Composite Structures 88 (2009) 443454

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Design optimization of composite laminated structures using genetic

algorithms and nite element analysis
F.S. Almeida, A.M. Awruch *
Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 99, 90035-190 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Available online 17 May 2008
Keywords:
Multiobjective optimization
Genetic algorithms
Composites laminated structures
Finite element analysis

a b s t r a c t
A technique for the design optimization of composite laminated structures is presented in this work. The
optimization process is performed using a genetic algorithm (GA), associated with the nite element
method (FEM) for the structural analysis. The GA is adapted with special operators and variables codication for the specic case of composite laminated structures optimization. Some numerical examples are
presented to show the exibility of this tool to solve different kinds of problems. Two cases of multiobjective optimization of plates under transverse or in-plane load are studied. In these examples the minimization of two objectives, such as weight and deection or weight and cost, are simultaneously
performed and a pareto-optimal set is obtained by shifting the optimization emphasis using a weighting
factor. The stiffness maximization of a composite shell under pressure load is presented in the last example, where the geometrically nonlinear behavior of the structure is considered. Some aspects of the optimization performance, such as the apparent reliability and the computational cost, are investigated in
each application.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In the recent decades, structural applications with composite
laminated materials have been growing, requiring great effort on
the development of analysis and design techniques. An advantage
of using ber-reinforced composites over conventional materials is
that the former can be tailored to specic requirements of certain
applications [1]. However, the large number of design variables
and the complex mechanical behavior associated with such materials turn the structural design much more difcult and laborious
than those involving conventional materials. These characteristics
have motivated the use of optimization methods in the sense of
turn the composite material structural design a more systematic
and well dened task, becoming less dependent to the designer
sensitivity and achieving the maximum material performance [2].
The earlier works in the eld of composite structures optimization employed the same methods already used to optimize conventional material structures. These methods are based on gradients of
the objective and constraints functions with respect to the design
variables, which are considered to be continuous in the design
space. Such works resulted in limited success because composite
laminate design falls on a discrete optimization problem, since in
practice the variables are restricted to few values imposed by the
manufacturing process. Moreover, the composite optimization
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 51 3308 3587; fax: +55 51 3308 3999.
E-mail address: amawruch@ufrgs.br (A.M. Awruch).
0263-8223/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2008.05.004

problems typically involve multimodal search spaces, which may

lead gradient based methods to converge to locally optimal regions
in the design space [3]. Many other optimization techniques have
been tested as an alternative to the gradient based methods, having the genetic algorithm (GA) stand out the others because it perfectly adjusts to the characteristics of the composite optimization
problem. GAs are probabilistic search methods seeking to mimic
the biological reproduction and natural selection process through
random but structured operations. The design variables, usually restricted to discrete values, are coded as genes using binary or integer numbers, and grouped together in chromosomes strings that
represent an organism (a possible solution in the design space). Instead of working with just one search point in the design space, GA
uses a population of designs that, by reproduction and selection
operations, evolve through successive generations. Many search
points dispersed in the design space prevent the GA to get stuck
in locally optimal regions, avoiding a premature convergence of
the process. New designs are generated by the reproduction process that consists in the application of the genetic operators in parents selected from the existing population. These genetic operators
are counterparts of the natural genetic mechanisms, acting over
the chromosomal strings of the organisms [4]. The selection of parents for the reproduction process and the selection of organisms to
ll each new generation are both probabilistic. However, the
chances of selection of each organisms is proportional to its tness,
as happen in the nature where ttest organisms have more
chances to reproduce and to continue in the next generation.

