constants are reduced to 9 coefficients which represents an orthotropic material. In contrast
to the materials above, there is no coupling between shear and normal components within the principal material coordinates.
C11
C
12
C13
C ortho =
0
0
0
C12
C22
C23
0
0
0
C13
C23
C33
0
0
0
0
0
0
C44
0
0
0
0
0
0
C55
0
0
0
0
C66
(2.14)
Assuming that there exists a plane in which the material properties are
equal in all directions, the number of coefficients is reduced to 5 which is the
25
0
0
0
12 C11 C13
0
0
0
C13 C13 C33
(2.15)
C trans =
0
0
0
0
C44
0
0
0
0
C44
0
0
0
0
0
(C11 C22 ) /2
The simplest case is the isotropic material which is described by two independent elastic coefficients.
0
0
0
12 C11 C12
0
0
0
C12 C12 C11
C iso =
(2.16)
0
0
0
0
0
(C11 C12 ) /2
0
0
0
0
(C11 C12 ) /2
0
0
0
0
0
C
/2
(C11
12 )
The displacement vector u contains the entries of the displacements u i in the
three coordinate directions x1 , x2 , x3 .
u1
u = u2
(2.17)
u3
These coordinates can alternatively be expressed with x, y, z. In order to express the kinematic equations (2.2) in a matrix notation, a differential matrix
operator L is defined which maps the displacements u on the strains with a
simple matrix multiplication (2.19).
/ x1
0
0
0
/ x2
0
/ x3
0
0
(2.18)
L=
0
/ x3 / x2
/ x3
0
/ x1
/ x2 / x1
0
= Lu
(2.19)
The same differential operator L can be used for the matrix notation of the
equilibrium equation (2.1).
LT + f = u
(2.20)
26
Fundamentals
LT CLu + f = u
(2.21)
Analogous to the tensor notation (2.5), the matrix notation of the equation of
motion can be simplified for a static problem.
LT CLu + f = 0
(2.22)
27
2.2.1
E21
E31
0
0
0
E 11
22
33
12
1
E32
0
0
0
E 11
E 22
33
13
23
1
E
0
0
0
E 22
E 33
11
(2.23)
S ortho =
1
0
0
0
0
0
G 23
1
0
0
0
0
0
G 31
1
0
0
0
0
0
G 12
Measured engineering constants can be inserted directly and the stiffness matrix results of the inversion. Considering a unidirectional reinforced composite
material, the material properties are transversely-isotropic. As mentioned before, such a material is defined with 5 elastic coefficients which are usually the
Youngs modulus in fiber direction E 11 , the Youngs modulus perpendicular to
the fibers E 22 , the in-plane shear modulus G 12 , the in-plane Poisson ratio 12
and the transverse shear modulus G 23 . The transverse shear Poisson ratio is
related to the variables above with
23 =
E 22
1
2G 23
(2.24)
Due to the assumption of a plane stress state, the stresses with out-of-plane
components are zero and the compliance matrix S can be reduced to a 33matrix. Consequently, the stiffness matrix C is reduced to the so-called reduced
stiffness matrix Q and the Hookes law is simplified to
1
Q 11 Q 12
0
1
2 = Q 12 Q 22
0 2
(2.25)
12
0
0
Q 66 12
28
Fundamentals
Note that the strains and stresses are expressed in material principal coordinates 1,2. However, the orientation angle of a unidirectional laminate layer
can be chosen arbitrarily wherefore the material principal directions do not coincide with the global coordinates of the problem formulation. Consider a laminate illustrated in Figure 2.3 where the material coordinates 1,2 are shifted to
the global coordinates x,y by a given angle . A relation which transforms the
cos2
T = sin2
sin cos
sin2
cos2
sin cos
2 sin cos
2 sin cos
cos2 sin2
(2.26)
While the material stresses are mapped directly using the matrix T (as shown
in equation (2.27)),
1
x
2 = T y
12
x y
(2.27)
it has to be taken into account that the engineering shear strains kl are 2
times the tensorial shear strains (see Table 2.1) which leads to the following
relation.
1
x
2 = T y
1
1
2 12
2 x y
(2.28)
29
1 0 0
(2.29)
R = 0 1 0
0 0 2
An application of this Reuter matrix reduces the potential for mistakes to a
minimum since it is clear that only engineering stains are utilized. The engineering strains are then transformed with equation (2.30).
x y = RTR1 12
(2.30)
Contrariwise, the global strains and stresses can be mapped to the material
principal strains and stresses performing a multiplication with the inverse rotation matrix T1 . The connection between the strains and stresses in global
coordinates is based on the transformed reduced stiffness matrix Q.
x
x
y = Q y
(2.31)
x y
x y
The transformed reduced stiffness matrix Q can be derived by using
equations (2.25), (2.27) and (2.30) and is therefore a function of Q, R and T
only.
Q = T1 QRTR1 = T1 QTT
(2.32)
The transformed reduced stiffness matrix Q has to be evaluated for every laminate layer in order to be able to homogenize the material data of the entire
laminate stack. However, the evaluation is straight forward and the computational costs are low.
2.2.2
Stiffness Homogenization
The theory for thin plates assumes that the displacements of a point are composed of the mid-plane displacements u0 , v0 and a term arising from the plate
curvature. The curvature term is dependent on the position through the thickness z and the rotations of the normal to the middle plane x and y . The
chosen conventions are shown in Figure 2.4.
u = u0 + z y
(2.33)
v = v0 + z ( x )
(2.34)
30
Fundamentals
z,w
z,w
y
zy
y,v
x,u
Ny
y
z w
x
u,x
u0,x
y,x
y = v,y = v0,y + z x,y
(2.35)
Mx
x,u
My
Nxy
Mxy
Nxy
Nx
Mxy
x y
u,y + v,x
u0,y + v0,x
0
y,y x,x
where 0 denotes the mid-plane or membrane strains and the plate curvatures. Thin plate theory and therefore also the CLT assumes that the strain
distribution is linear through the laminate thickness. However, the stiffness
is discontinuous through the thickness due to the layer-wise design technique
which results in a discontinuous stress distribution. To quantify a stress state
in a laminate, the components have to be evaluated for each layer particularly.
In order to have a load unit that includes all layers, the line loads are introduced, namely the force per unit length N and the moment per unit length M.
The force per unit length N is the integration of the stress components over the
laminate thickness t.
t x
Nx
2
y dz
(2.36)
N = Ny =
2t
Nx y
x y
Analogously, the moment per unit length M is given by the integration of the
stress components multiplied with the stacking position z.
t x
Mx
2
y zdz
(2.37)
M = My =
2t
Mx y
x y
Since the stiffness is constant within a single layer, the integration can be
replaced with a summation of the integrals over each layer taking advantage
31
zk
zk-1
hk
hk-1
zj
t
2
hj
h2
h1
z1
z0
N=
=
dz =
2t
n
Qj
j =1
n
j =1
z j z j 1
t
M=
=
2t
n
j =1
zdz =
Qj
Qj
n
j =1
z j
z j 1
dz =
n
j =1
Qj
z j
z j 1
0 + z dz
1 2
2
+
z z j 1
2 j
Qj
z j
z j 1
zdz =
n
j =1
Qj
(2.38)
(2.39)
z j
z j 1
1 2
1 3
z j z2j 1 0 +
z j z3j 1
2
3
0 + z zdz
(2.40)
(2.41)
Considering equations (2.39) and (2.41), the matrices A, B and D can be extracted which are all of dimension 33. The A-matrix connects the membrane
strains 0 with the force per unit length N.
A=
n
j =1
Q j z j z j 1
(2.42)
and the D-matrix connects the plate curvatures with the moments per unit
length M.
D=
n
1
Q j z3j z3j 1
3 j =1
(2.43)
32
Fundamentals
The B-matrix is responsible for the coupling of membrane and bending components.
n
1
Q j z2j z2j 1
(2.44)
B=
2 j =1
Dependent on the laminate layup, some entries may become zero. In case of
a symmetric laminate, there is no coupling between bending and membrane
effects wherefore the B-matrix vanishes. These matrices build the so-called
ABD-matrix which is the main achievement of the homogenization process.
N
A B 0
(2.45)
=
M
B D
Considering a laminate stress analysis problem, the loads are given and the
stresses in each layer must be found in order to check the strength. In the first
step, the ABD-matrix is calculated and the global strains can be determined
taking advantage of its inverse. The global strains are then transferred to the
local strains within each ply employing the corresponding rotation matrices T.
Finally, the reduced stiffness matrices Q map the local strains to the local
stresses which are needed for a strength analysis.
33
allowed strains. The threshold is set to the minimal breaking strain in material principal coordinates. This is reasonable when first matrix cracking cannot
be tolerated, e.g. in aircraft industry.
Within this section, the failure criteria of Tsai-Hill and Tsai-Wu are introduced
briefly. They will later be used for the laminate strength optimization in Section 3.6.2. Their closed-form expression and their simplicity in application
make them predestined for implementation for a sensitivity analysis. The fact
that their physical basis is weak can be accepted since the developed design
method is basically used for preliminary design. Furthermore, the method is
not used to design a structure to particular loads. More important it is to show
that the strength increase between initial and optimized solution is high. Thus,
the choice of the failure criterion is not so important as long as the solutions
are evaluated equally.
2.3.1
Tsai-Hill Criterion
The Tsai-Hill criterion is based on the quadratic yield condition of Hill [57] for
metals with slightly anisotropic material properties. Tsai [166] modified the
criterion by substituting the yield strength values with the strength values of
a composite material. The failure criterion for a transverse isotropic material
under plane stress is expressed with the quadratic equation
( ) =
2
1
1 2
X2
2
2
12 2
(2.46)
( ) = 1
(2.47)
Thereby, X denotes the strength in fiber direction, Y the strength perpendicular to fiber direction and S the shear strength of the laminate. The criterion
does not distinguish explicitly between tensile and compression loads. However, a comparison of stress and strength makes only sense if this is considered. The user has to make sure that the appropriate values are applied.
By introducing a strength ratio R which is multiplied with the actual stresses,
the margin until failure occurs can be determined. It can be understood as a
linear scaling factor which indicates failure for a value of 1.
(R ) = 1
(2.48)
A strength ratio of 2 implies that the current load can be doubled. Since all
stresses occur quadratically in the Tsai-Hill criterion, the failure criteria with
34
Fundamentals
(2.49)
The strength ratio R for the Tsai-Hill criterion is found by taking the reciprocal
of the positive square root of the failure function .
1
R=
+
(2.50)
The so-called failure index F I which is the reciprocal of R can be used alternatively to express the margin until failure occurs. A failure index of 2 indicates
that the current loads must be reduced by a factor 2 or the laminate thickness
must be doubled in order to prevent failure.
+
(2.51)
F I = R 1 =
(2.52)
The failure condition is the same as for the Tsai-Hill criterion (2.47). The
strength parameters F of the Tsai-Wu criterion are functions of the material
strength values for tension, compression and shear.
F1 =
Xt
F11 =
Xc
Xt Xc
F2 =
Yt
F22 =
Yc
Yt Yc
F66 =
S2
F12
X t X c Yt Yt
with 1 F12
1. There is no physical meaning of the factor F12
and the
choice has to be done by the user. However, recommendations for a couple of
different materials are listed in [94]. X t and X c are the strength values in fiber
direction for tension and compression, respectively. Yt and Yc are tension and
compression strength perpendicular to the fiber direction. The shear strength
35
is labeled with S.
In order to find the strength ratio R, the failure criterion (2.52) is separated
into a quadratic part Q and a linear part L .
= Q + L
(2.53)
(2.54)
L = F 1 1 + F 2 2
(2.55)
Consequently, the linear part L contains stresses only linear while they occur quadratically in the quadratic part Q . This has to be considered when
introducing the strength ratio R which leads to the failure condition for the
Tsai-Wu criterion.
Q R 2 + L R = 1
(2.56)
The strength ratio R can be found by extracting the positive root of the failure
condition (2.56).
L + + 4Q + 2L
= F I 1
(2.57)
R=
2Q
36
Fundamentals
Within this thesis, the further explanations are focused on the FEM for structural analysis problems. The solution of the elasticity problem demands for
the fulfillment of the fundamental equations (2.21) or (2.22) within a given
and disdomain taking into consideration the prescribed surface stresses
on the surface as well as the internally acting body forces f. As
placements u
mentioned, an exact solution of the problem can only be found for simple geometries and simple boundary conditions, e.g. a bar under uniaxial load. Generally, the FEM provides only approximate solutions. Accepting a sufficient
numerical effort, the obtained solution may come close to the true solution.
dt x
x
where L denotes the Lagrangian and x the generalized coordinates.
Lagrangian L is defined as
The
(2.59)
L = T = T (U W)
where T denotes the kinetic energy and the potential energy. The Hamiltons
principle for an elastic body is represented with equation
t2
t1
[T (U W)] dt =
t2
t1
Ldt = 0
(2.60)
which calls the time integral of the Lagrangian L to be stationary. The fundamental lemma of the calculus of variation shows that solving the Lagrange
equations is equivalent to finding a solution of the Hamiltons principle. However, taking advantage of the Lagrangian mechanics transforms the equation
of motion to its weak form which is needed for finite element formulation.
The potential energy is the sum of the deformation energy U and the negative of the potential of the external forces W. If the displacements u are small,
37
which is required for the linear elasticity problem, the velocities can be approx The kinetic energy can thus be
imated with displacement time derivatives u.
formulated as the integral over the domain of the density and the scalar
u T u
T u
u
T u
u
(2.64)
= Lu = LT u
(2.65)
n elm
38
Fundamentals
dt u
u
The evaluation of the Lagrangian formalism leads to the equation of motion
for the discretized linear system.
e +
e
T ud
BT CBud
n elm
n elm
n elm
de = 0
fd e
n elm
(2.68)
The equation is then rearranged so that terms with no dependence on the nodal
are brought to the right hand side.
displacements u
T
T
+
B CBd e u
d e u
n elm
n elm
n elm
de
fd e +
n elm
(2.69)
The sums on the left side represent the global stiffness matrix K and the global
mass matrix M while the right hand side represents the load vector r. With
these symbols,the basic problem of the FEM for the linear elastic case is written as
= r
+ Mu
Ku
(2.70)
(2.71)
(2.72)
= sin ( t)
u
(2.73)
39
The combination of the equation of motion (2.70) and the harmonic approach
(2.72, 2.73) yields to the eigenvalue problem for the harmonic vibration.
K 2 M = 0
(2.74)
Considering equation (2.69), the global system matrices can be extracted
directly. The global stiffness matrix K is defined as the sum of the element
stiffness matrices
BT CBd e
(2.75)
K=
n elm
(2.76)
Analogously, the global mass matrix M and the element mass matrices m are
defined as
M=
T d e
(2.77)
n elm
and
m=
T d e
(2.78)
The load vector r contains the internal body forces and the prescribed forces on
the surface of the structure. The shape functions distribute the loads to the
nodes.
de
r=
fd e +
(2.79)
n elm
n elm
The summations must consider the connectivity of the respective element with
the globally numbered mesh nodes.
2.4.2
Stability Problems
(2.80)
40
Fundamentals
(2.81)
Since external loads do not change at the bifurcation point and the conventional stiffness matrix is not dependent on the load, buckling displacements
may be added.
+ } = cr r
[K + cr K ] {u
(2.82)
The subtraction of these two equations yields the eigenvalue problem in which
the eigenvalue cr provides the buckling load factor. The buckling mode is
consequently represented with the eigenvector .
[K + cr K ] = 0
(2.83)
1
U =
n elm 2
0
u G
e
0
T
0
s
0
x0 x y0 xz0
s = x y0 y0 yz0
xz0 yz0 z0
0
e
0 Gud
s
(2.85)
(2.86)
The matrix G represents the strain-displacement relation equivalent to the Bmatrix in Section 2.4.1. However, the two matrices G and B may be different
41
for the same element wherefore a different notation is used. The most general
element stress stiffness matrix using the Lagrangian mechanics is therefore
k =
2.4.3
s
0
0
0
s
0
0
0 G dV
s
(2.87)
This section contains the derivation of a layered shell finite element as it has
been used for the sensitivities in Chapter 3. The derivation is separated into
stiffness-, mass- and geometric stiffness matrix. Since the design method,
which is introduced later, is coupled with the commercial finite element software NASTRAN, it was important to have a finite element that behaves as similar as possible to the ones of NASTRAN. The formulations of commercial elements are usually not available. However, numerical studies have shown that
the results coincide satisfyingly.
Stiffness Matrix
The general formulation of the element stiffness matrix k is given in
equation (2.76). Consider a layered shell element illustrated in Figure 2.6 with
an element area A and a laminate thickness t. The volume integral can be sep-
z,w
A
y,v
t
x,u
Figure 2.6: Layered shell element
arated into an integration over the area and an integration over the thickness.
k=
t
t
2
BT CB dt d A
(2.88)
Using the CLT, the integration over the thickness can be replaced with a summation over all n layers where z represents the interface positions. Thereby,
42
Fundamentals
the material stiffness matrix C is replaced with the transformed reduced stiffness matrix Q j of the corresponding layer. It must be considered that the stiffness matrix consists of a membrane part (m), a bending part (b) and a coupling
part (c). Analogously to the derivation of the ABD-matrix, the integration
of different parts follows different rules. Moreover, the strain-displacement
relations B are different.
The derivation of the strain-displacement matrix for membrane Bm and
bending Bb starts from the kinematic relations of a laminated plate given in
equation (2.35) which are
y =
x y
u0
+ z
y x
u0 v0
+
x
x
y
x
x
v0
(2.89)
The first part describes the membrane deformation and the membrane straindisplacement matrix Bm can be written as
Bm =
(2.90)
where denote the shape functions of the finite element which are of course
dependent on the element type. The second part of equation (2.89) covers plate
bending. The resulting strain-displacement matrix Bb is
y
x y
Bb =
(2.91)
43
w u
x + z
xz
=
v w
yz
+
z y
(2.92)
= y
(2.93)
= x
(2.94)
which leads to
w
+
y
x
xz
w
yz
x
y
(2.95)
0
y
Bs =
(2.96)
Keep in mind that the transverse shear in equation (2.92) must vanish for thin
laminates which leads to
w
x
w
y
= y
(2.97)
= x
(2.98)
44
Fundamentals
n
BT
m Q j Bm d A
A
j =1
n
z j z j 1
1 2
T
2
BT
Q
B
+
B
Q
B
d
A
z
z
j m
m j b
j 1
b
2 j
A
j =1
n
1 3
3
BT
Q
B
d
A
z
z
kb =
b
j
b
j 1
3 j
A
j =1
n
S
T
Bs Q j Bs d A z j z j 1
ks =
kc =
j =1
(2.99)
(2.100)
(2.101)
(2.102)
In contrast to the membrane and bending stiffness parts, the shear stiffness
matrix ks is dependent on a transverse material shear stiffness matrix QS
with dimension 22.