444

F.S. Almeida, A.M. Awruch / Composite Structures 88 (2009) 443454

The organism tness is obtained directly from an objective function using simple structure information and gradient evaluations
are not required.
In real designs cases, when the structural geometry is usually
complex and the prediction of the structural behavior must be
accurate, it is necessary to use numerical tools, such as the FEM,
for the structural analysis. These methods are computationally
expensive and may turn the optimization processes with GA
impracticable when a large amount of analyses is required. Many
researchers have proposed modications to the classical GA structure to take advantage of composite laminates characteristics and
minimize the computational cost. Some of these new strategies
are applied in this work, consisting essentially in a GA restructuring of the variable codication and the genetic operators.
When more than one objective is handled in the design process,
a multiobjective optimization problem may be solved considering
all the objectives simultaneously, providing a set of optimum designs (pareto-optimal set), depending of the emphasis given to
each one of the objectives. The pareto-optimal set may be very useful when the critical objective is not known a priori. Various
researchers have studied the problem of multiobjective optimization of laminated structures, but the use of this approach together
with GA and the nite element method (FEM) have not been
widely explored.
In the present work, two examples of multiobjective optimization of composite laminate plates using GA and FEM are studied. A
third application deals with the single optimization of a semicylindrical shell considering the geometrically nonlinear behavior
of the structure.

2. Composite structure analysis

Real problems of composite structure design depend of reliable
structural analysis. In the case of composite laminates, the determination of the mechanical behavior is difcult even for simple
geometric congurations. It happens because of some complex
mechanisms inherent to the material, like coupling between
stretching, bending and twisting deformations, depending on the
stacking sequence. These coupling effects and the usually complex
structural geometric congurations inhibit the use of closed-form
solutions in the structural analysis. In consequence, numerical
method must be adopted for the accurate prediction of the structural behavior.
In this work, a triangular at plate and shell element with 18
degrees of freedom called DKT (discrete Kirchhoff triangle) is used.
This element was developed by Bathe and Ho [5] for the nonlinear
analysis of isotropic plates and shells. The original formulation was
modied by the introduction of specic constitutive matrices of
the membrane and bending parts in order to allow the analysis
of symmetric composite laminated structures. Any other element
formulation could be adopted, since in GA based optimization no
gradient evaluation is needed, and so no additional modication
to the analysis tool is necessary. In the solution of geometrically
nonlinear problems an incremental iterative scheme referred as
generalized displacement control method (GDCM) is used (see
[6]). This method is able to solve nonlinear problems with multiple
critical points and snap-back points allowing the complete determination of the post buckling behavior of the structure. The only
parameter to be set in the GDCM is the basic load increment ki,
which corresponds to the ratio between the rst load increment
and the complete load. This parameter determines the sensibility
of the method to the nonlinear characteristic of the problem.
Additionally to the structure displacements, the analysis tool
must be able to determinate accurately the stress components at
the composite layers in order to predict material failure. This is a

very common constraint adopted in most of optimization problems, and it is used in this work too. The TsaiWu failure criterion
[7] is used for the failure prediction in a ply. A safety factor against
failure kf can be obtained in linear problems with the TsaiWu failure function using the material strength parameter for traction,
compression and shearing at each of the principal material axes.
In geometrically nonlinear analysis the structural failure is veried
at each load step of the incremental solution method, which is
stopped if material failure is detected.

3. Genetic algorithms for composite laminate structure

optimization
This work uses a GA provided with many modications with respect to the classical GA structure stated by Goldberg [4]. Although
the main concepts and the sequence of operations remain similar
to the original formulation, a new scheme for the variable codication and special genetic operators are introduced, increasing the
performance of the method in the case of composite structures
optimization.
An initial population containing P organism is rst created in a
random process. In order to create successive generations, parents
are chosen from the current population based on their tness.
Next, the genetic operators are applied to create children in order
to form a children population. An elitist selection scheme is used to
obtain the new generation taking organisms from the current population and from the children population just created. This process
is repeated until the convergence criterion is met. A description of
the variable codication, the genetic operators and the selection
scheme for the construction of new generations are given in the
following subsections.
3.1. Composite laminate codication
A pair of chromosomes is adopted for the representation of each
laminate in this work, similar to the scheme implemented by Soremekun [8]. As only symmetric laminates are studied in this work,
just half of the layers need to be coded in the gene strings, and
so the total number of genes in a chromosome is proportional to
half of the maximum admissible number of layers in a specic design problem. Each layer is represented by a pair of genes (with one
gene in each chromosome), being the rst pair referred to the outermost layer and the succeeding pairs of genes referred to the inner layers. In the rst chromosome, named orientation
chromosome, is stored information about ber orientation and
about the number of plies contained by each layer of the laminate.
The second chromosome, called material chromosome, is used to
store the material properties of the layer, containing information
like ply thickness, elastic and strength constants.
Each design variable must assume one of the admissible discrete values dened in the optimization process. These values are
represented by positive integer numbers. They are used to code
de variable value in its correspondent gene. Since there are two
kinds of variables, the orientation and the material variable, two
code alphabets are used in the codication. An empty stack code,
represented by the number zero, is used in problems where the
variation of the number of layers is considered. This code is introduced in a pair of genes, representing the layer to be deleted, by a
specic genetic operator. Another genetic operator acts adding layers to the laminate by changing the value zero of a pair of genes by
any other admissible value. The maximum number of layers in the
laminate is limited by the number of genes in the chromosome.
In Fig. 1 is presented an example of the decodication of a pair
of chromosomes in a laminate stacking sequence, based in a given
orientation and material gene codication alphabets. These chro-