QS =
G 13
0
0
G 23
(2.103)
if t/l e
2
t
l e
a =
2 if t/l e <
1 + tl e
45
(2.104)
(2.105)
It must be ensured that the stiffness contributions are assigned to the corresponding degrees of freedom u, v, w, x , y indicated in equations (2.90), (2.91)
and (2.96). The result of the ordered addition is thus a quadratic matrix with
dimension of 5 times the number of nodes. For modeling in a 3D-space, a sixth
degree of freedom z for the rotation around the z-axis, also called drilling
degree of freedom, is introduced. However, this degree of freedom is not important for the determination of the sensitivities in Chapter 3 and is therefore
not discussed in detail here. Investigations on elements with drilling degree of
freedom have been made in [107, 66, 28].
Mass Matrix
The mass matrix formulation for a layered shell element is simple when using a lumped mass model where rotary inertia is neglected. It is feasible for
small deformations which is usually true for harmonic vibration problems. The
lumped mass matrix is expressed with equation
n
jtj
T d A
(2.106)
m=
j =1
46
Fundamentals
x0
s =
x y0
x y0
y0
(2.107)
The spacial derivatives of the shape functions G map the nodal displacements
to the deflection derivatives w,x , w,y
G =
(2.108)
v
(b) In-plane buckling
47
G are defined as
u
G =
y0
0
2xy
xy
s = 0
x0 2
2xy 2xy
0
(2.109)
(2.110)
n
j =1
GT sj G + GT sj G dV z j z j 1
V
(2.111)
with
Nx
N =
Nx y
Nx y
Ny
(2.113)
and
Ny
N = 0
N
2xy
0
Nx
N
2xy
N xy
2
N
2xy
(2.114)
48
Fundamentals
Chapter 3
Sensitivities
The expression sensitivity origins from the so-called sensitivity analysis which
is a common methodology in the field of optimization with mathematical programming. The sensitivities express the influence of a change of the design
variables x to the objective function f . From the mathematical point of view,
the sensitivities are the gradients of an objective function. The general expression is therefore
f =
df
f (x + x) f (x)
= lim
dx x0
x
(3.1)
(3.2)
50
Sensitivities
(3.3)
where denotes the density and A the shell element area, the sensitivities
with respect to the layer thickness can be transferred to the sensitivities with
respect to the layer mass.
1 df
df
=
dm A dt
(3.4)
Since the sensitivities are usually used for a relative guess, some simplifications can be made if all layers consist of the same material
1 df
df
dm
A dt
(3.5)
dm
dt
(3.6)
Based on these results for the system matrices, the sensitivities for eigenfrequency, minimal compliance, buckling and strength problems are derived.
51
Furthermore, a hybrid evaluation method is proposed which enables an optimization of arbitrary finite element models. Finally, a smoothing mechanism
is presented which reduces peaks in the sensitivity field.
j
k =1
t k z0
(3.7)
where z0 denotes the distance between the reference plane and the bottom of
the laminate (see Figure 3.1). Keep in mind that z0 is usually a function of
hn
zn
z0
zj
z1
hj
h1
h
2
reference-plane
laminate mid-plane
h
2
Figure 3.1: Schematic laminate layup with reference plane and laminate midplane
the layer thicknesses t k and thus not a constant. The reference plane coincides
with the mid-plane of the finite elements which is not necessarily equal to
the laminate mid-plane. Thus, a laminate offset can be controlled with z0 .
Reference plane and laminate mid-plane coincide if relation
z0 =
n
1
tk
2 k =1
(3.8)
is fulfilled which implies no offset. It makes sense to postulate that for symmetric laminates. Using the same conventions as before where indices stand for
52
Sensitivities
membrane (m), coupling (c), bending (b) and transverse shear (s), the stiffness
matrix parts depending on the layer thicknesses t j are given by
!
j
j
1
n
T
km =
Bm Q j Bm d A
t k z0
t k z0
(3.9)
A
j =1
kc =
n
A
j =1
kb =
ks =
k =1
T
BT
m Q j Bb + Bb Q j Bm
n
BT
b Q j Bb d A
j =1
n
A
j =1
1
3
S
BT
s Q j B s d A
k =1
1
dA
2
k =1
k =1
j
k =1
t k z0
t k z0
j
j
t k z0
j
1
k =1
j
1
k =1
j
1
k =1
3
t k z0
(3.10)
t k z0
(3.11)
!
t k z0
(3.12)
tk
j
1
k =1
tk = t j
(3.13)
the stiffness for the membrane and shear parts can be simplified to
n
BT
Q
B
d
A
t
km =
j
m j m
j =1
ks =
n
j =1
A
S
BT
s Q j B s d A t j
(3.14)
(3.15)
Consequently, the sensitivities of these parts are only dependent on the material properties of the respective layer and yield
dkm
= BT
(3.16)
m Ql Bm d A
dt l
A
dks
=
dt l
A
53
BT
s Q l B s d A
(3.17)
j =1
+
+
l
1
BT
b Q l Bb d A
n
j = l +1
1
3
BT
b Q j Bb d A
1
3
k =1
l
k =1
BT
b Q j Bb d A
j
t k z0
t k z0
1
3
j
k =1
l
1
k =1
3
t k z0
j
1
k =1
t k z0
3
t k z0
j
1
k =1
t k z0
(3.18)
This separation is important since the parts depend differently on the thickness t l of the considered layer l. The derivatives of the relation between thickness and interface position (3.7) are different whether a layer is contributing
or not.
z0
if j l
j
t l
(3.19)
t k z0 =
z0
t l k =1
if j < l
t l
l
1
j =1
+
+
BT
b Q j Bb d A
BT
b Ql Bb d A
n
j = l +1
l
k =1
j
k =1
2
t k z0
2
t k z0
BT
b Q j Bb d A
j
k =1
z0
t l
z0
t l
k =1
l
1
2
t k z0
2
z0
z0
!!
t l
t l
2
!!
j
1
z0
z0
1
t k z0
1
t l
t l
k =1
2
t k z0
j 1
t k z0
k =1
(3.20)
54
Sensitivities
This equation can be simplified for special configurations of the laminate. Assuming that the reference plane coincides with the mid-plane of the laminate,
the offset is zero and z0 is defined as
z0 =
n
1
tk
2 k =1
(3.21)
(3.22)
dt l
2
2
A
j =1
k =1
k =1
2
2
l
l
1
1
1
t k z0
t k z0
+ BT
b Ql Bb d A
2
2
A
k =1
k =1
2
2 !!
j
j
1
n
1
1
T
Bb Q j Bb d A
t k z0
t k z0
(3.23)
+
2
2
A
j = l +1
k =1
k =1
Considering a symmetric laminate, the derivatives can be simplified significantly. Using the parameterization above, a symmetric laminate can simply be
represented by setting z0 to zero, which implies that the reference plane coincides with the bottom of the laminate, and simultaneously double the stiffness
contributions to take into account that only half of the laminate is considered.
2
l
dkb
T
= 2 Bb Q l Bb d A
tk
dt l
A
k =1
2 j 1
2 !!
j
n
T
+2
Bb Q j Bb d A
tk
tk
(3.24)
j = l +1
k =1
k =1
Here it becomes obvious that a change of the bending stiffness is caused by two
different effects. The first term expresses the stiffness change due to the thickness change of the layer itself. The terms within the summation consider the
change of the stiffness caused by pushing outward the overlaying layers which
results in a higher area moment of inertia (see Figure 3.2). This relation can be
written alternatively with expressions (3.25) and (3.26). The top layer (l = n) is
independent on the subjacent layers wherefore its sensitivity is expressed with
2
n
dkb
T
= 2 Bb Q l Bb d A
tk
(3.25)
dt l
A
k =1
55
z3
z2 k3(z2+t,z3+t)
z1 k2(z1+t,z2+t)
k3(z2,z3) 3
z
k2(z1,z2) 2
z
k1(z0,z1) z1
z0
k1(z0+t,z1)
The lower layers (l = 1,..., n 1) take into account the stiffness contribution of
the overlaying layers wherefore
dkb
=2
dt l
A
BT
b Ql Bb d A
A
BT
b Q l +1 B b d A
l
k =1
tk
dkb
dt j +1
(3.26)
This convention has been used in [145]. It may be advantageous for the implementation since a summation can be saved.
The sensitivities for the coupling parts are derived analogously to the bending parts. An explicit derivation is given in Appendix B. The material stiffness parts and the strain-displacement matrix are replaced corresponding to
equation (2.100) and the exponent is reduced by one order. Keep in mind that
the coupling stiffness part vanishes for a symmetric laminate.
The total sensitivities of the stiffness matrix are built with an addressed
summation of the several parts corresponding to equation (2.105).
(3.27)
All the derivations above have been performed on the element level for the
element stiffness matrix k. The sensitivities of the global stiffness matrix K
can however be derived directly from the element stiffness parts. The global
stiffness matrix is an addressed summation of all the element matrices which
56
Sensitivities
K=
k1
k2
k3
..
.
(3.28)
The element stiffness matrix derivatives are dependent only on the thickness of
the respective element. The derivatives with respect to the thicknesses of other
elements are all zero. Thus, the global stiffness matrix derivative dK
d t l contains
only zeros except of the entries corresponding to the considered element l which
is shown schematically in equation (3.29).
dK
=
dt l
dkl
tl
(3.29)
3.1.3
57
As shown for stiffness and mass matrix, a change of a layer thickness only affects the sensitivity of the respective element. This is however not the case for
the stress stiffness matrix. According to the definition given in equation (2.87),
the stress stiffness matrix is dependent on the stresses within the element.
A change of a layer thickness of one element may change the stress field of
the entire structure. Thus it has not only an influence on the stress stiffness
matrix of the considered element but on the entire model.
The stress stiffness matrix for a layered shell element is given in
equation (2.112). Since the shape function derivatives G are not dependent on
the element thickness, the derivatives of the geometric stiffness matrix with
respect to the thickness of the j th layer of the i th element is
dk
=
dt i j
dN
dN
GT
G + GT
G dA
dt i j
dt i j
A
(3.31)
For the derivation of the sensitivities, the line loads Nk of the k th element are
considered. Notice that the index k does denote the element number and not
a component of the load line. It is defined as the sum of the products of the
respective stress component and layer thicknesses for all layers l.
Nk =
l
j =1
k j t k j
(3.32)
Thus, the line load of the k th element is a function of all stresses within the
element and the corresponding thicknesses.
Nk = Nk ([t1 ,..., t l ] ,[1 (1 (u (t))),..., l ( l (u (t)))])
(3.33)
Nk is not only dependent explicitly on the layer thicknesses of the element, but
also on the layer stresses which are a function of the displacement field and
therefore on the layer thicknesses again. Using the chain rule, the line force
derivatives of the k th -element with respect to the j th layer of the i th element
yield
!
lk
Nk k j k j
u
dN k Nk
=
+
(3.34)
dt i j
t i j
t i j
j =1 k j k j u
Through the displacement field, a change of an element layer thickness has
an impact on the stress stiffness matrices of any element even if these contributions might be small. The partial derivative of the line load component
58
Sensitivities
with respect to a layer thickness is nothing else than the layer stresses k j assuming that the considered thickness t k j is member of the respective element.
Nk
t i j
"
=
k j
0
if
if
i=k
i = k
(3.35)
The differentiation of the line load component with respect to the layer stresses
yields the layer thicknesses t k j . The derivative of the stresses with respect
to the strains is per definition the material stiffness matrix Ck j . The strains
are connected to the displacements with the strain-displacement matrix Bk j .
Thus, equation (3.34) is simplified to
!
lk
u
dN k Nk
=
+
t k j Ck j Bk j
(3.36)
dt i j
t i j
t i j
j =1
The components of this result can be employed for the stress stiffness matrix
sensitivities in equation (3.31).
(3.37)
As before, K denotes the stiffness matrix, u the displacement vector and r the
corresponding load vector. By rearranging the rows and columns of the linear
system, the formulation can be partitioned into
K11 K12 u x
rc
(3.38)
=
K21 K22 u c
rx
where subscript c denotes known quantities and subscript x denotes unknown
quantities. On every degree of freedom either the displacement u or the external force r but not both have to be defined. Where loads r c are prescribed, the
corresponding displacements u x are unknown and vice versa. Keep in mind
that no external force, or r = 0 respectively, is also a prescribed boundary condition. Typically, r x represents the support reaction forces. The first row of the
system represents the reduced equation system where the boundary conditions
are already introduced.
K11 u x = r c K12 u c
(3.39)
59
In contrast to the general stiffness matrix K, the reduced stiffness matrix K11
is not singular if u c determines an at least statically determinate support and
the linear system becomes solvable.
The system is simplified again if only homogeneous geometric boundary
conditions (u c = 0) are used.
K11 u x = r c
(3.40)
The total derivatives with respect to the design variables t are given by
d K11
dt K21
K12
K22
ux
K11
+
uc
K21
d rc
K12 d u x
=
K22 dt u c
dt r x
(3.41)
(3.42)
K12
K22
ux
K11
+
uc
K21
K12
K22
dux
dt
=
drc
dt
drx
dt
dt
dt
dt
dt
(3.43)
(3.44)
(3.45)
dt
dt
dt
The prescribed loads may be dependent on the thickness variables, for example
if gravitation is taken into account. The general load vector for body forces
is defined at the right side of basic finite element equation (2.69). In case of
gravitation it yields
(3.46)
r = g dV
V
60
Sensitivities
where denotes the density and g the gravitational constant. The derivatives
are thus simply
dr
(3.47)
= g d A
dt
A
For many structural design problems, the prescribed loads are design independent whereby equation (3.45) simplifies to
du x
1 dK11
ux
= K11
dt
dt
(3.48)
The evaluation of the displacement sensitivities is equivalent to solving a linear system equation with multiple right hand sides. The right hand side is
given by the term in parenthesis in equation (3.44). It is built by the multiplication of the stiffness matrix sensitivities and the displacement vector u. The
evaluation of the right hand term is thus fast. However, it has a dimension
of number of degrees of freedom wherefore the solution of the linear equation
system is relatively expensive. The resulting displacement derivatives form a
matrix with dimension of number of degrees of freedom times the number of
design variables which is fully occupied for the most cases. With increasing
model size and/or number of design variables, the required memory becomes
huge or even critical. Displacement sensitivities should be used only when
needed, e.g. buckling load factor or strength sensitivities.
61
(3.49)
Thereby, K denotes the global stiffness matrix and M the global mass matrix. The eigenvalue n is the square of the angular frequency n (corresponding to equation (2.74)) which is 2 times the frequency f n . Thus, performing
a maximization of the eigenvalues n is equivalent to a maximization of the
frequency f n . The total derivative of the harmonic problem can be expressed
as
d
((K n M)n ) = 0
dt
(3.50)
n + (K n M)
=0
dt
dt
dt
dt
(3.51)
This expression can be simplified by multiplying the individual terms with the
transpose of the eigenvector T
n from the left side.
dK d n
dM
d n
M n
Tn
n + Tn (K n M)
=0
(3.52)
dt
dt
dt
dt
=0
The second term of the expression vanishes applying the initial equation (3.49).
A rearrangement of the terms leads to the general equation for the eigenvalue
sensitivities which is
dM
T dK
d n n dt n dt n
=
(3.53)
dt
Tn Mn
This expression is generally accepted and has been derived and applied in
several publications (e.g. [185, 26, 108, 103, 128]). The entries of the
eigenvectors n are relative so that they can be M-orthonormalized. Consequently, the generalized mass which is defined as T
n Mn becomes equal to 1
wherefore the denominator of equation (3.53) can be removed. The simplified
sensitivity equation for the orthonormalized eigenvectors forms to
dK
dM
d n
= T
n
(3.54)
n
n
dt
dt
dt
62
Sensitivities
Seyraniant et al. [152] demonstrated that this expression is valid for single
eigenvalues only. Multiple eigenvalues may for example occur for quadratic
plates under ideal conditions. However, such cases are implausible for real applications wherefore it is assumed here that all eigenvalues are single. The
sensitivities above have been derived with respect to the element layer thickness t. However, expression (3.53) is universally valid and the thickness array
could for example be replaced with the array of the orientation angles .
To reduce the calculation costs, the evaluation is performed on an element
level. As shown in Section 3.1.1, entries excepting the ones related to the considered element are zero. Having rows and columns with only zero entries, a
multiplication with the eigenvector n becomes unnecessary. Instead, the element matrix derivatives are multiplied directly with the respective entries of
the eigenvector e n . The number of calculations steps is reduced drastically
and the evaluation is much more efficient.
dm e
d n e T dk
= n
n
n
dt
dt
dt
(3.55)
Both, element stiffness matrix k and element mass matrix m, the global
matrices K and M as well as their derivatives are positive-definite. Thus, the
result of the both sided multiplication with the eigenvector n must be positive. Due to the minus sign within the braces of equation (3.54), the sensitivities may however become negative. Negative gradients indicate areas where
material must be reduced to increase the objective function which is in this
case the eigenvalue or the frequency respectively. Aiming for mass minimal
structures that fulfill the stiffness requirement, the reduction of material in
these areas is essential. The occurrence of negative gradients can also be explained physically. The existence of material affects always the stiffness and
the mass. Generally, the stiffness increases the frequencies of the structure
and the mass causes the frequencies to drop. More decisive than the existence
of stiffness and mass is its distribution. Mass located in regions with high
amplitudes, which occurs usually far away from bearings, causes a higher frequency drop. On the other hand, mass close to bearings does not affect the
frequencies significantly. Considering harmonic problems, the engineer must
place the material in a way that the stiffness contribution is higher than the
mass penalty in order to achieve maximal frequencies with minimal mass. If
the mass penalty is higher than the stiffness contribution, which is expressed
with
n T
n
dM
dK
n > Tn
n ,
dt
dt
(3.56)
63
the sensitivities become negative because the existence of material is counterproductive. Identifying these areas intuitively is almost impossible. Thus,
using the sensitivity field may help to find improved designs.
The sensitivities of a harmonic vibration problem are illustrated on the example of an all-side clamped CFRP-plate. The plate has an aspect ratio of 2
and is made of an unidirectional ply-material (see Appendix Table A.2) with
orientation angles (0/45/-45/90)S where the 0 -direction is parallel to the long
side. Figure 3.3 shows the first eigenmode of this plate. The sensitivities
y
x
Figure 3.3: First eigenmode of a all-side clamped plate
for the symmetric half of the composite are shown in Figure 3.4 (a/c/e/g). Consider that the color scales of the four pictures are different. Red areas indicate high sensitivity values whereas the thickness of the respective layer in
these areas should be increased in order to raise the first eigenfrequency maximally. The maximal sensitivities occur on the long side edge of the 90 -layer
which seems to be plausible. In contrast, the blue areas indicate low sensitivity. The threshold between positive and negative sensitivities is emphasized
in Figure 3.4 (b/d/f/h). Blue areas have negative sensitivities wherefore material should be removed in order to increase the frequency. Obviously, a big
area of the 0 -layer material is useless or even counterproductive. However,
also the other layers hold locations where material could be removed without having a frequency loss. The positive-negative plots in Figure 3.4 may
give the wrong impression that material can be removed completely in bluecolored areas. However, the sensitivities are calculated for the mode shown
in Figure 3.3. Removing the material in one step would lead to a completely
different eigenmode wherefore the wrongly assumed optimal material distribution becomes sub-optimal. The sensitivity field is calculated for one specific
mode and changes when the design is modified. In order to find an optimal
thickness distribution, the model should be adjusted step-wise. After each
small modification, the sensitivities have to be reevaluated considering the new
eigenmode.
64
Sensitivities
(a) = 0
(b) = 0 ()
(c) = 45
(d) = 45 ()
(e) = 45
(f) = 45 ()
(g) = 90
(h) = 90 ()
Figure 3.4: Regular sensitivities (a,c,e,g) (not same scale) and -plot of the
sensitivities (b,d,f,h)
65
W = uT r =
(3.57)
K12
K22
ux
uc
(3.58)
Due to the positive-definiteness of the stiffness matrix, the theoretical minimum of the potential of the external forces W is zero. It is reached for an
infinitely stiff structure where all displacements are zero. However, this is
only valid for a completely force-controlled loadcase where the prescribed displacements are all zero (u c = 0) and the deformation field results of the applied
external forces. Considering a displacement-controlled loadcase, the displacements become never zero and the minimal potential of the external forces is
only achieved if the corresponding reaction forces become zero. This is the case
for an infinitely soft structure wherefore the potential of external forces is not
feasible anymore to express the stiffness. Moreover, from the engineering point
of view, it is not clear what "stiff" means if displacements are prescribed.
Consequently, the following derivations and calculations for minimal compliance structures consider only completely force-controlled loadcases. The
sensitivities of the potential of external forces W are derived applying the chain
rule to equation (3.58).
dK
du
dW
=u T
u + 2uT K
dt
dt
dt
T
d K11 K12 u x
ux
=
uc
dt K21 K22 u c
T
ux
K11 K12 d u x
+2
uc
K21 K22 dt u c
(3.59)
(3.60)
66
Sensitivities
The prescribed displacements u c are fixed so that their derivatives are zero.
T
d K11
dW
ux
=
uc
dt
dt K21
T
ux
K11
+2
uc
K12
K22
K12
ux
uc
du x
dt
(3.61)
(3.62)
(3.63)
dt
dt
dt
dt
dK11
dr c
u x + 2uTx
(3.64)
= u T
x
dt
dt
Since the prescribed displacements u c are assumed to be zero, they do not
contribute and the expression can be generalized to
dK
dr
dW
u + 2uT
= u T
dt
dt
dt
(3.65)
(3.66)
(3.67)
67
dK
d n
= T
n
n
dt
dt
(3.68)
which is identical to equation (3.67) disregarding that the deformation is defined differently. The minimal compliance sensitivities are dependent on the
loading of the structure which is given by the right hand side of equation (2.71).
Thus, these sensitivities can be used to improve the stiffness of a structure with
respect to a specific loadcase. In contrast, no load is defined for the eigenfrequency calculation and they are simply dependent on the displacement boundary conditions.
The two different types of minimal compliance sensitivities are demonstrated on a structure which is inspired by a bridge. The design space is defined with a rectangular with side ratio of 4:1 as shown in Figure 3.5. The
y
x
68
Sensitivities
the case with gravity indicates that some elements have negative sensitivities
which implies that a thickness increase would increase the displacements of
nodes at which external forces are applied due to the additional weight forces.
(a) = 0
(b) = 0 with
g
(c) = 45
(d) = 45 with
g
(e) = 45
(f) = 45 with
g
(g) = 90
(h) = 90 with
g
x10
10
15
-3
20
-0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Figure 3.6: Sensitivities of the bridge structure with and without gravity
(3.69)
The vector x contains the nodal positions and u the displacements. The matrix is used to select the degrees of freedom involved in the optimization.
69
v4
v1
v3
u4
v2
u1
u3
u2
T
u1 v1 u2 v2 u3 v3 u4 v4 . A potential objective could be the minimization of the distance between nodes 1 and 2. Thus the vector is
=
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
0
0
(3.70)
1
0
0
1
(3.71)
(3.72)
The function reaches its maximum if nodes 1 and 2 coincide for the deformed
case. Alternatively, the relative displacement between two nodes can be optimized taking advantage of the proposed objective function. The nodal position
vector x is set to zero and only the displacements are considered.
T
u = T u w T u
(3.73)
(3.74)
70
Sensitivities
Such a minimization could be helpful when aiming for structures with good
dimensional stability.
The derivative of the general objective function is
T du
d
= 2 T (x + u) w T
(3.75)
dt
dt
The main drawback of these sensitivities is that displacement derivatives are
needed. As mentioned in Section 3.1.4, their calculation is expensive and
should be avoided if possible.
The sensitivity field of nodal displacements is illustrated on an example
of a grabber. The design space is shown in Figure 3.8(a). It is symmetrically
loaded on the left side with a unit force. For an isotropic material, the reference
points P re f on the left side drift apart as shown in Figure 3.8(b). A potential
optimization goal could be to reduce the drifting of the two reference points or
even to make them approaching each other. This can be formulated with an
objective function as introduced above. A specific utilization of unidirectional
laminate plies can change the deformation field significantly. Such effects are
used for compliant mechanisms which are able to do large deformations without hinges. This example is further developed in the application Chapter 6.2.
It is clear that the structure cannot be designed as specific when using the min-
Pref
y
x
Pref
71
(a) = 0
(b) = 45
(c) = 45
(d) = 90
(3.76)
Instead of the mass matrix M, the stress stiffness matrix K is used. The
eigenvalues n describe the buckling mode whereas the eigenvalue n is the
respective buckling load factor which quantifies the potential load increase until the buckling occurs. Buckling load sensitivities can be found by applying
72
Sensitivities
(3.77)
Since the eigenvalue problem for buckling contains a plus sign instead of a
minus sign, the negative of the stress stiffness matrix stays in the denominator.
Analogously to the eigenfrequency sensitivities, the expression T
n (K ) n is
sometimes called the generalized mass, even if it is here not related to mass.
Performing a K -orthonormalization simplifies the expression to
dK
dK
d n
= T
+
n
(3.78)
n
n
dt
dt
dt
The current sensitivity equation for the buckling load factor is valid for the
global system while the sensitivities of the stress stiffness matrix
dk,k
dt
=
GT
dN k
G dV
dt
(3.79)
(3.80)
Nevertheless, the numerical costs for evaluating the stress stiffness sensitivities with the equations above are still high. Especially for large models, the
dependency of the elements on the displacement field causes many additional
calculation steps.
3.5.1
73
Simplifications
In order to reduce the computational costs for the evaluation of the buckling
load factor sensitivities, it might be helpful to make some simplifications.
P
P
P
(a) serial loading
(3.81)
P
tjbj
(3.82)
l
j =1
j tj
(3.83)
and taking their derivatives, it becomes obvious that they are independent on
a change of the element thicknesses.
N
t j
j
t j
tj +j =
tj +
bt2j
P
=0
bt j
(3.84)
Consequently, the derivatives with respect to the thickness become zero wherefore the stress stiffness matrix derivatives yield zero as well. The sensitivities
of the buckling load factors which are given in equation (3.78) are then simplified to
dK
d n
= T
n
n
dt
dt
(3.85)
74
Sensitivities
which reduces the computational costs drastically since the stress stiffness matrix has not to be considered anymore.
Taking a connection where the elements are loaded in parallel as shown in
Figure 3.10(b), the load P is now dependent on the thickness of the particular elements wherefore the stress stiffness matrix sensitivities are not zero
anymore and cannot be neglected. For most cases, the finite element models
contain a combination of serial and parallel connected elements wherefore the
simplification (3.85) cannot be employed without accepting an error. However,
it might be feasible to neglect the stress stiffness term if its contribution is
much smaller than the contribution arising from the stiffness matrix which
can be expressed with
Tn
dK
dK
n n Tn
n
dt
dt
(3.86)
If the contribution of the stress stiffness matrix is very small, it is unreasonable to calculated its expensive sensitivities, especially if used in a preliminary
design process, and the equation for the buckling load factor sensitivities is
simplified to
dK
d n
= T
n
n
dt
dt
(3.87)
Consider an isotropic plate in Figure 3.11(a) which is fully clamped on the left
side and simply supported on the other side. The plate is loaded with an uniform pressure load on the right hand side which leads to the first buckling
mode shown in Figure 3.11(b). For such a case, it can be assumed approximately that the elements are connected serially. Figure 3.12(a) represents the
75
sensitivity field where only the stiffness matrix derivatives are taken into account, according to equation (3.87), is shown in Figure 3.12(b).
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
76
Sensitivities
mi #
$2
n 1
1
F I i, j F I
n i =1 m i j =1
(3.88)
F I i, j indicates the failure index of the j th layer of the i th element and F I is the
average of all failure indices in the considered design space which can also be
expressed with equation (3.89).
mk
n
1
1
FI =
F I k,l
(3.89)
n k =1 m k l =1
The PSF can be understood as the variance of the failure indices of all m layers of all n elements. This function is differentiable when the applied failure
criterion is differentiable. The minus sign in front converts the minimization
77
3.6.1
The PSF sensitivities with respect to the element layer thicknesses can be built
by using the chain rule. They are given by
!
mi
dF I i, j dF I
n 1
1
d f PSF
=
2 F I i, j F I
(3.90)
dt
n i =1 m i j =1
dt
dt
where the derivative of the average failure index F I is defined by
m k dF I
n
1
dF I 1
k,l
=
dt
n k=1 m k l =1 dt
3.6.2
(3.91)
Failure Criteria
78
Sensitivities
In the following sections, the criteria of Tsai-Hill and Tsai-Wu are converted
to a strain-based matrix formulation. This simplifies the derivation of the failure index derivatives which are required for the sensitivities of the PSF in
equation (3.90) and makes their evaluation much more efficient.
Matrix Formulation of Tsai-Hill Criterion
The failure condition of the Tsai-Hill criterion [57, 166] is given by
2
2 2
1
1 2
2
12
( ) =
+
+
=1
2
X
Y
S
X
(3.92)
1 , 2 and 12 are the plane-stress components in material principal coordinates while X , Y and S are the corresponding material strength values. X and
Y has to be chosen depending on the stress state. If 1 is positive, X is set to
the tension stress limit in fiber direction X t and if it is negative, the compression stress limit X c is taken. The choice of Y is done analogically. The criterion
can be transformed into a matrix formulation
T
() = 12
STH 12
2X1 2
0
X2
1
1
0 .
S
TH = 2X 2
Y2
1
0
0
S2
(3.93)
(3.94)
(3.95)
This notation simplifies the derivation of the sensitivities and its implementation. Since the strength matrix S
consists only of material strength data,
TH
it is not dependent on the element layer thicknesses. Only the stress vector is
sensitive to a design change what makes the differentiation simple. In contrast
to the element stresses in material principal coordinates 12 , which have to be
calculated in the post-processing, the element strains in reference coordinates
x y are a direct result of the finite element analysis. Therefore, equation (3.93)
is converted into a strain dependent expression by applying a couple of transformations. For that purpose, the material principal strains 12 are mapped to
the corresponding stresses 12 applying the material stiffness matrix Q.
12 = Q 12
(3.96)
79
In a second step, the global material strains are transformed to the material
principal strains by applying a rotation matrix T (2.26) and a so-called Reutermatrix R (3.97).
12 = RT R 1 x y
(3.97)
(3.98)
This expression is usually used to calculate the stresses in the layers based on
the element strains arising from the finite element analysis. However, instead
of applying the transformation to the element strains, it can be used to transform the stress-based strength matrix into a strain based formulation. It is
carried out by a both-sided multiplication of the stress-based formulation S
TH
with the derived transformation (3.98).
T
1
STH = QRT R 1 S
TH QRT R
(3.99)
() = Txy STH x y .
(3.100)
Using the stress based formulation, the transformation (3.98) has to be carried out for every layer of every element. This is an unnecessarily high effort
especially when done in an iterative optimization process. The stress-based
, the transformation components Q, R and T and thus,
strength matrix S
TH
also the strain-based strength matrix STH are unique for a layer covering any
elements. Using the strain-based formulation, the strength matrix has to be
evaluated only once for all layers. It does not change during the optimization.
The failure indices can be determined employing the element strains. They
are a direct result of the nodal displacement u of the finite element evaluation
multiplied with the matrix B i containing the element shape functions i of
the i th element. Considering only in-plane deformations, the element strains
are unique for all layers of an element. For loadcases with bending, the strains
have to be calculated with equation (2.89) which leads to
x y,i j = B m,i + z j B b,i u
(3.101)
The choice of the position z j where the strains are evaluated has to be take by
the designer. Due to the linear distribution of the strains, the maximal values occur at the interface which with maximal distance to the neutral axis.
80
Sensitivities
However, also the mid-plane of each layer can be taken which provides an average value of the strains. The failure indices F I can be expressed combining
equation (2.51) and (3.100). For clarification, the equation is indexed with element and layer numbers i and j, respectively.
(3.102)
F I i, j = + i, j = + Txy,i j STH j x y,i j .
Using expression (3.102), the derivatives of the failure indices are given by
dF I i, j
dt
d xy,i j
T
x y,i j STH j dt
=
+
T
S
x y,i j TH j x y,i j
(3.103)
The evaluation of equations (3.90) to (3.103) is straight forward. However, obtaining the element strain derivatives is more expensive. They are depending on the nodal displacement derivatives as it is shown by differentiating
equation (3.101).
d x y,i j
dt
du
= B m,i + z j B b,i
dt
(3.104)
(3.105)
Also here, the failure condition is given by equation (2.47). The quadratic parts
Q and the linear parts L can be separated.
= Q + L
(3.106)
(3.107)
L = s
TW 12
(3.108)
and
81
F11
F12
=
S
TW
0
s
TW = F1
F12
F22
0
F2
0
0
F66
(3.109)
(3.110)
Q R 2 + L R = 1
(3.111)
and yields
R=
L +
+
4Q + 2L
2Q
1
FI
(3.112)
The failure index sensitivities of the j th layer of the i th element using the TsaiWu criterion are given by
dF I i, j
dt
1 dR i, j
R 2i, j dt
(3.113)
with
dR i, j
dt
dt
L i, j +
+
4Q i, j + 2L
2Q i, j
i, j
(3.114)
dt
d L i, j
= 2 T
x y,i STW j
= sTW j
d x y,i
d x y,i
dt
(3.115)
.
(3.116)
dt
dt
The strain derivatives are evaluated analogous to the Tsai-Hill formulation
and are given by equation (3.104). The failure index sensitivities using the
82
Sensitivities
y
x
(a)
(b) = 0
(c) = 45
(d) = 45
(e) = 90
Hoffman criterion [59] are derived identically. The only difference is the interaction term F12 which is given in 2.3.2.
A sample sensitivity field of the introduced PSF using the Tsai-Wu criterion is shown in Figure 3.13. It is a section of a plate with a circular hole
loaded with biaxial tension. The corresponding displacement field is displayed
in Figure 3.13(a). Again, the sensitivities are shown for orientation angles
(0/45/-45/90). They indicate that the strength can be increased maximally if
fibers are added in circumferential direction which is absolutely plausible. The
fields can be transferred into each other by performing a stepwise rotation of
45 . Differences between the fields arise from the irregular mesh.
83
?
d n
dt
Tn
?
dK
dt
?
dM
dt
6T Mn 6
n
MATLAB
84
Sensitivities
NASTRAN
du x
dt
MATLAB
?
=
1
K11
dr c
dt
dK11
dt
?
ux
3.8 Smoothing
The application of finite elements holds the problem that strong gradients in
the strain field may occur. The gradients are a result of the linear theory underlying the FEM-theory used here. They can usually be observed in regions near
load introduction points or structural inhomogeneities, e.g. sharp edges or material stiffness changes. Neighboring elements of loads or inhomogeneities may
be stressed several orders of magnitude higher than surrounding elements.
The same phenomenon can be observed for sensitivity fields. The sensitivities are connected to the loading of the finite elements wherefore the difference
between adjacent element may be high. This is problematic for an optimization
since the linear modeling overestimates the sensitivity of a few single design
3.8 Smoothing
85
variables to the objective function. Consequently, suboptimal or wrong solutions are result of the optimization process. To prevent the problem of strong
gradients, a smoothing of the sensitivity field is performed. The idea is inspired by the smoothing of pixels in image processing which is known as image
blurring.
Consider a vector g containing the sensitivities of all n elements of a layer.
g = [ g 1 , g 2 ,..., g n ]T
(3.117)
n1
1
0
n2
for
for
nl
ni e j
ni e j
e1
e1
..
.
(3.118)
en
= T
(3.119)
The entries contain the number of common nodes between the elements. A matrix multiplication of the element connectivity table with the sensitivity vector
yields a smoothened vector. However, the multiplication would also cause an
unwanted dilation of the vector. Thus, the connectivity table is normalized
such that the sum of each row is one. The normalized connectivity table is
then denoted by . The smoothing can be increased by raising the connectivity
table to the power of p. A value p of zero is equivalent to no smoothing
gsm = g
(3.120)
86
Sensitivities
10
IV
VI
5
I
7
II
12
11
III
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
10
0
0
0
1
0
0
11
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
12
0
0
0
0
0
1
I
II
III
(3.121)
IV
V
VI
As explained above, the ones indicate the nodes that belong to the element.
Thus, each row contains four entries with one (because of the four-noded elements) while the rest is zero. The connectivity table results of the multiplication with its transpose.
I
= T =
II
4
2
0
2
1
0
2
4
2
1
2
1
III
IV
VI
0
2
4
0
1
2
2
1
0
4
2
0
1
2
1
2
4
2
0
1
2
0
2
4
I
II
III
(3.122)
IV
V
VI
Diagonal entries express the number of common nodes of each element with
itself which is consequently the number of nodes of the element. Alternatively,
elements can be connected with two or one nodes, or they can be not connected
(only valid for the considered example). Naturally, this matrix is always symmetric because the connection of the nodes is two-way. The gradient smoothing
3.8 Smoothing
87
20
T
1
(3.123)
Thus, the sensitivity value of the second element is much higher than of the
others. The non-smoothened sensitivity is shown in Figure 3.17(a) where the
smoothing factor p is set to zero. Figure 3.17(b) shows the sensitivity field with
a smoothing factor of 1. The value of the second element has been decreased
while raising the values of the other elements. The values of the elements that
are connected to element II with two nodes have obviously a higher raise. The
smoothing with a factor of 2 is illustrated in Figure 3.17(c).