F.S. Almeida, A.M. Awruch / Composite Structures 88 (2009) 443454

Fig. 1. Decodication of chromosomes in a laminate stacking sequence.

mosomes could represent a laminate with up to 32 plies, since

each one of the 8 genes in the strings represent 2 plies, and only
one half of the symmetric laminate is coded. However, the presence of the code 0 in the rst pair of genes indicates that this
layer does not exist, indicating that the laminate has only 28 plies.
3.2. Genetic operators
3.2.1. Crossover
Crossover is an essential GA operator, having the fundamental
task of creating new organisms (children) in a reproduction process. It acts combining genetic information taken from a pair of
organisms (parents) selected from the current population. The created child will hopefully be better than, or at least equivalent, in
tness to its parents. The crossover operation is applied by rst
generating a random number to dene the crossover point. Then,
the gene strings of both material and orientation chromosomes
are split at the same point in both parents [8]. The left part of parent 1 and the right part of parent 2 are combined to form a child, as
is shown in Fig. 2. The crossover operator is usually applied with
some probability, but in this work crossover is always used to create children.
3.2.2. Mutation
Mutation is the class of genetic operators responsible to maintain the genetic diversity of the population by introducing new
information in the chromosomal strings of each child after it is created by the crossover operation. These operations provide a random search capability to GA, which may be useful to nd
promising areas in the design space, and prevent crossover to lose
its effect due to a standardization of the population. In the classical
implementation of this operator, to each gene is given a small
probability to switch to any other permissible value, excepting
its current value [3].
In spite of the randomness of the mutation process, it is possible
to incorporate to this operator some knowledge about the response
of composite laminates with respect to the alteration of one or

445

more of its characteristics. This may lead to a less random operation, which is supposed to be more efcient in guiding the evolution towards optimization objectives. New operators named
orientation alteration, material alteration, ply addition and ply
deletion, are introduced to replace the classical mutation in the
present GA [8,9]. A description of these new operators is presented
below, followed by an example of their applications as it is shown
in Fig. 3.
Orientation and material alterations are implemented similarly
to the classical mutation, but are independently applied to orientation and material chromosomes, respectively. Different orientation
and material operator probabilities (poa and pma) may be adopted,
which is useful, since each chromosome may converge at different
velocities in most optimization processes. Additionally, these operators are not applied to genes with empty stack code, when it is
present in the chromosome.
Two distinct operators are used to vary the number of layers in
the laminate. The rst one, named ply addition, acts in the chromosomal strings, at a given probability ppa, introducing a new layer
close to the laminate mid-plane (end of chromosomes), and
removing an existing pair of genes with empty stack code. The
genes that represent the new layer are randomly created, assuming
any value contained in each respective alphabet codication. In an
opposite way, the ply deletion operator acts taking out the last
pair of genes of the organism chromosomes (innermost layer)
and adding a pair of genes with empty stack code at the outermost
position. This operator is applied with a given probability ppd. Both
operators manipulate at the innermost laminate layer because it
has little effect on bend or twist behavior of the plate or shell, causing no abrupt changes in the design.

Fig. 3. (a) Orientation and material alteration; (b) ply addition; (c) ply deletion.

Fig. 2. Crossover operation.

446

F.S. Almeida, A.M. Awruch / Composite Structures 88 (2009) 443454

PN
An

Fig. 4. Gene swap operation.