10
(a) p=0
(b) p=1
(c) p=2
88
Sensitivities
Chapter 4
tk
j
1
k =1
t k = 0 for t j = 0
(4.1)
Entering that expression into equations for the stiffness matrix (3.9-3.12), the
contribution of the k th layer vanishes. Thus, a ghost layer does affect neither
the stiffness nor the mass and has no influence on the structural behavior at
all. However, the sensitivities of a ghost layer with respect to a change of its
thickness are not equal to zero. They can be determined with the regular sensitivity equations that have been derived in Chapter 3. Considering the sensitiv-
90
ities of the membrane stiffness (3.16) or the transverse shear stiffness (3.17),
the thickness variable t l does not occur. This is also the case for bending
and coupling parts. The sensitivity there is dependent on the stiffness of the
overlying layers. Thus, the sensitivity value does not vanish even if the layer
thickness is specified to zero. This can be understood also intuitively. An infinitesimal change of the layer thickness, even if it is zero, does always change
the stiffness of the laminate. The same is valid for mass and geometric stiffness sensitivities. Ghost layers provide the possibility of obtaining information
where and how an existing laminated structure should be modified in order to
raise the objective function maximally. To do so, an arbitrary number of these
virtual layers with different materials or orientation angles can be placed at
the interfaces of a real laminate. The obtained sensitivities indicate areas and
layers that affect the objective function the most by applying an infinitesimal
change of thickness. Based on that information, the structure can be adapted
in order to improve the structural behavior. More explanations and applications of the Ghost Layer Concept are given in [144, 145].
The application of these ghost layers is illustrated on a simple example of a
vibrating plate. It is made of an isotropic material and clamped on three sides.
The lowest eigenmode of the plate is plotted in Figure 4.1. Goal of this exper-
91
sults for each of the four orientations are shown in Figure 4.2. Red colored
45
-45
90
Figure 4.2: Ghost layer sensitivities for the three side clamped plate
regions indicate high and blue regions low sensitivities. The highest values
thus occur at the edges of the 0 -layer. Slightly increased values can be observed and at the long clamped side of the 90 -layer. Thus, the frequency is
increased maximally by adding material of the corresponding orientation angle in these regions. For this simple example, it is intuitively comprehensible
that such reinforcements may be ideal. For more complex structures, the sensitivity field cannot be captured intuitively and it even may have a surprising
topology. Ghost layers or just parts of them can be turned into a real layer by
assigning a real thickness to them.
92
4.2 Parameterization
Based on the sensitivities, the thickness of the element layers can be changed
to find improved designs regarding the objective function. The thickness can
basically be set to arbitrary values. However, an important goal of the method
is to provide designs that can be manufactured without the need of making
major modifications. The thickness of the laminate plies is specified by the
semi-finished material provided by the suppliers. Any designs containing layer
thickness values varying from these materials are infeasible for production.
To avoid the existence of such solutions, the layer thickness is restricted to
predefined values. This is solved by specifying the layer thickness t ctrl based
on the material that will be used for the intended structure. Additionally, a
binary thickness control array t ctrl is introduced which decides if a layer is
existing or not. A zero entry sets the thickness to zero, while a unit value sets
it to the predefined material thickness. The total thickness is calculated by the
element-by-element product of these two arrays.
t i = tTctrl,i tmat,i
(4.2)
t1
t2
t3
t4
t5
t6
tm
tn
tmat
t ctrl
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
t1
t2
t5
tm
tn
93
i
wi
d fi
dt
(4.3)
Using this definition, the objective function f is thus a weighted sum of its
sub-objective functions f i . Figure 4.4 illustrates the composition of a search
direction of the two sensitivity vectors of f 1 and f 2 for a 2-dimensional design
space with design variables x1 and x2 . The contours and the maximal point
for both functions are plotted. The sensitivity or the gradient vector, respectively, at the current design point (CDP) stands perpendicular to the contour
lines. The search direction is built by a vector addition of the two sensitivities. Keep in mind that the search direction is only exact for the current design
point. A design change, which would cause a relocation of the current design
point, results in a change of the search direction. The search direction vector
CDP
df2
dt
df1
dt
f2max
s
t2
t1
f1max
94
The construction of the search direction or, the combination of different sensitivities respectively, can be chosen arbitrarily by the user. In the following, a
couple of possible weighting functions which are suitable for structural design
are discussed. However, the variety of potential weighting functions is wide.
If the lowest eigenfrequency of a structure is to be maximized, the
search direction can simply be defined as the sensitivity field of the lowest
eigenvalue 1 .
s=
d 1
dt
(4.4)
Thereby, the objective function is the lowest eigenvalue 1 and the weighting
factor is set to 1.
Alternatively, not only the lowest but the n lowest eigenvalues may be considered. The goal is thereby to increase the frequency of all n eigenmodes. The
search direction is
s=
n
i =1
wi
d n
dt
(4.5)
and the objective function is now the weighted sum of the lowest n eigenvalues.
In order to weight the lower eigenvalues more, the weighting factor w i may be
2
set to the reciprocal of the square of the corresponding eigenvalue (w i =
).
i
However, other choices such as a homogeneous weighting might be more adequate in some cases.
Another optimization objective could be to make eigenmodes drift apart from
each other in order generate a resonance-free band. Doing that for the first
and the second mode, the objective function may be
s=
d 1 d 2
+
dt
dt
(4.6)
While the first mode is minimized, the second mode is maximized which results
in a drifting of the modes. A second method to free a frequency band is the
usage of the function
wi =
1
thres i
(4.7)
The threshold eigenvalue thres splits the frequency band into a lower section,
where frequencies are minimized, and a upper section, where frequencies are
maximized. Eigenvalues being close to the threshold are weighted more in order to push them away. The corresponding weighting function characteristics
is shown in Figure 4.5. The same weighting functions may be used for buckling
95
thres
n
dW
wi
s=
dt
i =1
(4.8)
n
i =1
wi
i
d f PSF
dt
(4.9)
The weighting factor sets priority to loadcases that are more important. Also
a generation of multi-criteria sensitivities is feasible. For example, the lowest
eigenfrequency of a structure may be increased while simultaneously stress
peaks occurring for a specific loadcase are reduced. Such a search direction
may look like
s = w1
d 1
d f PSF
+ w f PSF
dt
dt
(4.10)
The choice of the weighting factors w1 and w f PSF is not trivial since the units
are different. The units can be eliminated by dividing the sensitivities with
the value of the corresponding objective function which changes the search
direction above to
s=
w1 d 1
w2 d f PSF
+
1 dt
f PSF dt
(4.11)
It will make sense to perform a test-run and check whether the structural
response is changing in an appropriate way. Design examples for the search
directions discussed above are shown in Chapter 6.
96
(a) Mode 2
(b) Mode 3
45
-45
90
97
weighting methods introduced above, the frequency of the second mode has
to be minimized while the third frequency is maximized. Thus the weighting
factors are set to w2 = 1 and w3 = +1. Figure 4.6(c) and 4.6(d) show the sensitivity field of the second and the third mode in Figures 4.6(a) and 4.6(b). The
superposed search direction is shown in Figure 4.6(e). An optimal design of
the particular modes may be found with experience and intuition, even if the
potential optimal reinforcements are not obvious without the sensitivity field.
However, finding good designs without the search direction information is almost impossible.
Taking advantage of the search direction field in Figure 4.6(e), a simple reinforced solution could look as shown in Figure 4.7. Corresponding to Table 4.1,
45
-45
90
basic design
reinforced design
f2 [Hz]
428.81
455.93
(+6.32%)
f3 [Hz]
629.36
852.12
(+35.39%)
98
f (t ctrl )
Subject to:
t ctrl
g< g
t ctrl {0,1}
The optimization continues as long as the termination criterion is not fulfilled. This is expressed with g < g. Thereby, g must be lower than a given
parameter g. This could for example be the model mass which may not exceed
a predefined value. Any other termination condition may be used, e.g. number of iteration loops, frequency, displacement, buckling load factor, margin
of safety and many more. However, it is not guaranteed that the termination criterion can be fulfilled during the adaption process. The solution space
is restricted to the provided set of ghost layers and not any solution can be
achieved.
Basically, there exists no gradient-based optimization algorithm to
solve binary problems. Common gradient-based optimization algorithms,
like Cauchys method of steepest descent [22] or the conjugated gradient
method [37] cannot be employed without modifications due to the binary characteristics. Bendse and Kikuchi [15, 14] avoid this problem by introducing a
density function which transforms the binary formulation of a topology problem into a continuous formulation. Their density function is continuous and
bounded between 0 and 1. To obtain more realistic solutions, they are pushed
towards the boundaries before terminating the optimization. This approach
has not been used here. The method holds the risk of getting structures with
scattered distribution of the layers, similar to a checkerboard. From the mechanical point of view, the checkerboard pattern could be interpreted as layers with reduced thickness whose stiffness is smeared over a certain area.
However, such solutions are inappropriate for manufacturing processes. Additionally, continuous design variables may cause problems using the hybrid
evaluation technique proposed in Section 3.7. The continuous variables will
unavoidably lead to a different layup in each element of the model. Thus, each
99
element needs its own laminate property card (PCOMP). This must be handled
in the MATLAB framework which has turned out to be computationally expensive.
Considering other classes of potential optimization algorithms to find solutions
of the above defined optimization problem, the stochastic algorithms [159] and
especially the Genetic Algorithms (GA)[60] have to be mentioned. Numerous
variations of stochastic algorithms exist that are able to solve the problem.
Even if some more sophisticated hybrid algorithms take advantage of gradient information, conventional stochastic ones do not make use of sensitivities
since the idea is based on random processes. However, the sensitivities provide
important information how an optimal design may look like. This information
should be employed in any cases. GA work only efficiently when evaluations of
the objective functions are executed in parallel what calls for a large number
of finite element software licenses. This is usually not given in an industrial
environment since licenses are expensive. Due to these facts, the usage of
stochastic algorithms has been avoided.
The method for the design of the locally reinforced structures, called Ghost
Layer Method (GLM), is far more simple and pragmatic. A flowchart of the
method is given in Figure 4.8. In the first step, the initial model is read and
stored in a database which is here MATLAB-based. With this information, the
evaluation of the sensitivities is carried out. Based on the obtained search
direction s, the thickness control array t ctrl is modified. The process is continued until the termination criterion stops the process.
The adaption process, which is beside the evaluation of the finite element
model and the sensitivities another important part of the design process, is
discussed here in detail. The search direction s points into the direction of
the best design improvements. Due to the binary characteristics of the design
variables, the design can however not be modified according to that direction.
Figure 4.9 illustrates the search direction and the vectors of the three potential
design changes (colored green). The thickness variables t1 or t2 , or both, can
be set to a value of 1 in order to find an improved design. However, not only the
direction but also the step size should be considered when modifying the design
variable array. If both variables t
1 and t 2 are set to 1 simultaneously, the step
size becomes bigger (in this case 2) than if only one variable is changed. If m
entries of the thickness control array t ctrl are adapted simultaneously, the step
size is m. The more design variables are changed within one iteration loop,
the bigger the distance to the new design point in the search space. However,
the search direction is a linear extrapolation of the respective objective function gradient at the current design point. Each change of a design variable has
an influence on the structural behavior of the model and on the search direc-
100
Initial Design
input-file
Reading
Storage
model
tctrl
Evaluation
Writer
input-file
FE-Evaluation
System Matrix
Sensitivities
Adaption
Process
output-file
Reader
f,u,,,K
dK, dM, dK
dt dt dt
Sensitivity Evaluation
NASTRAN
Termination
tctrl
Final Design
Figure 4.8: Flowchart of the automated design process
101
t2
1
s
t1
0
0
tion thus. If many design variables are changed simultaneously, the error due
to the linear assumption of the sensitivities will be bigger. To keep the error of
predicting the objective function characteristics with the search direction low,
a new evaluation of the gradient field should be performed after a modification
of one single design variable. This is possible, but many iteration loops are
needed until a final solution is obtained. Therefore, it makes sense to change a
group of design variables in one step before reevaluating the search direction.
However, it is not defined properly how many design variables are modified in
one iteration loop or before the search direction is reevaluated, respectively. A
sensitivity-threshold needs to be defined which decides whether a design variable is changed or not. The threshold can be chosen in many different ways.
A simple method is to set the threshold in percentage of the range between
minimal and maximal value occurring in the search direction. Consider again
the example of the three-edge clamped plate introduced above (see Figure 4.1).
The sensitivity values are plotted in Figure 4.2 and arranged in a histogram
(see Figure 4.10) which gives a visual impression of their distribution. The xaxis represents the range of the sensitivities and the y-axis gives the number
of elements which are within the sub-ranges. Each of the 20 bars quantifies
the number of sensitivities lying in the sub-range of 5% in a logarithmic scale.
Obviously, the bulk of the sensitivities are rather low. There exist a few element layers whose sensitivity values are high compared to the average value.
According to Figure 4.2, they can be located at the edges of the 0 -ghost layer.
Assuming that the lowest frequency is to be maximized with minimal mass addition, the plate has to be reinforced with a 0 -layer in these areas. A threshold
102
10
Counts
10
10
10
10
Sensitivity Range
Figure 4.10: Histogramm of the sensitivities of the three side clamped plate
has to be defined that decides which element layers are turned to real layers
by setting the thickness control variable to 1. Setting this threshold to, for example 5%, all elements that contribute to the very right bar of Figure 4.10 are
modified within one iteration loop. The resulting threshold is indicated with
the green line. Another visualization of the percentage-threshold is provided in
Figure 4.11. On the left side, the sensitivity fields of Figure 4.2 are plotted in
the same axis. Additional to the color map, the z-axis indicates the sensitivity
value of the corresponding element layer. The red colored peaks are part of the
0 -layer and the green colored bulge on the back edge belong to the 90 -layer.
The threshold is visualized with the white rectangle. In Subfigure 4.11(a), the
threshold is set to 10% between highest and lowest value. Obviously, only the
two corner elements of the 0 -layer exceed that value. These two elements can
also be identified by the very right bar in the histogram in Figure 4.10. The
corresponding plot on the right side (Subfigure 4.11(b)) shows the same picture from the top whereas all parts below the threshold surface are hidden.
This plot can be understood as the reinforcement layer that develops when the
threshold is set to 10%. To show the influence of the threshold choice on the
reinforcement design, the same plots are shown for a threshold of 50% (Subfigures 4.11(c) and 4.11(d)) and 80% (Subfigures 4.11(e) and 4.11(f)). The higher
the threshold, the bigger the reinforcement area generated within one iteration
loop. For the 80%-threshold, all four potential reinforcement layers are growing. As discussed, the step-size is thus large which may reduce the quality of
the solution. Considering eigenfrequency and buckling problems, there might
be the additional problem of mode switching. This means that the eigenvalue of
the originally second eigenmode drops below the eigenvalue of the first mode as
a consequence of the reinforcements. This might change the objective function
103
104
and the search direction completely. Making only a small adaption within one
iteration loop, the method is more robust and flexible to react in case of a mode
switch. The method of generating reinforcements with percentage-threshold
can be used analogously for a reduction of material. There, the threshold is
set in order to reduce the thickness of element layers with low sensitivities.
Recalling the distribution of the sensitivities in Figure 4.10, it becomes clear
that the percentage-threshold must be chosen differently since there are many
element layers within the lowest range. Such a distribution has by the way
been noted for any investigated examples. It is difficult to find a threshold that
picks an adequate number of elements to be reinforced. Therefore, it might be
better to choose another strategy when performing material reduction.
Instead of choosing a set of element layers by percentage of the sensitivity
range, a fixed number of design variables could be changed within one iteration loop. Consequently, the number of steps, until a certain amount of mass is
added, can be predicted easily. This might be helpful to estimate the potential
improvements reached with the reinforcements. The number has to be chosen
by the user dependent on the number of design variables. The choice is thus
different for each model. A drawback might be that the relative difference between the sensitivities is not taken into account wherefore element layers with
totally different sensitivities are treated equally.
4.4.1 Limitations
The sensitivities derived in Chapter 3 express the influence of an infinitesimal
thickness change in one layer of one finite element. These values are changed
when the structural model is changed and they have to be reevaluated after a
modification of the model. To keep the calculation cost reasonable, a few element layer thicknesses are adapted within one iteration loop which however
causes an error. The error is small as long as the layers to be adapted belong
to different elements. In case that the thicknesses of layers of one element are
changed simultaneously, the error may become significant. It is well known
that the bending stiffness increases by the thickness in the power of three.
The sensitivities catch the stiffness change caused by the thickening itself and
caused by the fact that overlying layers are pushed outwards. If thickening
two layers of an element simultaneously, the sensitivity of the lower does not
contain the information that the upper layer is contributing additional stiffness to the laminate due to the parallel-axis theorem. On the other hand, the
sensitivity of the upper layer does not catch that it is pushed outwards while it
changes its thickness. If the relative position in the laminate stack is changed,
the linear assumption of the sensitivities may change significantly. It is there-
4.5 Modeling
105
fore recommended to only change one layer thickness per element within one
iteration loop. This is of course the one with the highest sensitivity value of
the element. If not doing so, the resulting reinforcements may be sub-optimal.
This limitation can be neglected for models that are only loaded in-plane since
the stacking position does not influence the membrane stiffness.
4.4.2
Comment
4.5 Modeling
4.5.1
Model Requirements
As mentioned in the Section discussing the hybrid evaluation 3.7, the tool developed within this thesis is based on MATLAB and NASTRAN. While the complete management, optimization and the evaluation of sensitivities is carried
out in MATLAB, the finite element run is made with NASTRAN. All the comments concerning model requirements are made with respect to these two soft-
106
4.5 Modeling
107
the three-edge clamped plate introduced above (see Figure 4.1) is optimized using different mesh sizes. The plate may be reinforced with fiber orientations
(0/45/-45/90) and the process is stopped when a certain mass is reached. The
fine mesh is generated by splitting the elements of the rough mesh into four
smaller elements (see Figure 4.13).
The characteristics of the process are
600
500
400
300
200
100
0.052
rough
fine
0.054
0.056
0.058
0.06
0.062 0.064
Mass [kg]
0.066
0.068
0.07
Figure 4.12: Characteristics of the reinforcement generation process for different mesh size
shown in Figure 4.12. Obviously, the frequency calculated by using the fine
mesh is between 3.5 % and 6 % lower than the one obtained with the rough
mesh. The finite element model discretizes the fully continuous field into a
piecewise continuous field within each finite element. The resulting numerical error of the discretization can be reduced by using more elements. Thus,
models with more finite elements come closer to the exact solution. While the
initial solutions are equal in terms of laminate layup, the local laminate differs for the reinforced solutions due to the slightly different contours. Consequently, the error between the two meshes increases while reinforcements are
generated.
For the applied shell elements here, the shear locking effect may influence the
discrepancy between the two models as well. One of the basic assumptions of
the layered shell element is that the thickness is small compared to the other
dimensions. Even if this may be valid for the entire structure, the thickness
of a single element may be in the range of its other dimensions. Nevertheless, the single element has no knowledge about the surrounding elements.
Changing the in-plane dimensions of the shell element, the contribution of
bending stiffness and transverse shear stiffness does not change proportionally. Having thin elements, the contribution of the transverse shear stiffness is
108
(a) = 90 rough
(b) = 90 fine
(c) = 45 rough
(d) = 45 fine
(e) = 45 rough
(f) = 45 fine
(g) = 0 rough
(h) = 0 fine
Figure 4.13: Locally reinforced solution of a plate with different mesh size
4.5 Modeling
109
4.5.3
Physical Errors
110
the stress field becomes three-dimensional considering free corner effects. Extensive investigations have been made by Becker et al. [10] and Wigger and
Becker [179, 180, 181, 182] using both, analytical and numerical approaches.