3.2.3. Gene swap

The main characteristic of the gene swap operator is the ability
to modify laminate stack sequence without changes of the total
number of plies with bers oriented on each permissible direction.
This allows GA to change the bending behavior of the laminate
without modifying its in-plane mechanical response. The implementation of this operator follows Refs. [8,9], where two pairs of
genes are randomly chosen and have their position shifted in the
chromosome, resulting on a new stacking sequence. Such operation occurs at a given probability pgs, usually with a larger value
than those corresponding to mutation operators probabilities. A
description of the gene swap operation is given in Fig. 4.
3.3. Selection scheme
There are many ways to obtain the population of successive
generations in a GA. In classical algorithms new generations are
formed only by children created by genetic operators applied to
the current population. This process has many drawbacks since
there is no warranty of improvement or maintenance of achieved
evolution when all the old organisms are replaced. To solve this
problem new selection schemes were created, being one of them
the elitism scheme, which consists in transfer some good organisms from the old population to a new generation, preserving
desirable genetic information. This papers deals with a multiple
elitist scheme proposed by Soremekun [8]. In the implementation,
both, parent and child populations of size P are independently
ranked from best to worst tness. These two populations are then
combined and ranked together, resulting in a combined population
with 2P organisms. Then, the best Ne individuals of the combined
population are transferred to the new generation. The best individuals of child population that have not already been used are taken
to ll the remainder of the new generation. The number of top elements (Ne) to be transferred to the new generation is a GA parameter to be adjusted at each application.
4. Numerical examples and discussion
Three examples of composite laminated structures design using
GA optimization and FEM analysis are presented in the following
sections. To prove the success of the optimization procedure and
to characterize the design space of the problems, all the possible
laminate congurations are previously analyzed. Additionally, N
optimizations are carried out for each example to obtain the algorithm reliability and computational cost. This is possible to accomplish because results of previous analyses of the design space are
stored. This information is used by the GA to evaluate the objective
function.
The apparent reliability (R) is determined by taking the number
of optimizations where the GA nds at least one global optimum
(No), divided by the total number of applications of the GA (N). It
denes the chances of obtaining the global optimum in a single
optimization process. As the structural analysis employing the
FEM is usually the most time consuming task in the optimization
procedure, the GA cost (An), which is determined by the average
number of analyses required in a single optimization process, is
given by the following expression:

i
i1 X g P

where X ig is the total number of generations analyzed in the ith optimization procedure. In GA optimization procedures it is very common to occur repeated analyses because one specic design may
appear in many generations during the process. When a memory
containing information about the performed analyses is used, associated to the GA, these repeated analyses can be avoided, resulting
in an important reduction of the computational cost. In these cases,
another measurement of the computational cost can be stated tacking the average number of the effectively performed analyses (Ar),
obtained dividing the number of analyses that were effectively carried out by the number of GA executions (N).
The criterion to stop the optimization process, which was used
in all examples presented here, is based in two parameters: the
upper limit of the number of generations (NLG) and the maximum
number of generations with no improvement of the best design
(NSD). Once one of these limits is reached, the optimization process
is stopped and the best laminate of the last generation is taken as
the optimization result. NLG and NSD are dened in each optimization procedure, depending on the complexity of a specic problem.
4.1. Weight and deection minimization of a composite laminated
plate under transverse load
This example deals with the design of a composite laminated
square plate, subjected to a uniform pressure load on its surface.
Minimization of the structural weight and deection are the design
objectives. The two objectives must be considered in conjunction
with the constraints imposed by material failure and maximum
values of contiguous plies thickness with the same ber orientation. These are two opposite objectives, since improvements in
one of them leads to depreciation of the other, and they must be
considered at the same time in the optimization, requiring a multiobjective approach. In its formulation, the objective function
must contain both objectives, which are weighted by a factor
which controls the emphasis given to each one of the objectives
in the optimization. As a result of the variation of the weighting
factor used in the objective function, this problem has a set of optimal solutions (pareto-optimal set) instead of a single solution.
The structure geometry, boundary conditions and the mechanical properties of the composite material are presented in Fig. 5.
The elastic constants are the Youngs modulus in the ber direction
(E1) and transverse to the ber direction (E2), the shear modulus
(G12) and the Poissons ratio (m12), respectively. Strength parameters for traction and compression for longitudinal and transversal
directions are given by F1t, F1c, F2t, and F2c, respectively. The
remainder parameters are the shear strength (F6) and the specic
weight (q). The structure must support a design pressure load of
0.1 MPa with no material failure (the TsaiWu failure function
must be lower than 1.0 for the whole plate) and thickness of contiguous plies with the same ber orientation must not be greater
than 2 mm or less than 0.75 mm.
In the plate design, the laminate is restricted to be symmetric
with 8 layers, being represented in the GA by a pair of chromosomes, with 4 genes each one. The ber orientation angle and
the thickness of each layer are the optimization variables. They
must assume one of the discrete values given in Table 1, where
the codication adopted in the GA is also given. The number of
genes combined with the number of possible values of each variable leads the size of the design space (SDS) to be equal to 65536.
In this example the tness evaluation FIT must consider both,
weight and deection reduction, at the same time. It is done by
Eq. (2a), where the tness value is taken as the inverse of the objective function, and the weighting factor a is introduced to allow the