In order to demonstrate the incomplete stress information near stiffness
inhomogeneities provided by shell elements, a simple comparison is presented
here. The considered laminate has a layup of (0)4 and a rectangular 0 reinforcement layer is attached at the top. The laminate is uniaxially loaded
(displacement controlled) and a cross section parallel to the loading path is
considered (see Figure 4.14 A-A). Using layered shell elements, the model pro-
y
x
Figure 4.14: Uniaxially loaded plate with local reinforcement layer
vides the stresses x , y and x y (all other components are assumed to be zero).
Figure 4.15(a) faces the stresses at the top basic layer arising from a shell
model (colored blue) and an equivalent model made with solid elements (colored red) over the distance of the considered cross section. At position x=0.5,
the reinforcement layer drops wherefore an inhomogeneity in the stiffness or
in the stress field, respectively, occurs. The stress x increases abruptly. While
the stress curve of shell model increases by leaps and bounds, the curve from
the solid model shows an extensive overshooting of the stresses. Similar overshooting can be noticed for the stresses y and x y . Consider that these two
components are very low if compared to x for the current loadcase. Analogously, Figure 4.15(b) shows the in-plane stresses in the reinforcement layers.
Also here, the curves of the different modeling manners do not closely match
the reinforcement layer drop. Qualitatively, the forces in the reinforcement
layer are transferred to the basic layer. Basically, it seems that the modeling with shell elements underestimates the stresses close to stiffness inhomogeneities.
However, also the ideal modeling with solid elements has some problems which
are discussed here briefly. Figure 4.16 shows the polished specimen photomicrographs of laminates which both contain a layer drop. They have been prepared within the Semesters thesis of B. Rentsch [140]. Figure 4.16(a) shows
the dropping of a middle layer which is embedded between two other layers.
Obviously, the fibers end rather abruptly. However, the entire space on the
4.5 Modeling
111
0.5
0.1
xy [MPa]
400
200
0
xy
10
y [MPa]
x [MPa]
600
5
0
5
0
AA
0.5
0.1
0
AA
0.5
AA
100
0.5
AA
xy [MPa]
200
0
0
xy
y [MPa]
x [MPa]
300
0.1
10
0
0.5
0.2
0
AA
0.5
AA
Figure 4.15: Stress distribution for shell modeling (blue) and solid modeling
(red)
right side is filled with matrix material. This material forms a bevel which is
roughly indicated with the red lines. A similar situation can be observed for
an outer layer shown in Figure 4.16(b). The polished specimen is embedded in
epoxy which is almost identical to the laminate matrix material. Thus, the contrast between the two components is low and the layer boundaries have been
traced with red lines.
Even if the matrix material is soft compared to the fibers, the emerging bevel
may have a significant impact on the stress distribution. It helps to pass the
forces over the reinforcement layer. Alternatively, the bevel can be understood
as component that reduces the stiffness discontinuity which leads to a reduction of the stress concentrations. If modeling a layer drop with solid elements,
this should be considered in order to get realistic results. Figure 4.17(a) illustrates an ideal modeling as it has been made for the results presented above.
The bevel can simply be modeled adding a wedge element of the matrix material which is sketched in Figure 4.17(b). The results of the different modeling
methods are compared in Figure 4.18. The overestimation of the stresses ob-
112
tained by the ideal model (red curve) is evident for the normal stresses x , y
and z . The stresses occurring when modeling with bevel (green curve) are significantly lower. In the far field, the two modeling methods of course provide
4.5 Modeling
113
0.5
4
2
0
2
0
AA
xy
10
0
yz
0.5
AA
zx
0.5
0
0.5
0
10
zx [MPa]
0.5
AA
yz [MPa]
xy [MPa]
0.5
AA
0.1
0.1
0
10
z [MPa]
400
200
0
y [MPa]
x [MPa]
600
0.5
AA
0
10
20
30
0
0.5
AA
Figure 4.18: Stress distribution for ideal modeling (red) and modeling with
bevel (green)
identical results.
The underestimation of the stresses using shell elements is obviously not as
high as expected when considering Figure 4.15. Nevertheless, the stress peaks
close to the layer drop still exist and have to be considered in the analysis. Performing a preliminary design, which the proposed method has been developed
for, the results of shell elements may however be adequate. Keep in mind that
the errors have been discussed on the example of a simple unidirectional laminate. Having a more complicated layup, the stress distribution may be more
complex. However, the stress peaks will occur for any cases.
114
Chapter 5
Verification
Within this chapter, the proposed Ghost Layer Method (GLM) for the design of
locally reinforced structures is verified by comparing its predictions of optimum
design solutions with those of established methods. The latter can solve a
limited range of suitable sample problems which are recalled and used in the
following sections.
The finite element model for the verification of the GLM consists of 100
quadratic four-noded shell elements which are stringed together as shown in
Figure 5.1. Each has a side length of 0.01 so that the entire length of the
116
Verification
1
0.01
b
t pl y
0.01
1E-4
E pl y
1E12
pl y
1000
E core
1E9
core
1E-9
L
h
Ply / Facesheet
Core
2
x2
EI z (x)
2 v(x, t)
x2
= (x)
2 v(x, t)
t2
+ q(x)
(5.1)
where v(x, t) are the lateral deflections dependent on the position x and the
time t. The general differential equation for a bar can be written as
E A(x)
u(x, t)
x
= (x)
2 u(x, t)
t2
+ p(x)
(5.2)
where the unknown axial displacements are denoted with u(x, t). In both equations, (x) is the specific structural weight or the mass per unit length. q(x)
and p(x) are the forces per unit length in lateral and axial direction. The cross
117
section area and the area moment of inertia are denoted with A(x) and I z (x) respectively. Here, only rectangular cross sections are considered wherefore they
can be expressed as a function of the thickness t(x) and the constant width b.
(5.3)
A(x) = bt(x)
I z (x) =
bt(x)
12
(5.4)
Searching for beam or bar structures with optimal thickness distributions t(x),
A(x), I z (x) and (x) become a function of location x. In this case, it is generally not possible to find an analytical solution. However, there exist some approaches for specific loadcases and geometries. Prager and Taylor [134] formulated so-called optimality criteria for different problems of optimal structural
design aiming for minimal weight. They claim that the specific stiffness s(x),
which is in case of a bar the product of Youngs modulus E and cross section
area A(x), and in case of a bending beam the product of Youngs modulus E
and the area moment of inertia I z (x), must be a linear function of the specific
structural weight (x). Considering a bar structure, this requirement is always
fulfilled since
s(x)bar = E A(x) A(x)bar
(5.5)
(5.6)
and
However, for beam structures this relation is not given in general. Only if
assuming sandwich structures with rectangular cross sections and the core
thickness h much bigger than the facesheet thickness t (h t), the condition
is approximately valid. Using the parallel axis theorem, the area moment of
inertia I z (x) and consequently the specific stiffness s(x) become a linear function of the cross section area A(x) of the facesheets.
t
(x) =
shbeam
1
Eh2 A(x) f acesheet A(x) f acesheet
2
(5.7)
Consequently, the specific structural weight becomes proportional to the specific stiffness as well.
beam (x) A(x) f acesheet
(5.8)
The analytical solutions of Prager and Taylor are only feasible to verify the
method for membrane loads. If considering bending beams, the analytical solutions assume a sandwich layup in which the governing stresses arise from
the membrane loads as well.
118
Verification
A couple of publications [119, 75, 121, 76, 77] address the problem of finding
beams with variable thickness distribution without restrictions to sandwiches.
However, explicit solutions are only found by taking advantage of numerical
methods. In order to find general beam solutions with variable thickness distribution for bending loadcases, a finite element model with beam elements
has been implemented. Stiffness, mass and stress stiffness matrices have been
taken from Cook et al. [28] and are given in Appendix C. According to the shell
finite element model for the verification, the reference beam model consists of
100 elements. The thickness t of each beam element is taken as design variable. A pre-implemented optimization algorithm of MATLAB [112], namely an
interior-point algorithm, has been used to find the optimal thickness distribution. A more detailed explanation of the algorithm is given in [19, 20, 176].
In the following sections, the obtained solutions with the GLM are verified comparing them to analytically and numerically derived solutions. For
sandwich beams and bars, the analytical solutions of Prager and Taylor are
employed. This approach provides solutions that are guaranteed to be globally
optimal. Loadcases with non-negligible bending loads are compared to the numerically determined solution. It is assumed that these solutions are global
optima as well but this can however not be proved.
2 v
x2
= M b (x)
(5.9)
The cross section and the area moment of inertia I z (x) respectively are assumed to be functions of the location x. Prager and Taylor [134] formulate
an optimality criterion for the elastic design for maximum stiffness of sandwich structures which is reformulated in [133]. The specific stiffness s(x) for a
sandwich beam is given by equation (5.7). The specific structural weight (x)
becomes a linear function of s(x) wherefore minimizing the weight means minimizing the integral of s(x).
(5.10)
m = C s(x)dx
With this assumption, it is proved that the weight of a sandwich beam structure for a given deflection is minimal if
M b (x) M b (x)
(EI z (x))2
= const.
(5.11)
119
Thereby, M b denotes the bending moment and M b the bending moment caused
by a dummy unit load. This optimality condition can also be used to find a
design with a prescribed weight and a minimal deflection. The mass, or the
volume respectively, is taken as side constraint and assumed to be constant.
The total volume of both facesheets is given by
V0 = 2
L
0
[b t(x)] dx = 2L b t0
(5.12)
5.2.1
Analytical Solution
Consider a sandwich cantilever beam which is clamped on the left side and
loaded with a single force F on the right side as shown in Figure 5.2. The
t
F
E , b, L
(5.13)
In order to be able to apply the optimality criterion (5.11), a point x where the
deflection v(x) is considered must be defined. Here, the deflection at the right
end of the beam x = L is taken. This is done by applying a bending moment
caused by a dummy unit force at x = L which is
M b (x) = (L x)
(5.14)
120
Verification
where q(x) is the distributed load. Because a single load is applied here, the
potential of external forces is
(5.16)
W = Fv(L)
F (L x)2
(E I z (x))2
=C
(5.17)
where C is a constant parameter. Solving this equation for the area moment of
inertia I z (x) and using the parallel axis theorem leads to
I z (x) =
F
C
1
2
2
Lx
h
=2
bt(x)
E
2
(5.18)
F
t(x) =
C
1
2
Lx 1 2 2
E 2b h
(5.19)
2
EV0
2
4
L
h
(5.20)
(5.21)
(5.22)
(5.23)
121
V0 (L x)
x
=
2t
1
0
L
b L2
(5.24)
The comparison between the analytical and the numerical results obtained
with the GLM is illustrated in Figure 5.3. The green layers represent the sand-
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
FLx2
2bEh2 t0
(5.25)
vmax = v(L) =
FL3
2bEh2 t0
(5.26)
The numerical values are listed in Table 5.2. The stiffness of the GLM solution is slightly higher then the analytical solution but still in an acceptable
122
Verification
GLM
vmax
0.914 103
vmax
1.000 103
(+9.47%)
vmax
1.228 103
(+34.47%)
analytical
reference
range. The deviation is caused by the discretization of the finite element model
and can be reduced by refining the mesh size. The maximal deflection of the
mass-equivalent reference finite element solution with constant thickness t0 is
significantly higher than the optimized solution.
Numerical Solution
Assuming a full cross-section without core, the bending becomes more important. Thus, a numerical optimization with beam elements has been performed
according to the explanations in Section 5.1.2. In contrast to the sandwich example above, the total reference thickness t0 is set to 20 t pl y . The obtained
solutions are shown in Figure 5.4. Here, the green layers mark the fixed initial layers that are needed to prevent numerical problems of the finite element
model. The solutions are almost identical and the deviation of the maximal de-
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
123
GLM
vmax
29.948 103
vmax
29.703 103
(0.82%)
vmax
50.000 103
(+66.96%)
BEAM FEM
reference
Table 5.3: Numerical results for full cross section and loadcase 1
5.2.2
Analytical Solution
In order to compare the finite element designs with a more complex thickness
distribution which is not simply linear, the same calculations are done for another sandwich beam with a uniform distributed load q= FL (see Figure 5.5).
The bending moment caused by the distributed load is
t
q= F
L
E , b, L
M b (x) =
q
(L x)2
2L
(5.27)
M b (x) = (L x)
(5.28)
However, the GLM designs with respect to the potential of external forces
which is here
W=
F
L
L
0
v(x)dx
(5.29)
124
Verification
q
2L
(L x)3
(E I z (x))2
=C
(5.30)
I z (x) =
1
2
q
2L
1
(L x) 2
= h2 bt(x)
E
2
(5.31)
In contrast to the loadcase with a single force, the optimal thickness distribution is not linear anymore.
t(x) =
q
2L
1
2
3
(L x) 2 1 2 2
E
2b h
(5.32)
t(x) =
5(L x) 2 V0
5
4b L 2
5
x 32
t0 1
2
L
(5.34)
The thickness distribution arising from the GLM and the analytical solution
are shown in Figure 5.6. Again, they match quite well even if the objective
functions are not exactly the same. The deflection along the beam axis is
4Lq 2x2 1 Lx + Lx 5 4 1 Lx + 2L2 1 + 1 Lx
(5.35)
v(x) =
75bEh2 t0
and the maximal deflection on the right side of the beam is
vmax = v(L) =
4L3 q
25bEh2 t0
(5.36)
The deviation between analytical and GLM solution is in the range of the first
example.
0.2
125
0.4
0.6
0.8
vmax
0.294 103
vmax
0.320 103
(+9.03%)
vmax
0.464 103
(+57.96%)
analytical
reference
Numerical Solution
The optimal thickness distribution for a full cross section beam with distributed load seems to be linear (see Figure 5.7). Also this solution is found
quite exactly using the GLM. The numerical deviations are in the same range
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
126
Verification
for x = L) wherefore material can be reduced and transferred to the more highly
loaded right side.
GLM
vmax
8.635 103
vmax
9.299 103
(+7.68%)
vmax
18.751 103
(+117.14%)
BEAM FEM
reference
Table 5.5: Numerical results for full cross section and loadcase 2
In summary, the obtained solutions with the GLM are very similar to the
analytically derived optimal solutions. The deviation between the methods is
in an acceptable range and arises primarily from the discretization of the finite
element model. Compared to the numerical solutions with bending load, the
deviation is small. In all examples, the maximal deflection can be reduced
significantly by taking advantage of a variable thickness distribution.
5.4 Eigenfrequency
127
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
5.4 Eigenfrequency
The GLM for the eigenfrequecy optimization is verified by using a bar with a
fixed end and a lumped mass M on the free end according to Figure 5.9. All
b
t
E , b, L ,
u(x, t)
2 u(x, t)
E A(x)
(5.37)
= A(x)
x
x
t2
Assuming a harmonic vibration
sin( t)
u(x, t) = u(x)
(5.38)
(5.39)
128
Verification
u(x)
2
A(x)
=0
+ 2 A(x)u(x)
x
x
c
(5.40)
(5.41)
Using the Rayleighs principle it is shown that a design reaches maximum frequency if equation (5.42) is fulfilled.
b2 2
C2
u (x)2 =
(5.42)
2
2
Herein, e denotes the specific strain energy stored in a structural element of
unit stiffness that has been subjected to the strain . The parameters b and C
are constants and u(x) is the axial displacement. In case of a bar, the strain
energy per unit stiffness e is half the square of the strains.
e (q (x))
1
(5.43)
u(x)2
2
Here, the parameter b is set to the inverse of the wave propagation speed in
the bar c. The optimality condition therefore requires that
e(x) =
u(x)2
u(x)2 = C2
(5.44)
c2
Using the boundary condition u(0) = 0, the differential equation yields
x
c
(5.45)
u(x) = C sinh
c
This solution is then substituted in to the basic differential equation (5.40).
#
x $ 2
x
c
A(x) Ccosh
(5.46)
+ 2 A(x) C sinh
=0
x
c
c
c
x $
#
x $
x
A(x) #
sinh
cosh
(5.47)
+ A(x)
+ A(x) sinh
=0
x
c
c
c
c
c
x
x
A(x)
cosh
+ 2A(x) sinh
=0
(5.48)
x
c
c
c
5.4 Eigenfrequency
129
Solving the differential equation (5.48) for the unknown area A(x) leads to
A(x) =
const
cosh2 cx
(5.49)
An additional boundary condition is formulated with the equilibrium of momentum on the right side of the bar.
= A(L)(L)
M u(L)
2
(5.50)
(5.51)
The variable area A(x) design for maximum fundamental frequency is therefore
cM sinh cL cosh cL
(5.52)
A(x) =
E cosh2 cx
and the variable thickness t(x) assuming a constant width b is
cM sinh cL cosh cL
t(x) =
Eb cosh2 cx
(5.53)
Calling for volume constancy, the implicit equation for the angular frequency
can be written as
1 L
c2 M
L
2L
t(x)dx =
sinh
(5.54)
tanh
t 0 () =
L 0
2EbL
c
c
This equation cannot be rearranged to an explicit expression of . However, it
can be used to determine the frequency numerically or graphically.
Two different bars with variable thickness for maximal fundamental frequency have been designed using the GLM. In order to ensure resolvability of
the finite element equation system, two layers are predefined which are assumed to be fixed. The mass is constrained to 0.02+ M which corresponds to
a beam with a constant thickness of 20 t pl y . In the first loadcase, a lumped
mass M of 0.02 has been used which is equal to the bar mass of the final design and therefore contributes half of the total mass. Taking advantage of
relation (5.54), the corresponding angular frequency can be determined. This
can be done either numerically or graphically as it is shown in Figure 5.10.
Entering the determined value of in equation (5.53) yields the optimal thickness distribution for the current loadcase. The analytical and the GLM solution are shown in Figure 5.11. The predefined fixed layers are colored green.
Verification
Reference Thickness t0
130
x 10-3
2
1.5
1
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
Angular Frequency
2.8
3
4
x 10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Figure 5.11: Thickness distributions for a bar with lumped mass M = 0.02
GLM
29.196 103
27.871 103
(4.54%)
28.520 103
(2.32%)
analytical
reference
Table 5.6: Numerical results for a bar with lumped mass M = 0.02
Obviously, the correlation between analytical and GLM solution is high. Due
to the high amount of additional mass on the right side, the thickness relief is
only small. The numerical results are listed in Table 5.6. Again, the solution
obtained with the GLM is slightly stiffer than the analytical solution. However, comparing the optimized solution with a reference finite element design
with constant thickness t0 , the frequency is not increased significantly. The
5.4 Eigenfrequency
131
Reference Thickness t0
relatively large lumped mass M limits the potential for improvement. If the
lumped mass M is much greater then the mass of the bar, the solution with
constant thickness becomes optimal.