F.S. Almeida, A.M. Awruch / Composite Structures 88 (2009) 443454

447

Fig. 5. Structure geometry, boundary conditions and composite properties.

Table 1
Genes alphabet and possible discrete variable values
Orientation gene alphabet

Material gene alphabet

Code

Orientation angle

Code

Ply thickness (mm)

1
2
3
4

1
1
1
1

1
2
3
4

0.75
1.00
1.50
2.00

ply
ply
ply
ply

at
at
at
at

0
45
+45
90

variation of the emphasis given to each objective. The constraints

are considered by a penalty formulation of the objective function,
where unfeasible designs have a reduction on their tness proportionally to the magnitude of the constraints violation. The objective
function uses the dimensionless variables W* and D*, that represent
the total weight and the central deection of the plate normalized
by their maximum and minimum values. This approach is more
efcient than a formulation that uses directly the weight and displacement value or even a simple dimensionless value of these
variables divided by a reference value (see [10]). The lower and
higher weight limits can be easily obtained by taking all the plies
thickness equal to 0.75 mm or equal to 2.00 mm, respectively.
The maximum and minimum displacements to be used are obtained by the results of optimizations performed with a equal to
0.0 and equal to 1.0, respectively. When a is equal to 0.0 only the
displacement is reduced, and the optimization result is a design
that have the smallest displacement. When a is taken equal to
1.0 the GA obtains the lightest structure, which may have a large
displacement, and it is used as the maximum value in the normalization. The normalization of the variables is given by Eq. (2b),
where the coefcient 1.0 is added to avoid nulls values of W* and
D*.

FIT Tv1aW1 1aD ;

FIT

if FF 6 1;

1
;
FFTv1aW  1aD

if FF > 1

Tv is referred to the violation of the limit of contiguous plies thickness with the same ber orientation. Tv is equal to the exceeding
value violating the limit xed to the thickness of contiguous plies
with the same ber orientation. As an example, if the thickness of
each one of two contiguous plies with the same ber orientation
is equal to 1.5 mm, the exceeding value violating the limit (i.e.
Tv) is 1.0, since this work adopts a limit of 2.0 mm. The constant
1.0 is added to Tv in order to avoid a division by zero in Eq. (2a)
when Tv = 0.
To allow the analysis of the optimization performance, GA is
executed 50 times for each a, which is taken varying from 0.0 to
1.0 with increments equal to 0.05. A population size P = 50 and
the elitist scheme parameter Ne = 5 are adopted (see Section 3.3).
The genetic operators are used with the probabilities poa = 4%,
pma = 2%, and pgs = 80%, while the probability of ply addition (ppa)
and ply deletion (ppd) operations are set to zero, since the number
of layers must remain xed during the optimization (see Sections
3.2.2 and 3.2.3). The parameters used as a criterion to stop the process are NLG = 250 and NSD = 125.
The distribution of weight and central displacement of all the
feasible designs in the problem is shown in Fig. 6. Points AP in this

2a

where

W

W  W min
1;
W max  W min

D

D  Dmin
1:
Dmax  Dmin

2b

The parameters FF and Tv are introduced in Eq. (3a) to penalize

unfeasible designs. The rst one represents the maximum value of
the failure function evaluated in the structure, while the parameter

Fig. 6. Weight and central displacement of feasible designs.