In the second loadcase, the lumped mass M is reduced to 0.004 in order for
the self-weight of the bar becoming more important. Theoretically, the lumped
mass could even be removed. However, the optimal design would consequently
concentrate the mass to the very left end of the bar and the thickness on the
right side would be reduced to zero. Such a solution is infeasible for the FEM
since the zero thickness causes a singularity. The angular frequency is again
determined using the graph in Figure 5.12. Also in this case, the correlation
x 10-3
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
Angular Frequency
4.8
5
x 104
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Figure 5.13: Thickness distributions for a bar with lumped mass M = 0.004
to the first example, the thickness relief is apparent. This results also in a
higher frequency compared to the reference finite element solution (see Table
5.7) with constant thickness t0 .
132
Verification
GLM
51.073 103
48.841 103
(4.37%)
43.553 103
(14.72%)
analytical
reference
Table 5.7: Numerical results for a bar with lumped mass M = 0.004
Numerical Solution
Here as well, the example above considers no bending load wherefore a second
loadcase is calculated. The first fundamental frequency of a hinged full-crosssection beam with an eccentric lumped mass is maximized (see Figure 5.14).
The reference thickness t0 is set to 20 t pl y which yields a structural mass
of 0.02. The eccentric mass, which is also 0.02, causes an unsymmetric mode
which results in an unsymmetric thickness distribution. The numerical sob
t
E , b, L ,
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
133
GLM
156.462
157.014
(+0.35%)
136.094
(13.02%)
BEAM FEM
reference
Table 5.8: Numerical results for beam with eccentric lumped mass M = 0.02
analytical solutions, and numerical beam solutions respectively, and the solutions obtained with the GLM is also high for dynamic problems.
(5.55)
To verify the presented method for the optimal design of structures for buckling
load, a simple hinged sandwich beam loaded with an axial force F is considered
(see Figure 5.16).
t
F
E , b, L
Analytical Solution
Solving this differential equation (5.55) and using the boundary conditions for
the hinges (v(0) = 0 and v(L) = 0) yields the deflection
u(x) =
C
x (L x)
2
(5.56)
134
Verification
(5.57)
M b (x) = Pv(x)
(5.58)
whereas s(x) is the product of E and I z (x). The combination of these equations
yields
P
1
(5.59)
x (L x) = Eh2 bt(x)
2
2
which can be solved for t(x).
P
(5.60)
x (L x)
t(x) =
Eh2 b
The thickness t(x) is dependent on the critical P. Calling for volume constancy
L
(5.61)
V 0 = bLt0 = b
t(x)dx
s(x) =
P=
P
(5.63)
F
The thickness distribution of the considered sandwich beam is illustrated in
Figure 5.17. Also for the buckling case, the agreement between the solution
obtained with the GLM and the analytical solution is good. The numerical results are shown in Table 5.9. Obviously, the buckling load factors for analytical
and GLM are almost equal. The buckling load factor of the reference solution
is significantly lower.
=
Numerical Solution
For the verification of a buckling loadcase with bending influence, a full cross
section beam which is clamped on the left side and hinged on the right side
is loaded with an axial force. The chosen boundary conditions lead to an unsymmetric bending moment whereas the thickness distribution will be unsymmetric as well. The obtained thickness distributions are shown in Figure 5.18.
Also in this case, the two solutions coincide fairly well. The deviation of the
buckling load factors is only 1.74%.
135
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
3.075 103
3.000 103
(2.44%)
2.566 103
(16.55%)
analytical
reference
b
F
E , b, L
187.834
191.107
(+1.74%)
134.629
(28.33%)
BEAM FEM
reference
Table 5.10: Numerical results for clamped-hinged beam with single axial force
136
Verification
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Figure 5.19: Thickness distribution for clamped-hinged beam with single axial
force
5.6 Strength
It is difficult to prove analytically that a structure is optimal with respect to
strength or not. Having isotropic materials, the optimality criterion of fully
stressed design is usually used [113, 142, 52]. It postulates that a structure
has an optimal material distribution in terms of strength if the stresses are
distributed homogeneous through the material. If the stresses reach the limit
at every point of the structure, material can be reduced nowhere without causing failure. This criterion appears plausible but there exists no mathematical
proof for general validity. Analytical solutions with a fully stressed design are
those of the sandwich cantilever beam for minimal compliance in Section 5.2.
There, the stresses in the facesheets are constant. However, such solutions
are for isotropic materials. Here, only strength criteria for composites, namely
Tsai-Hill and Tsai-Wu have been implemented. The method thus cannot be
verified with respect to strength using an analytical solution as done above.
5.7 Discussion
The verification examples above demonstrate that the GLM is able to approximately find solutions which are proved to be optimal. The analytically derived
solutions and the solutions obtained with the GLM are almost identical except for the difference caused by the discretization errors. The GLM has been
shown to reproduce the optimum solutions which are analytically described for
sample structures made of isotropic materials. Analytical solutions for problems including the parameters of anisotropic layered materials, with which the
GLM could be verified, are not available.
Chapter 6
Laminate Applications
This chapter demonstrates the presented method for a selection of applications
with laminates. The first example demonstrates an eigenfrequency optimization of a laminated panel with large cutouts. Different objective functions such
as maximization of the eigenfrequencies but also more complex schemes for
finding search directions for the objective of splitting eigenfrequencies are applied. Nodal displacement sensitivities are used to design a compliant grabber.
A third example explores the method for buckling applications for two plate
geometries. Consequently, the method is applied on a strength problem of a
plate with a centered hole. Stress concentrations are reduced with local reinforcements which results in a significantly increased strength. The chapter
is terminated with the optimization of an automotive component regarding to
stiffness and mass.
138
Laminate Applications
400
60
120
30
150
300
100
50
30
80
y
x
50
=0
60
200
139
(a) f1 = 47.45 Hz
(b) f2 = 76.63 Hz
(c) f3 = 82.00 Hz
(d) f4 = 119.61 Hz
(e) f5 = 137.03Hz
(f) f6 = 188.14 Hz
Figure 6.2: Lowest six eigenmodes of the basic panel with corresponding freqiencies
lite and launcher, while the mass should be as low as possible. To increase
the lowest eigenfrequency, only the sensitivity field of lowest eigenmode using
equation (3.53) is considered. The search direction s thus yields
s=
d 1
dt
(6.1)
A similar example with a slightly different initial configuration has been presented in [145]. The change of the first six frequencies during the patch genera-
140
Laminate Applications
300
Eigenfrequency [Hz]
250
200
150
100
50
0.29
0.3
0.31
0.32
0.33
0.34
Mass [kg]
0.35
0.36
0.37
0.38
tion process is shown in Figure 6.3. Even if the modes 2 to 6 are not considered
here, they increase as a consequence of the stiffening regarding to mode 1. Notice that the first and the second eigenfrequency merge during the process.
The first frequency becomes slightly larger than the second one. Since the algorithm does not take care of the mode shape, the structure is reinforced considering the second mode until it is again higher than the first one. This alternation can be understood as a mode switch. Since the iteration steps are chosen small, it seems that the frequencies are coinciding. However, the two mode
shapes are different. The terminal solution is reached after 457 iterations. The
lowest frequency of the locally reinforced panel is raised to 104.42 Hz which is
120.05% higher than the frequency of the initial layup. Thereby, the mass was
increased by only 34.29% (which is given by the termination criterion defined
above). A complete overview of the results is given in Table 6.1. The local reinDesign
init
opt
opt ( % init )
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
47.45
104.42
120.05
76.63
104.65
36.58
82.00
153.60
87.32
119.61
206.51
72.65
137.03
213.09
55.51
188.14
260.39
38.40
0.2870
0.3854
34.29
141
forcements for the four different orientation angles are shown in Figure 6.4. It
is obvious that such contours could never be found intuitively. There are only
a few areas with slightly scattered reinforcements which have to be mitigated
manually. However, the connecting areas prevail wherefore manufacturing of
the design solution is feasible. The advantage of locally reinforced laminates
(a) = 90
(b) = 45
(c) = 45
(d) = 0
142
Laminate Applications
frequency-to-mass ratios than fully covering designs. For all six fundamental
frequencies, the maximum value is reached before all the potential reinforcement material is used. This is especially the case for the first frequency since
this is the considered objective function. This effect may be smaller for higher
modes since they have many local deformations. However, higher modes are
often not important for structural design. Another interesting phenomenon
can be observed in Figure 6.5. The same first frequency occurring at the fully
covering design can be reached by using only 32.75% of the potential reinforcement material which implies that much of the material of the fully covering
solution is useless.
450
f
400
Eigenfrequency [Hz]
350
f
300
250
max
6
max
max f5
4
max
3
200
f
150
f
100
max
f
1
eq
max
2
50
0
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Mass [kg]
0.5
0.55
Figure 6.5: Frequency characteristic: maximization of the lowest eigenfrequency; complete run
n 1 d
n
2
dt
i =1 n
(6.2)
143
The purpose of this approach is to weight the lower frequencies higher so that
they are raised more. The effect of this weighting is shown in Figure 6.6. In
300
Eigenfrequency [Hz]
250
200
150
100
50
0.29
0.3
0.31
0.32
0.33
0.34
Mass [kg]
0.35
0.36
0.37
0.38
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
47.45
97.80
106.11
76.63
127.13
65.90
82.00
174.95
113.36
119.61
222.20
85.77
137.03
231.54
68.98
188.14
298.13
58.46
0.2870
0.3854
34.29
144
Laminate Applications
(a) = 90
(b) = 45
(c) = 45
(d) = 0
d 2 d 3
+
dt
dt
(6.3)
The frequency characteristics during the optimization are plotted in Figure 6.8.
It is obvious, that the second and the third frequency drift apart from each
other. Compared to the initial solution, for which the eigenfrequencies are
distributed regularly, the reinforced structure has a resonance-free band between 79.15 Hz and 208.80 Hz. This opens new possibilities for the design of
145
300
Eigenfrequency [Hz]
250
200
150
100
50
0.29
0.3
0.31
0.32
0.33
0.34
Mass [kg]
0.35
0.36
0.37
0.38
the panel. It may be interesting for applications where a source excites the
structure at a specific frequency. Usually, the structure is designed to push all
eigenfrequencies above the excitation frequencies. However, this may generally require more stiffening which increases the weight. If there is no reason
allowing the eigenfrequencies to be below the excitation frequency, this may be
an alternative. Recalling the objective of the optimization, it must be noticed
that the second eigenfrequency is not dropping (it is even rising by 3.29%).
This is caused by the fact that the design process here only allows to add material. While the reinforcements are generated, the second frequency drops since
the reinforcement material contributes to the mass but not to the stiffness of
mode 2. Nevertheless, with the growing of the reinforcements, the eigenfrequency starts to rise again. There is also the possibility to enable the process
to reduce material of the basic plate as it is shown later. A complete overview
of the results is given in Table 6.3 and the reinforcement contours are shown
in Figure 6.9. The resulting reinforcement patterns are complex and cannot
Design
init
opt
opt ( % init )
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
47.45
71.44
50.56
76.63
79.15
3.29
82.00
208.80
154.63
119.61
211.27
76.63
137.03
226.12
65.02
188.14
267.52
42.19
0.2870
0.3854
34.29
146
Laminate Applications
(a) = 90
(b) = 45
(c) = 45
(d) = 0
147
might be different.
300
Eigenfrequency [Hz]
250
200
f = 124.79 ... 239.45 Hz
150
100
50
0.29
0.3
0.31
0.32
0.33
0.34
Mass [kg]
0.35
0.36
0.37
0.38
n
1
d n
i=1 i thres dt
(6.4)
Eigenfrequencies that are below the threshold f thres are minimized and frequencies above are maximized. The closer a frequency comes to f thres the
higher is the weighting factor. The reinforcement generation process has been
carried out setting the threshold frequency to f thres =80 Hz. Consequently, the
threshold is between the second and the third mode. In contrast to the optimizations above, the process is allowed to reduce material of the basic plate. It
must be taken care that no regions occur where all layers are removed. This
would of course result in numerical problems in the finite element run. To
avoid that, the 90 -layer of the basic laminate is locked which means that it
cannot be reduced. It is the most important layer for the third mode so that
the result is falsified minimal. Since material can be reduced as well, it may
be impossible to reach a given weight. The termination criterion has been set
manually to 260 iterations. Figure 6.11 shows the characteristics of the eigenfrequencies during the process. In contrast to the examples above, the mass
148
Laminate Applications
240
220
Eigenfrequency [Hz]
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
0.286
0.288
0.29
0.292
Mass [kg]
0.294
0.296
0.298
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
47.45
42.06
-11.37
76.63
51.43
-32.88
82.00
131.08
59.85
119.61
175.20
46.47
137.03
193.45
41.18
188.14
224.715
19.44
0.2870
0.2957
34.29
Table 6.4: Result table: frequency splitting with threshold [80 Hz]
The presented examples demonstrate the great potential of locally reinforced laminates considering vibration problems. By choosing an appropriate
search direction, the frequency characteristics of laminated structures can be
designed specifically. The reinforcement contours are complex and cannot be
found intuitively which emphasizes the value of the presented method for practical design.
149
with
re f
re f
re f
re f 2
= y1 + v1 y2 + v2
(6.5)
Consequently, the vertical distance between the two points is minimized. Only
36 iterations are needed until the best solution in terms of minimal distance
between the reference points is obtained. The solution for each reinforcement
layer and for the thickness sum of all layers is shown in Figure 6.12. It re-
45
-45
90
(a) Ply-by-ply
150
Laminate Applications
(see Figure 3.8(b)), it becomes obvious that the reference points on the right
side are now getting closer to each other. Table 6.5 summarizes the relative
y-displacement per unit force between the two reference points. It emphasizes
that the reference points approach each other for the reinforced configuration.
While a homogeneous material cause the reference points to diverge, the specific distribution of local anisotropies reverses the relative displacement. The
Design
basic
reinforced
re f
u y /F [mm/kN]
0.932
-0.106
151
200
300
Figure 6.14: Geometry, load and first buckling mode of a rectangular plate
optimization is to reinforce the structure locally in order to double the buckling
stability ( cr = 2). The allowed orientations of the reinforcement layers are 0,
60 and -60 degrees. Such a layup is known as the quasi-isotropic layup with
minimal number of layers needed. It assures that the structure can be stiffened
in every direction. All reinforcement layers are attached on both sides which
provides a solution with symmetric laminate. For each iteration loop, the element layers within the highest 10% are adapted and a smooth factor of 2 is
applied. The run is terminated after 42 iterations. According to Section 3.5,
the sensitivities are evaluated with the stiffness matrix only. The characteris-
2.5
1.5
0.5
0.185
0.19
0.195
0.2
Mass [kg]
0.205
0.21
Figure 6.15: Characteristics of the first and second buckling load factor
tics of the first and the second buckling load factor during the patch generation
152
Laminate Applications
process are shown in Figure 6.15. All higher buckling load factors are not of importance since they are higher than the targeted value of 2. Moreover, higher
modes cannot even occur since the structure usually fails already when the
first mode is reached. Obviously, the first and second buckling load factors converge during the optimization. As search direction s, only the sensitivities of
the lowest mode are considered wherefore the structure is reinforced to raise
the load factor of the first mode. However, at a certain point a mode switch
occurs which means that the second mode drops below the first one. Consequently, the search direction considers the second one. More mode switches
occur until the optimization is terminated. The contours of the reinforcements
for the three orientation angles are shown in Figure 6.16. Additionally, a plot of
(a) = 60
(b) = 60
(c) = 0
153
Figure 6.17: Geometry, load and first buckling mode of a rectangular plate with
centered cutout
which has two buckles. In order to verify if the chosen orientation angles are
appropriate to find a good solution, a second optimization has been performed
where the reinforcement layers are allowed to have more different orientation
angles, namely (0/30/45/60/90). The results are summarized in Table 6.6.
Even if more orientation angles are allowed, no significant improvement of the
Design
m [kg]
basic
(0/60)
(0/30/45/60/90)
0.187
0.208
0.207
1 [-]
(+11.49%)
(+10.71%)
1.00
2.05
2.06
(+104.96%)
(+105.78%)
154
Laminate Applications
(a) = 60
(b) = 60
(c) = 0
m [kg]
0.171
0.187
0.183
1 [-]
(+8.87%)
(+6.81%)
1.00
2.02
2.01
(+101.55%)
(+101.30%)
155
=0
20
50
y
x
156
Laminate Applications
Figure 6.20: Mesh of the quarter model with equivalent boundary conditions
quarter model of the notched plate is considered which is shown in Figure 6.20.
Boundary conditions have to be adjusted to model the double symmetry. The
nodal displacements in x-direction of the left cutting edge as well as in
y-direction of the lower cutting edge are locked. Additionally, the out of plane
rotational degrees of the cutting edge nodes are locked. Also the applied total
tensile load has to be divided by a factor 2. To prevent misunderstandings, any
mass and load values here are given with respect to the full model. Figure 6.21
-400
2
-600
1
-800
3
Mass Increase [%]
-1000
6
-200
157
PFPF [N]
m [g]
mminit
mfull minit [%]
11136
22272
22272
22.61
23.96
45.21
0
6.00
100
m
mfull [%]
50
53.00
100
158
Laminate Applications
(a) = 45
(b) = 45
(c) = 0
only parts where reinforcement layers have developed are shown. Obviously,
the major strength increase arises from the 0 -layer. The two 45 -layer
have only developed close to the hole edge. It might seem that they are not
really useful for the strength increase. However, it must be considered that
the plate is optimized considering FPF which is in this case likely caused by
matrix cracking. The 45 -reinforcements make a significant contribution
to the load carrying capacity of the plate. Due to the chosen element-based
159
1%
0%
1%
0%
160
Laminate Applications
Figure 6.24 opposes the Von Mises strain field of the basic configuration
with the strain field of the reinforced configuration in order to give an impression of the strain release due to the reinforcements. While the maximum
occurring Von Mises strains in the basic plate are 1.90%, they are reduced to
1.63% with the reinforcements, which seems not to be so much. However, the
reinforcements do not only change the stress magnitude but also the principal directions wherefore the strongly anisotropic material is loaded more appropriately. Considering the Tsai-Hill Failure Indices of the critical layers in
Figure 6.25, which is the +45 -layer for the basic and the 45 -layer for the reinforced configuration, it can be recognized that the maximum value is reduced
by a factor of 2.
2
Chapter 7
Manufacturing-Related
Aspects
The locally reinforced laminate designs obtained with the proposed GLM are
of relatively high complexity. The manufacturing of such parts is more expensive compared to conventional laminates. However, the outstanding structural
response may mitigate the drawbacks originating in the more complex and
more expensive manufacturing process since the overall lifetime cycle becomes
cheaper.
There exist a couple of composite manufacturing processes that are able
to realize the reinforced solutions. One class of these are the Liquid Composite Molding (LCM) processes to which the well-known Resin Transfer
Molding (RTM) process belongs to. They are highly capable for mass production wherefore they are widely spread in the industry. The manufacturing of
molds for composite designs obtained with the GLM and the additional equipment are expensive. The mold shapes have to vary according to the thickness
variation of the composite parts. Such a process is only feasible if many parts
have to be manufactured.