448

F.S. Almeida, A.M. Awruch / Composite Structures 88 (2009) 443454

gure are the designs that form the pareto-optimal set, which must
be obtained by the GA, according to the emphasis given to each of
the objectives. Details of the pareto-optimal set are presented in
Table 2.
Good reliability levels were obtained for the optimization with
most of the a values, as can be observed in Table 3, where the column r represents the standard deviation of the apparent reliability
R. The loss of reliability in the optimizations using a equal to 0.55
occurs because the GA nds many times the design identied by L
instead of the design identied by J, which is the correct solution in
this case. It happens because both designs J and L have practically
the same tness value for a equal to 0.55. The same occurs for a
equal to 0.70, when the GA nds the design identied by O in many
optimization processes instead of the design identied by N, which
is the correct solution. In optimizations where a is taken as being
equal to 0.80, 0.85 and 0.95, the low level of reliability occurs because the designs obtained in these cases have values of the tness
function very close to the optimal designs identied by O and P.
The average number of analyses required (An), the average
number of analyses effectively performed (Ar) and the ratio between Ar and the size of the design space (SDS), which is equal
to 65,536, are also shown in Table 3 for each value of a. An expressive reduction of the computational cost is observed if the analysis

Table 2
Pareto-optimal designs
Optimal
design

Laminate

Weight
(N)

Deection
(mm)

Weighting
factor a

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
L
M
N
O
P

[902,0, +452,0, 902,0, 451,0]S

[902,0, 452,0, 902,0, +450,75]S
[902,0, 451,75, 902,0, +451,0]S
[902,0, 451,75, 902,0, +450,75]S
[902,0, 451,0, 902,0, +451,0]S
[902,0, 450,75, 902,0, +451,0]S
[902,0, 450,75, 902,0, +450,75]S
[902,0, 450,75, 901,75, +451,0]S
[902,0, 450,75, 901,75, +450,75]S
[902,0, 450,75, 901,0, +451,0]S
[902,0, 450,75, 901,0, +450,75]S
[902,0, 450,75, 900,75, 450,75]S
1;0
901;0 S
901;0
2 ; 45
0;75
 451;0 S
901;0
2 ; 45
0;75
450;75 S
901;0
2 ; 0

219.7
211.9
204.0
196.2
188.4
180.5
172.7
164.8
157.0
149.1
141.3
133.4
125.6
117.7
109.9

7.9
8.8
9.6
10.8
11.8
13.2
15.0
17.3
19.9
23.3
27.2
32.1
38.5
46.6
59.5

0.00.20

0.25

0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.750.85
0.901.0

Table 3
Optimization results with GA for the square plate

Optimal designs

R (%)

r (%)

An

Ar

Ar/SDS (%)

0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00

A
A
A
A
A
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
L
M
N
O
O
O
P
P
P

100
100
100
100
100
98
100
100
100
100
100
84
98
100
80
94
78
68
92
86
92

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.2
2.0
0.0
5.7
3.4
5.9
6.6
3.8
4.9
3.8

7401
7780
7759
7640
7587
8659
8299
7681
7949
7694
7750
8386
8035
8146
7830
8205
7805
7798
8559
8067
8001

3641
3781
3852
3842
3923
4645
4463
4014
4242
4299
4392
4472
4095
4146
3747
3568
3175
3161
3404
3379
3347

5.56
5.77
5.88
5.86
5.99
7.09
6.81
6.12
6.47
6.56
6.70
6.82
6.25
6.33
5.72
5.44
4.84
4.82
5.19
5.16
5.11

of repeated structures is avoided using a memory, since Ar is found

to be about 4057% of An, depending on the value of a. Furthermore, the number of analyses effectively performed Ar is about
4.827.09% of the SDS, which means that only a small part of the
design space is explored, but the total number of analyses is still
huge. A reduction of the average value Ar can be obtained when
the parameters of GA are modied. However, in all tests accomplished here this reduction was obtained together with a reduction
on the reliability levels, mainly for values of a presenting critical
reliability levels.
As can be seen in the Tables 2 and 3, the GA is successful in nding most of the pareto-optimal designs, but the designs identied
by the points B and D are not obtained. These points are possible
solutions of the optimization, but they are located out of a convex
curve dened by the other optimal points. Due to this fact the GA
does not nd the points B and D, since the tness is evaluated as a
convex combination of the objectives. Figs. 7a and b show the difference of the tness values of the points B and D with respect to
their neighbor points in a range of a where the optimal solution
changes from point A to C and from point C to E, respectively
(see Table 3). The gures show that the tness of the points B
and D are never greater than those of their neighbor points at
the same time and so they cannot be obtained by the GA, no matter
the value of the weighting parameter.
All optimal designs obtained in the pareto optimal set present
outer layers with bers oriented at 90 and the maximum admissible thickness (2 mm). These layers are the most important for
the plate bending behavior, and the previous characteristics give
the best stiffness properties. The inner layers of the staking sequence of the different designs vary to obtain the different results
for the structural weight and deection, according to the emphasis
given for each of the optimization procedures. The lightest design
obtained here has less than the half of the weight of the heaviest;
however, the last one presented a displacement more than seven
times lower than the rst one. The chose of the design to be used
in a specic application depends on how critical is the weight for
such application and on the magnitude of the allowable
displacement.
4.2. Cost and weight minimization of an in-plane loaded composite
laminate plate
This example uses GA to obtain the optimum design of an inplane loaded plate of composite materials. The objective is to nd
the lightest and cheapest laminate satisfying the design constraints
with respect to structural stability and material failure. Two unidirectional composite materials, Kevlar-epoxy and Graphite-epoxy,
may be used to construct the stacking sequence, being the rst
cheaper but heavier and less resistant than the last one. The variables to be manipulated by the GA are the number of layers of
the laminate, the material of each one of the layers and the ber
orientation angles of the plies. Plate geometry, load and boundary
conditions are presented in Fig. 8. This gure also shows the elastic
constants, strength parameters, specic weight, ply thickness and
the parameter of cost per unit weight (C) for the Kevlar-epoxy
and Graphite-epoxy.
The safety factor for material failure kf is given by the TsaiWu
failure criterion [7], while the safety factor for structural elastic
instability kb is obtained solving the eigenvalue problem involving
the linear and the geometrically nonlinear stiffness matrices. A design is considered to be feasible when both kf and kb are grater or
equal to 1.0. For simplicity, the design cost is considered to be proportional to the amount of each material contained in the different
plies of the laminate. This value is obtained by multiplying the portion of the plate weight corresponding to one given material by its
cost per unit weight (denoted by C).

F.S. Almeida, A.M. Awruch / Composite Structures 88 (2009) 443454

449

Fig. 7. Differences of the tness values of points B and D with respect to their neighbor points. (a) When FIT(B) > FIT(A), then FIT(C) > FIT(B); (b) when FIT(D) > FIT(C), then
FIT(E) > FIT(D).

Fig. 8. Composite laminate plate under in-plane load.

The laminated is supposed to be symmetric and formed by 612

layers. Each layer has 2 plies that may assume the following orientations: 02, 45 and 902. They are represented in the orientation
gene alphabet by the codes 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The material
gene alphabet is formed by the codes 1 and 2, corresponding to
Kevlar-epoxy and Graphite-epoxy, respectively. Empty stacks code
can be used to reduce the number of layers. Due to the symmetry,
only 6 genes are necessary in each of the two chromosomes used to
represent the composite material in the GA. Considering the number of variables and the number of possible values of these variables, the size of the designs space (SDS) is 55,944. A distribution
of weight and cost of all the feasible designs in the problem is
shown in Fig. 9. Points A to F in this gure are the designs that form
the pareto-optimal set, which must be obtained by the GA. Details
of the points of the pareto-optimal set are presented in Table 4.
Due to the simultaneous minimization of cost and weight, the
multiobjective approach is used in the formulation of the objective
function, given in Eq. (3), which contains both objectives. The
weighting factor a is introduced to allow a shifting on the emphasis given to each of the objectives, driving the GA to converge to
one of the points in the pareto-optimal set, according to the value
attributed to this factor. The constraints of the problem are also
considered in the objective function. In this example, a feasible design is determined by the safety factor k*, which is given by the
minimum value between kb and kf. A penalization is applied to

the unfeasible designs, driving the GA to feasible areas of the design space. A small bonus, proportional to the safety factor, is
incorporated to the objective function in the case of feasible

Fig. 9. Weight and cost of feasible designs.