Within this thesis, only a few specimens are manufactured in order to validate the obtained simulation results. An appropriate manufacturing process
for low-piece-number composites with good laminate quality and dimensional
accuracy is the PREPREG-technique. PREPREGs are unidirectional or woven
fibers which are pre-impregnated with the matrix system which is typically an
epoxy resin. They are stacked in an uncured state and usually cured in an autoclave process. The structure is enclosed in a vacuum bag in order to remove
voids and improve the laminate quality, namely the fiber volume content. Ad-
162
Manufacturing-Related Aspects
(a) Mold
163
164
Manufacturing-Related Aspects
1
2
3
s [MPa]
24.9
26.2
22.7
std( s ) [MPa]
3.1
2.7
3.5
165
reinforcement
layers
basic laminate
45
-45
90
90
-45
45
90 -45
45
boundary layer
~0.25mm
166
Manufacturing-Related Aspects
(a) = 90
(b) = 45
(c) = 45
(d) = 0
167
the cut-outs, are machined after the second curing cycle. Thus, all lines that
do not cover the finite element mesh can be chosen arbitrarily. Connecting the
regions that will build the reinforcements will later ease the application. Also
the outer contour of the reinforcement layers is chosen slightly bigger. It can
be taken as reference when applying the single reinforcements sequentially.
Additionally, the laminate boundaries are usually of bad quality. They are removed by cutting the panel to its final shape.
The layer application is carried out according to Figure 7.6. The single layers
45
-45
90
168
Manufacturing-Related Aspects
169
170
Manufacturing-Related Aspects
171
172
Manufacturing-Related Aspects
Chapter 8
Validation
In this Chapter, a selection of application examples presented in Chapter 6 are
compared to experimental results in order to validate the simulations arising
from the GLM. In the first section, the experimental results of the panel, which
has been reported in Chapter 7, are compared to the simulation. The manufactured panel has been analyzed using a scanning vibrometer which is able
to measure the eigenfrequencies and visualize the corresponding eigenmodes.
The comparison shows a high degree of accordance.
In the second Section, the notched plate which has been reinforced for double
strength (see Section 6.4) is tested. A visual method (Digital Image Correlation) and an acoustic method (Acoustic Emission) have been used to detect
first matrix cracking. Even if first ply failure cannot be identified clearly, the
strength increase due to the local reinforcements can be confirmed.
174
Validation
rubber cords
copper coil
8.1.1
175
Amplitude [m/s]
0
10
1
10
2
10
40
60
80
100
120
Frequency [Hz]
140
160
180
200
simulation
experiment
f /f sim
[Hz]
[Hz]
[%]
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
47.45
47.50
+0.10
76.63
76.25
-0.49
82.00
82.81
+0.99
119.61
118.4
-0.98
137.03
135.00
-1.48
188.14
185.00
-1.67
176
Validation
given in Table 8.1. It confirms that the results are of high accordance. The
first four modes deviate by less than 1% and the others by less than 2%. This
is much more accurate than expected since the finite element model contains
simplifications. The eigenmodes for both, experimental and simulative results,
are contrasted in Figures D.1 to D.6 in Appendix D.1. Again, the agreement between simulation and experiment is high. With the exception of mode 4, which
is the one with lowest amplitude, the modes are almost identical. Based on
these results, it can be assumed that the finite element model represents the
real panel very realistically. Therefore, the model has not been changed anymore for the optimization. The author wants to emphasize that all material
parameters used within the model arise from tensile tests and no parameter
tuning has been made.
Amplitude [m/s]
The optimization and the manufacturing of the panel are discussed in Sections 6.1.3 and 7.1. The same measurements have consequently to be taken
with the locally reinforced panel. The test set-up is equivalent to the one
for the experiments of the basic panel. According to the prediction (see Table 6.3), the reinforcements should generate a resonance-free band between
71.44 Hz and 267.52 Hz. Thus, the sweep for excitation of the panel has been
extended to 300 Hz. The corresponding plot of the velocity amplitudes is shown
in Figure 8.3. As before, the amplitude peaks of measurement and simulation
Measurement
Simulation
0
10
1
10
2
10
50
100
150
Frequency [Hz]
200
250
300
177
not help to locate the mode. The numerical results are summarized in Table
8.2. Excepting the third mode, the relative deviation is below 2%. The modes
simulation
experiment
f /f sim
[Hz]
[Hz]
[%]
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
71.40
70.00
-1.96
79.06
78.13
-1.17
208.68
200.00
-4.16
211.26
207.50
-1.78
225.65
223.13
-1.12
267.52
-
178
Validation
(a) type A
(b) type B
(c) type C
(d) type D
179
A and B and 10 for type C and D. According to the simulation, the reinforcements have been generated to double the FPF-load. Excepting unidirectional
laminates, FPF is usually caused by matrix cracking. For the validation here,
a method for identification of matrix cracking is needed. However, there exists
no standardized method for it. Here, two complementary measurement techniques have been applied. Digital Image Correlation (DIC) has been used as
visual method and Acoustic Emission (AE) measurements as acoustic method.
The application of two techniques based on different physical principles is expected to give a more complete picture of the evolving damage. Both methods
and their results are presented in the next Subsections. The specimens have
been loaded at constant cross-head speed in a uniaxial tensile machine until
ultimate failure. The test set-up with the camera for DIC and the sensors for
the AE-measurements is illustrated in Figure 8.5.
clamps
Camera for
DIC
AE-sensors
specimen
Figure 8.5: Tensile test set-up with camera for the DIC and acoustic sensors
for the AE-measurements
180
Validation
y = y + v +
u
x
v
x
x +
x +
(8.2)
(8.3)
y
v
y
The variables u and v are the displacements for the coordinates x and y and
x and y are the distances from the subset center to point x, y. A subset
of correlation points is manually defined by the user. Minimizing the correlation function S provides the new coordinates x, y or the displacements u, v,
respectively. Deformation or the strains can be calculated with these results.
Lomov et al. [96, 68] take advantage of DIC to identify damage initiation in
textile composites. They consider the standard deviation of the strain or of its
relative error, respectively. Damage is detected if some of the values come out
of the probable value range. The application of this method may become problematic if the considered strain-field is not homogeneous as it is the case at the
hole of the notched plate. Here, the DIC is applied in a similar way. It is basically used to find non-linearities in the displacement path of the correlation
181
FImax
(a) = 45
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.05
(b) = 45
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.55
(c) = 0
Figure 8.6: Failure indices (Tsai-Hill) for the unreinforced notched plate
optically detectable damage events will occur in the high loaded areas according to Figure 8.6. Even if the first cracks are in the 45 -layer, which is not
directly observable, they will have a detectable impact on the stiffness. A digital camera with a resolution of 1624 x 1234 pixels has been placed to record
the strains in these areas. The recorded section has a dimension of roughly
14.2 mm x 10.8 mm. An impression of the dimensions is given in Figure 8.7.
The exact dimension is not important since the absolute values of the displacement are not of interest. The smaller the section considered, the higher the
182
Validation
183
{
{
1
2 {
3
(b) loaded configuration
Figure 8.8: Reference (black) and displaced (white) correlation points for the
initial and a loaded configuration
men. The cracks initiated by the hole are clearly visible. The cluster has been
split into three sub-clusters indicated with 1 , 2 and 3 . The 2 points are
distributed almost randomly. Since they are directly located on the crack, the
image has changed so significantly that a tracking of these points is not possible anymore. The points of 1 and 3 are still arranged in a block. Their relative displacement in load direction is significantly different. The corresponding
load-displacement relation is shown in Figure 8.9(a). After a fast increase of
the displacements which is caused by a slight slipping of the specimen in the
clamping jaws of the tensile test machine, the displacements increase almost
linearly. The slopes of the load-displacement curves are different for each correlation point since the relative displacements between the points are non-zero.
For higher loads, the displacement values of some correlation points become
non-linear before the specimen finally fails. For these load ranges, huge cracks
are already visible wherefore the DIC is not able to track the points anymore
which leads to a kind of random displacement value. However, in the range
where FPF is expected, it seems that the load-displacement relation is approximately linear and no extensive non-linearities can be noticed. Taking the first
derivative of the displacement with respect to the force provides a measure
of stiffness, or compliance respectively, which is shown in Figure 8.9(b). The
compliance is not constant as it is expected from a linear behavior. The reason
for that might still arise from the clamping or from a stretching of the fibers
which are not ideally straight in the initial configuration. However, a bifurca-
Validation
45
45
40
40
35
35
30
30
Load [kN]
Load [kN]
184
25
20
25
15
15
10
10
100
200
300
Displacement [pix]
400
500
20
7.5
8
8.5
9
Compliance [pix/kN]
9.5
10
2 u i
f 2
n 2 u
1
j
n j =1 f 2
(8.4)
Since its mean value is zero, it expresses the disturbance of the linear behavior. Within the low load range, the values are all close to zero. With increasing
loads, the values become non-zero which indicates a material non-linearity or
first cracking, respectively. A load value which is taken as FPF-load is determined using the standard deviation of the correlation point accelerations
shown in Figure 8.10(b). FPF is assumed if the function value exceeds a pre-
185
45
45
40
40
35
35
30
30
Load [kN]
Load [kN]
25
20
25
20
15
15
10
10
0
100
50
0
50
Acceleration [pix/kN2]
(a)
Correlation
deviations d i
point
100
10
20
30
40
std(Accelertation) [pix/kN2]
50
A
10.01
1.23
-10
B
23.70
2.70
+137
-6
C
19.63
2.37
+96
-12
D
15.96
1.44
+59
-28
186
Validation
are eliminated since the area in which first cracks occur has left the considered
section. Additionally, a third specimen of type D is eliminated due to slipping
in the clamps before breaking.
187
45
40
Energy [eu]
12.5
35
10
30
25
7.5
20
15
10
2.5
0
0
Load [kN]
15
5
50
100
Time [s]
150
0
200
10
45
10
40
10
35
10
30
10
10
10
10
10
25
20
Load [kN]
Energy [eu]
15
10
5
0
50
100
Time [s]
150
0
200
Figure 8.11: AE energy rate (per 0.1 second) for one type D specimen from the
data recorded with the SE-45H type sensors
for the first major energy rise as identification for FPF[24], an AE energy rate
188
Validation
threshold of 5x105 e.u. per 0.1 seconds per sensor type has been used. Some
increased AE activity has been detected at the initial loading which is assumed
to be related to the slipping of the specimens though the clamps wherefore
the FPF loads are further filtered. The failure strain of unidirectional CFRP
materials is roughly 1.8% in fiber direction and 0.5% perpendicular to it. With
an additional margin, it can be assumed that no FPF-events may occur below
a strain of 0.3%. Taking advantage of the FEM model, corresponding loads
of 3.52 kN for specimen type A and 7.04 kN for specimens B, C and D were
determined and FPF loads based on the AE measurements below those limits
were replaced by the corresponding next higher AE signal energy rise.
Table 8.4 summarizes the results of the experimentally determined FPFload for the four specimen types. On average, a significant load increase for
Specimen type
F AE [kN]
std(FD IC ) [kN]
F AE [%A]
F AE [%FFPF ]
A
8.15
2.35
-27
B
16.35
4.14
+101
-27
C
13.98
3.54
+72
-37
D
14.81
3.96
+82
-36
189
A
B
C
D
25
20
15
10
5
10
15
20
5
Load at First Energy 5x10 e.u./0.1s [kN]
25
Figure 8.12: Comparison for DIC- and AE-results for single specimens
most points lie above this diagonal. This is consistent with the fact that volumetric AE measurements are more sensitive to damage inside the specimens
than surface DIC. Visually detected cracks hence cannot be directly correlated
with AE events. The scatter of the individual data points for the different specimen types as well as for the two methods is large. The correlation coefficient
for all specimens is 0.44 which implies a very weak correlation. Material imperfections and the non-trivial manufacturing process quite likely are the main
reasons for this. Moreover, the optical DIC method considers only a limited section on the surface of the specimen while the AE measurements are sensitive
to events in the entire specimen.
The spreading of the points of the particular groups for both measurement
methods is high. Material imperfections and the non-trivial manufacturing
process are the main reasons for that. On a statistical basis, the analysis looks
much better. Figure 8.13 shows the same plot but this time with the average
loads per specimen type and test method. Consider that the averaged loads
contain all valid load values from each measurement method individually corresponding to Tables 8.3 and 8.4. Again, the data from AE show a more sensitive behavior and lower FPF loads. However, the correlation coefficient for the
average data is now 0.91 which implies a strong correlation between the two
methods. The solid black line in Figure 8.13 represents the linear regression
of all four points. The results of the locally reinforced specimens C and D behave contradictory. While the DIC-results provide a higher FPF-assumption
for specimens C, the AE-measurements predict higher loads for specimens D.
A possible explanation of this contradiction could be the different surface qual-
190
Validation
A
B
C
D
25
20
15
10
5
10
15
20
5
Average Load at First Energy 5x10 e.u./0.1s [kN]
25
Figure 8.13: Comparison for DIC- and AE-results for averaged specimens
191
(see Section 4.5.3). The 45 -layers are relatively small and located around
the critical point. The stiffness inhomogeneities may also influence the critical
stresses which may cause first matrix cracking at lower load levels. However,
the strength increase of the locally reinforced specimens is in a range of 59%
to 82% and thus still high compared to the additional mass of 6%.
Both measurement methods detect damage events at lower loads than predicted by the FEM-simulation. Considering Tables 8.3 and 8.4, the deviation
for the unreinforced specimens A and B is up to 30%. On one hand, this can
be attributed to the free edge effects at the hole edge which may add a significant contribution to the stresses. A detailed overview of investigations on
free-edge effects is provided by Mittelstedt and Becker [114]. The applied shell
finite elements only consider in-plane stresses wherefore these effects cannot
be covered. Regarding to the simulation, first damage is matrix cracking at the
hole edge due to a combination of shear loads and normal loads perpendicular
to the fiber direction. A slight overestimation of the shear strength S and the
tensile strength perpendicular to the fiber Yt may contribute additionally to
the error. A correction is not done here since the design of the reinforcements
is dependent on the strength values through the Pseudo Strength Function. An
additional error source may be the chosen failure criterion itself whose physical
basis is rather weak. However, the goal of the experiments is to demonstrate
the strength differences between the specimen types and not to tune the simulation with experimental data.
8.2.2
The ultimate failure load is the load at which the specimen completely breaks
and no force can be carried anymore. Even if it was not directly the objective
to increase this load, it is increased as a consequence of the optimized first ply
failure load. The ultimate failure loads are discussed with the values in Table 8.5. The first line summarizes the average failure loads for the different
Specimen type
F ul t [kN]
std(F ul t ) [kN]
F ul t [%A]
F ul t [%B]
F ul t [%FFPF ]
22.79
2.67
-46.73
+104.64
42.78
2.59
+87.73
+92.09
37.21
2.03
+63.27
-13.02
+67.06
38.96
4.72
+70.98
-8.93
+74.94
192
Validation
8.3 Discussion
193
45-layer delamination
type B to mitigate that effect. Considering row 4, the locally reinforced specimens come close to the strength of specimens B. This is remarkable recalling
that they have only 53% of the mass of B. The last row compares the ultimate
failure load to the corresponding predicted FPF-load. The failure loads are all
between 75% and 105% higher. This is reasonable since the FPF criterion is, at
least in this case, a rough estimation for matrix cracking. When dimensioning
a structure for FPF, there is still a huge margin until it fails completely.
8.3 Discussion
Two examples for the validation of the GLM have been presented within this
chapter. The agreement between simulation and experiments of the vibrating plate is remarkable. The GLM locally reinforces the quasi-isotropic panel
which leads to a local anisotropy giving it the outstanding structural properties. It is clearly demonstrated that the method is able to specifically reinforce
structures to a desired objective. The fact that the frequencies are not only
maximized, which is always achieved to some degree when adding material
to the structure, but that some are maximized while others are minimized
proves that the resulting design is not a random outcome. The dynamic behavior of structures is governed by the stiffness and the mass distribution.
Consequently, it can be assumed that the method obtains likewise good results
considering stiffness, or compliance problems respectively, as well as buckling
problems since they are only dependent on the stiffness properties of the structure.
194
Validation
A
22.61
B
45.21
C
23.96
D
23.96
FD IC [kN]
D IC [kN/g]
10.01
0.44
23.70
0.52
19.63
0.82
15.96
0.67
F AE [kN]
AE [kN/g]
8.15
0.36
16.35
0.36
13.98
0.58
14.81
0.62
Ful t [kN]
ul t [kN/g]
22.79
1.01
42.78
0.95
37.21
1.55
38.96
1.63
Chapter 9
9.1 Discussion
The presented parameterization scheme including virtual ghost layers, together with the highly accurate semi-analytical calculation of sensitivities of
chosen objectives with respect to changes of layer thickness values, is the essential part of a strategy for adding local reinforcements to a given composite
structure in order to obtain high performance at very low weight. Alternatively, the method can also remove material where its effect on the efficiency of
the structural performance is negative. The power and the general applicability of the GLM are demonstrated by enhancing the method for fundamentally
different objectives. The method has then been applied to respective concrete
design problems, such as:
Minimal Compliance
Harmonic vibrations
Nodal displacement
Stability
Strength
196
9.1 Discussion
197
emphasize the quality of the process. Even if it is employed only for a small
number of parts, it potentially can be enhanced to an automated process for
larger quantities.
As stated initially, the search for best structural performance must include
an adaption of the local laminate properties to the local load distributions and
directions, respectively. In this context, the application of quasi-isotropic laminates is suboptimal. Nonetheless, they have prevalently been used as basic
laminates for the presented examples. Starting from a quasi-isotropic laminate, the structural performance improvement by inducing a local anisotropy
with local reinforcements becomes obvious. Figure 9.1 illustrates the local
anisotropy for the vibrating panel. The blue lines represent the material prin-
198
reproducing the found anisotropy distribution, the solution here contains the
specific layup. From the manufacturing point of view, solutions with local reinforcements are easier to realize than solutions with varying orientation angles.
9.2 Outlook
This section contains potential ideas for further research based on the deliverables of this thesis. The advanced tasks are separated into improvement of
the method, extension of the method and enhancement of the manufacturing
process.
Improvement of the Method
The presented method could be more efficient by implementing it in a basic program language. MATLAB is an engineering software which is easy to
learn without fundamental programming knowledge. However, there are some
penalties concerning efficiency and memory allocation. A programming of the
method in a low-level language would enable the optimization of larger models
in less time. However, this cannot be understood as research work since the
basic idea is not different.
Alternatively, further investigations could be done in the field of the applied optimization algorithms. Different strategies for the generation of the
reinforcements can be defined. Other algorithms may be faster and the quality
of the obtained solutions could be better. An implementation of the method of
feasible direction [192, 173] would allow considering side constraints.
Extension of the Method
Here, eigenfrequency, compliance, buckling, strength and combinations of
them have been considered. More objective functions can be formulated as
long as they depend on the stiffness- and mass matrix derivatives with respect
to the thicknesses. An interesting task could be to additionally implement
the thermo-mechanical behavior of the material. CFRP-materials have low or
even negative expansion coefficients in fiber direction wherefore they are used
for structures with thermal-dimensional stability. The anisotropic properties
of the materials can be used to specifically design the thermo-mechanical behavior of the structure.
With the increasing application of laminated composites, design methods
considering fatigue requirements become more important. Local reinforcements can basically be helpful to improve the fatigue behavior and the implementation of an adequate objective function could be interesting.
9.2 Outlook
199
A big concern regarding the usage of laminated structure is the afterimpact behavior. Local damages are not as easy to repair as for example for
metallic structures. Furthermore, the resulting strength and stiffness is hard
to be appraised since the damage is not necessarily visible nor can it be modeled. A possibility to restore the original properties, or at least to make them
determinable, is to eliminate the damage and recover them with local reinforcements. With the presented sequential curing process, the reinforcements
can be attached easily. Such repairing techniques are already used today. The
presented method could help to design the repairing patches ideally.
Enhancement of the Manufacturing Process
From the perspective of the author, the field with the greatest potential
for further research is the enhancement of the manufacturing process. As
demonstrated well enough, the presented locally reinforced designs have an
outstanding structural behavior. The proposed manufacturing process which
has mainly be carried out manually is adequate for low piece structures. For
larger units, an automation of the process is needed. Mass production of laminated structures is usually done with Resin Transfer Molding (RTM) processes.
However, PREPREG structures have outstanding laminate properties in terms
of fiber volume content. An accuracy that have been shown in the example
of the vibrating plate can barely be achieved using a RTM process. An automation of the placement of the reinforcements can additionally enhance the
quality. Basically, RTM and PREPREG process can be combined in case that the
matrix resin systems are compatible. The basic structure can be manufactured
with RTM and the reinforcements are made of PREPREG. The idea of individually design the structure to the respective loads which are dependent on the
customer requirements could be interesting for future research.
200
Appendix A
Material Properties
A.1 T300/Epoxy
E 11
E 22
G 12
G 23
12
138
9
4.25
3.25
0.34
1556
GPa
GPa
GPa
GPa
k g/m3
Xt
Xc
Yt
Yc
S
2330
1500
47
235
79
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
E 11
E 22
G 12
G 23
12
130
9
4.25
3.25
0.34
1556
GPa
GPa
GPa
GPa
k g/m3
Xt
Xc
Yt
Yc
S
2330
1500
47
235
79
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
Table A.2: Material properties for a standard T300/Epoxy laminate (used for
the notched plate: based on a comparison between simulation and experiments,
the modulus E 11 has been slightly reduced)
ii
Material Properties
73.1
0.33
28
2800
GPa
GPa
k g/m3
R0.2
414
MPa
Appendix B
Stiffness Matrix
Sensitivities
The stiffness matrix sensitivity of a finite element with respect to the thickness
t l consists of the stiffness sensitivities of the sub-parts, namely the membrane
(m), the coupling (c), the bending (b) and the transverse shear stiffness (s).
dk dkm dk c dkb dks
=
+
+
+
dt l
dt l
dt l
dt l
dt l
(B.1)
The corresponding parts are given by equations B.2 through B.7. The sensitivities of the membrane parts are simply given by
dkm
(B.2)
= BT
m Q l Bm d A
dt l
A
t l
t l
t l
j =1
k =1
k =1
l
l
1
z0
z0
c
t k z0 1
t k z0
+ kl
t
t l
l
k =1
k =1
!!
j
j
1
n
z0
z0
c
kj
t k z0 1
t k z0 1
+
t l
t l
j = l +1
k =1
k =1
with
c
kj =
A
T
BT
m Q j Bb + Bb Q j Bm d A
(B.3)
(B.4)
iv
l
1
j =1
b
+k l
+
b
kj
l
k =1
n
j = l +1
j
k =1
2
t k z0
2
t k z0
b
kj
j
k =1
z0
t l
z0
t l
k =1
l
1
2
t k z0
2
z0
z0
!!
t l
t l
2
j 1
!!
z0
z0
1
t k z0
1
(B.5)
t l
t l
k =1
2
t k z0
j 1
t k z0
k =1
with
b
kj =
A
BT
b Q j Bb d A
(B.6)
(B.7)
Appendix C
y,v
1
2
x
v1
E,L,
v2
vi
Stiffness Matrix
12
2
L
6
EI b
L
k=
12
L
L2
12
L2
6
4
6
L
2
L
12
L2
6
L
(C.1)
Mass Matrix
1
AL
0
m=
2 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
(C.2)
36
P
3L
k =
30L 36
3L
3L
4L2
3L
L2
36
3L
36
3L
3L
2
L
3L
4L
(C.3)
Appendix D
(a) simulation
(b) experiment
viii
(a) simulation
(b) experiment
(a) simulation
(b) experiment
(a) simulation
(b) experiment
(a) simulation
ix
(b) experiment
(a) simulation
(b) experiment
(a) simulation
(b) experiment
(a) simulation
(b) experiment
(a) simulation
xi
(b) experiment
(a) simulation
(b) experiment
(a) simulation
(b) experiment
xii
Acronyms
AE
Acoustic Emission is a test method to identify micro-mechanical effects in continua.
It detects damage events by means of measuring acoustic wave propagation.
179, 186190,
194
Carbon Fiber Reinfoced Plastics is common composite material of a polymer matrix and carbon reinforcement fibers.
2, 3, 9, 63,
171, 174, 178,
188, 198
CFRP
CLT
DIC
xiv
Acronyms
FEM
Finite Element Method is a numerical
technique for finding approximate solution
of physical problems that are based on partial differential equations. Fundamental
and detailed explanations of the FEM focusing on structural analysis can be found
in literature [149, 106, 191, 29, 139]
vii, 2, 20, 35
38, 84, 109,
131, 188, 196
First Ply Failure is the event of first cracking in one ply of the laminate. Damage
predicted by the Tsai-Hill and the Tsai-Wu
failure criterion is called First Ply Failure.
9, 155,
158, 178,
181, 183,
186190,
194, 196
Fiber Reinfoced Plastics is a composite material made of a polymer matrix and reinforcement fibers which are typically of carbon, glass or aramid.
24
Genetic Algorithms are a class of stochastic algorithms that are based on the mechanisms of natural evolution. The algorithm
is discussed in detail by Holland [60].
FPF
157,
179,
184,
193,
FRP
GA
GLM
Acronyms
xv
MATLAB
MATLAB is a numerical computing environment which is widely used in academic
and research institutions as well as industrial enterprises [112].
PREPREG is a type of semi-finished composite where the fibers are already preimpregnated with the matrix system.
4, 161, 162,
167, 174, 199
7678,
155, 157
161, 199
NASTRAN
PREPREG
PSF
RTM
82,
xvi
Acronyms
Bibliography
[1] M. M. Abdalla, S. Setoodeh, and Z. Grdal. Design of variable stiffness
composite panels for maximum fundamental frequency using lamination
parameters. Composite Structures, 81(2):283291, 2007.
[2] S. Abrate. Optimal design of laminated plates and shells. Composite
Structures, 29:269286, 1994.
[3] S. Adali. Design sensitivity analysis of an antisymmetric angle-ply laminate. Engineering Optimization, 7(1):6983, 1983.
[4] S. Adali and K. J. Duffy. Design of antisymmetric hybrid laminates for
maximum buckling load: I. optimal fibre orientation. Composite Structures, 14(1):4960, 1990.
[5] D. B. Adams, L. T. Watson, Z. Grdal, and C. M. Anderson-Cook. Genetic algorithm optimization and blending of composite laminates by locally reducing laminate thickness. Advances in Engineering Software,
35(1):3543, 2004.
[6] J. E. Ashton, J. C. Halpin, and P. H. Petit. Primer on Composite Materials: Analysis. Technomic Press, Westport, CT, 1969.
[7] M. Autio. Determining the real lay-up of a laminate corresponding to
optimal lamination parameters by genetic search. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 20:301310, 2000.
[8] R.C. Averill and J.N. Reddy. Behaviour of plate elements based on
the first-order shear deformation theory. Engineering Computations,
7(1):5774, 1990.
[9] S. A. Barakat and G. A. Abu-Farsakh. The use of an energy-based criterion to determine optimum configurations of fibrous composites. Composites Science and Technology, 59(12):18911899, 1999.
xviii
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
xix
xx
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
xxi
xxii
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
xxiii
xxiv
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
xxv
[93] B. Liu, R.T. Haftka, and M.A. Akgn. Two-level composite wing structural optimization using response surfaces. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 20:8796, 2000.
[94] K.-S. Liu and S. W. Tsai. A progressive quadratic failure criterion for a
laminate. Composites Science and Technology, 58(7):10231032, 1998.
[95] Y. Liu, F. Jin, and Q. Li. A strength-based multiple cutout optimization
in composite plates using fixed grid finite element method. Composite
Structures, 73(4):403412, 2006.
[96] S. V. Lomov, D. S. Ivanov, I. Verpoest, M. Zako, T. Kurashiki, H. Nakai,
J. Molimard, and A. Vautrin. Full-field strain measurements for validation of meso-fe analysis of textile composites. Composites Part A: Applied
Science and Manufacturing, 39(8):12181231, 2008.
[97] C. S. Lopes, Z. Grdal, and P. P. Camanho. Variable-stiffness composite
panels: Buckling and first-ply failure improvements over straight-fibre
laminates. Computers & Structures, 86(9):897907, 2008.
[98] C. S. Lopes, Z. Grdal, and P. P. Camanho. Tailoring for strength of
composite steered-fibre panels with cutouts. Composites Part A: Applied
Science and Manufacturing, 41(12):17601767, 2010.
[99] A. E. H. Love. The small free vibrations and deformation of a thin elastic shell. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. A,
179:pp. 491546, 1888.
[100] E. Lund. Finite Element Based Design Sensitivity Analysis and Optimization. PhD thesis, Aalborg University, Denmark, 1994.
[101] E. Lund. Buckling topology optimization of laminated multi-material
composite shell structures. Composite Structures, 91(2):158167, 2009.
[102] E. Lund and J. Stegmann. On structural optimization of composite shell
structures using a discrete constitutive parametrization. Wind Energy,
8(1):109124, 2005.
[103] E. Lund and J. Stegmann. Eigenfrequency and buckling optimization of
laminated composite shell structures using discrete material optimization. Solid Mechanics and Its Applications, 3:147156, 2006.
[104] R. H. MacNeal. A simple quadrilateral shell element. Computers &
Structures, 8(2):175183, 1978.
xxvi
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
xxvii
[117] MSC.Software Corporation, 2 Mac Arthur Place, Santa Ana, CA, USA.
MSC.Nastran 2008 Reference Manual, 2003.
[118] G. N. Naik, S. GGopalakrishnan, and R. Ganguli. Design optimization of
composites using genetic algorithms and failure mechanism based failure criterion. Composite Structures, 83(4):354367, 2008.
[119] F. I. Niordson. On the optimal design of a vibrating beam. The Quarterly
of Applied Mathematics, 23:47, 1965.
[120] Library of Congress. www.loc.gov, 2011.
[121] N. Olhoff. Maximizing higher order eigenfrequencies of beams with
constraints on the design geometry. Journal of Structural Mechanics,
5(2):107134, 1977.
[122] D.H. Pahr and F.G Rammerstorfer. Experimental and numerical investigations of perforated cfr woven fabric laminates. Composites Science
and Technology, 64(9):14031410, 2004.
[123] B. Pan, K. Qian, H. Xie, and A. Asundi. Two-dimensional digital image
correlation for in-plane displacement and strain measurement: a review.
Measurement Science and Technology, 20(6):062001, 2009.
[124] C. H. Park, W. I. Lee, W. S. Han, and A. Vautrin. Improved genetic algorithm for multidisciplinary optimization of composite laminates. Computers & Structures, 86(1920):18941903, 2008.
[125] J. H. Park, J. H. Hwang, C. S. Lee, and W. Hwang. Stacking sequence
design of composite laminates for maximum strength using genetic algorithms. Composite Structures, 52(2):217231, 2001.
[126] L. Parnas, S. Oral, and . Ceyhan. Optimum design of composite structures with curved fiber courses. Composites Science and Technology,
63(7):10711082, 2003.
[127] N. Pedersen. On design of fiber-nets and orientation for eigenfrequency
optimization of plates. Computational Mechanics, 39:113, 2005.
[128] N. Pedersen. On simultaneous shape and orientational design for eigenfrequency optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization,
33:387399, 2007.
[129] P. Pedersen. On sensitivity analysis and optimal design of specially orthotropic laminates. Engineering Optimization, 11(3-4):305316, 1987.
xxviii
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
xxix
xxx
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
xxxi
[164] A. Todoroki and R. T. Haftka. Stacking sequence optimization by a genetic algorithm with a new recessive gene like repair strategy. Composites Part B: Engineering, 29(3):277285, 1998.
[165] A. Todoroki and T. Ishikawa. Design of experiments for stacking sequence optimizations with genetic algorithm using response surface approximation. Composite Structures, 64(34):349357, 2004.
[166] S. W. Tsai. Fundamental Aspects of Fiber Reinforced Plastic Composites.
Wiley Interscience, New York., 1968.
[167] S. W. Tsai. Theory of Composites Design. Think Composites, Dayton,
Ohio, USA, 2008.
[168] S. W Tsai and N. J. Pagano. Invariant properties of composite materials.
Technical report, Air Force Materials Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base, Ohio, AFB, 1968.
[169] S. W. Tsai and E. M. Wu. A general theory of strength for anisotropic
materials. Journal of Composite Materials, 5(1):5880, 1971.
[170] J. M. J. F. van Campen. Optimum lay-up design of variable stiffness
composite structures. PhD thesis, TU Delft, Netherlands, 2011.
[171] J. M. J. F. van Campen, C. Kassapoglou, and Z. Grdal. Generating
realistic laminate fiber angle distributions for optimal variable stiffness
laminates. Composites Part B: Engineering, 43(2):354360, 2012.
[172] F. van Keulen, R.T. Haftka, and N.H. Kim. Review of options for structural design sensitivity analysis. part 1: Linear systems. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 194:32133243, 2005.
[173] G. N. Vanderplaats and F. Moses. Structural optimization by methods of
feasible directions. Computers & Structures, 3(4):739755, 1973.
[174] S. Vlachoutsis. Shear correction factors for plates and shells. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 33:15371552,
1992.
[175] M. Walker and R. E. Smith. A technique for the multiobjective optimisation of laminated composite structures using genetic algorithms and
finite element analysis. Composite Structures, 62(1):123128, 2003.
[176] R. A. Waltz, J. L. Morales, J. Nocedal, and D. Orban. An interior algorithm for nonlinear optimization that combines line search and trust
region steps. Mathematical Programming, 107:391408, 2006.
xxxii
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[177] R. I. Watkins and A. J. Morris. A multicriteria objective function optimization scheme for laminated composites for use in multilevel structural optimization schemes. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics
and Engineering, 60(2):233251, 1987.
[178] J. M. Whitney. Shear correction factors for orthotropic laminates under
static load. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 40(1):302304, 1973.
[179] H. M. Wigger and W. Becker. Inplane stress singularities at the interface
corner of a bimaterial junction. Composite Structures, 69(2):193 199,
2005.
[180] H. M. Wigger and W. Becker. Characterization of inplane loaded
anisotropic interface corners with the boundary finite element method.
Computational Mechanics, 37:153162, 2006.
[181] H. M. Wigger and W. Becker. Investigation of anisotropic reinforcment
patch corners. Composites, 38:11311140, 2007.
[182] H. M. Wigger and W. Becker. Closed-form analysis of the stress field at
rectangular corners of reinforcement patches. Mechanics of Advanced
Materials and Structures, 15(2):104116, 2008.
[183] E. Winkler and H. Steger. Einsatz der Scanning-Laservibrometrie zur
Messung von Schallschnelleverteilungen an Maschinen und Aggregaten.
Technical report, Polytec GmbH, Waldbronn, 2004.
[184] M. R. Wisnom, B. Green, W.-G. Jiang, and S. R. Hallett. Specimen size
effects on the notched strength of composite laminates loaded in tension.
In 16th International Conference on Composite Materials, 2007.
[185] W. H. Wittrick. Rates of change of eigenfvalues, with reference to buckling and vibration problems. Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society,
66:590591, 1962.
[186] N. Zehnder. Global Optimization of Laminated Structures. In Diss. ETH.
No. 17573, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, 2008.
[187] N. Zehnder and P. Ermanni. A methodology for the global optimization
of laminated composite structures. Composite Structures, 72(3):311320,
2006.
[188] N. Zehnder and P. Ermanni. Optimizing the shape and placement of
patches of reinforcement fibers. Composite Structures, 77(1):19, 2007.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
xxxiii
xxxiv
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Own publications
[1] B. Schlpfer and G. Kress. A new methodology for the placement of reinforcement doublers on composite space structures, in Proceedings of the
14th European Conference on Composite Materials (ECCM14), Budapest,
Hungary, 2010.
[2] B. Schlpfer and G. Kress. A pseudo strength function for the generation of local laminate reinforcement doublers, in Proceedings of the 18th
International Conference on Composite Materials (ICCM18), Jeju, Korea,
2011.
[3] B. Schlpfer and G. Kress. A sensitivity-based parameterization concept for the automated design and placement of reinforcement doublers,
Composite Structures, 94(3): 896903, 2012.
[4] B. Schlpfer, B. Rentsch and G. Kress. Specific design of laminated composites regarding dynamic behavior by the application of local reinforcements, Composite Structures, 99: 433442, 2013.
[5] B. Schlpfer and G. Kress. Optimal design and testing of laminated
light-weight composite structures with local reinforcements considering
strength constraints. Part I: Design, submitted to Composites Part A:
Applied Science and Manufacturing.
[6] B. Schlpfer, A.J. Brunner and G. Kress. Optimal design and testing of
laminated light-weight composite structures with local reinforcements
considering strength constraints. Part II: Testing, submitted to Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing.
[7] B. Schlpfer and G. Kress. Advanced design of laminate composites with
local anisotropies by employing local laminate reinforcements, submitted
to Computational Methods in Applied Engineering.
xxxvi
OWN PUBLICATIONS
Curriculum Vitae
P ERSONAL
Name :
Date of Birth :
Nationality :
Contact :
E DUCATION
Ph.D., Institute for Mechanical Systems, ETH Zrich
12/2008 12/2012
03/2007 09/2008
10/2003 07/2006
08/1998 05/2002
W ORKING E XPERIENCE
IT-Administrator, Centre of Structure Technologies, ETH Zrich
12/2008 12/2012
08/2006 02/2007
For all those who came until the end, I created a flipbook at the bottom of the
left hand side pages. You will see growing the 90 reinforcement layer of the
panel discussed in Section 6.1. Take your thumb and flip backwards through
the pages. Enjoy!