450

F.S. Almeida, A.M. Awruch / Composite Structures 88 (2009) 443454

Table 4
Designs of the pareto-optimal set

Table 5
Optimization results with GA for the plate with in-plane load

Optimal
design

Laminate

Weight
(N)

Cost
(uc)

kb

kf

A
B
C
D
E
F

ge
ge
ge
45ge ; 90ge
2 ; 02 ; 45 ; 02 S
ge
ge
ke
90ge
2 ; 02 ; 452 ; 02 S
ge
ge
ke
90ge
2 ; 02 ; 45 ; 452 S
ke
ke
;
0
;
45
; 90ke
45ge ; 90ge
2
2 S
2
ke
;
0
45ge ; 45ke ; 90ke
4
2 S
ke
45ke
3 ; 904 S

24.49
25.44
26.39
27.34
28.30
29.25

73.46
64.62
55.77
46.93
38.09
29.25

1.04
1.30
1.50
1.64
1.56
1.30

55.12
30.93
31.84
18.00
17.16
16.04

designs. This bonus promotes an additional goal in the optimization process, seeking to maximize the value of the safety factor. As
a consequence of this formulation, the result of the optimization
process is supposed to be the safest design having the best
weighted combination of weight and cost.
Parameters W* and C*, used in Eq. (3a), are the dimensionless total weight and cost of the plate, respectively. They are given by Eq.
(3b) using the maximum and minimum possible values of weight
and cost, which are easily obtained by the extreme combination
of materials and number of layers. Instead of working directly with
a linear combination of the dimensionless weight and cost, the
implemented objective function uses the square of these variables,
already weighted by the factor a. This alternative formulation is
necessary because the results of optimizations that uses a linear
combination of W* and C* as objective function is always one of
the extreme points A or F (see Fig. 9). It occurs because the pareto-optimal set is arranged in a straight line in the weight-cost
plane. The new formulation provides a curved distribution of optimal points, allowing the GA to nd them. The optimal solution is
dened as the point which is located at the closest distance from
the origin of the weight-cost reference system, being this disq
tance given by aW  2 2 1  aC  2 2 .

8
q1
>
>
>
OBJ

aW  2 2 1  aC  2 2
106 k ; if k P 1;
<
q1
>
>
>
: OBJ k 2
aW  2 2 1  aC  2 2
;

if k < 1;
3a

where

W

W  W min
1;
W max  W min

C

C  C min
1:
C max  C min

3b

To study the GA performance, 25 optimization processes were executed for each a, which is taken varying from 0.0 to 1.0 with increments equal to 0.1. The GA is used with a population size P = 30
and a elitist parameter Ne = 4, together with the following probabilities for the genetic operators: poa = 4%, pma = 2%, ppa = 4%, ppd = 8%
and pgs = 80%. The parameters of the criteria used to stop the process
are NLG = 300 and NSD = 100. The results of the optimizations performed here show that the GA can obtain one optimal design for
every tested a, but not all of the 25 GA executions performed with
each value of a are successful. This happens because GA has difculty to search for the optimal design in regions where the objective
function has low gradients, as a consequence of the introduction of
the bonus proportional to the safety factor. There are many points
(designs) with tness values very similar to the optimal design tness value, having the same weight and cost of the optimal design,
but with a smaller safety factor. Table 5 shows the apparent reliability (R) and its standard deviation (r), obtained from GA the 25 optimizations for each value of a, considering two situations. In the rst
column of Table 5 optimizations founding only one optimal design
are computed as successful, while in the second column all designs
with the same weight and cost of those included in the rst column,

Pareto-optimal
set

Optimal
designs
R (%)

r (%)

R (%)

r (%)

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

F
F
F
E
E
D
C
B
A
A
A

100
100
100
100
100
40
20
8
84
92
88

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.8
8.0
5.4
7.3
5.4
6.5

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Near
optimal
designs

An

Ar

Ar/SDS
(%)

3829
3839
3862
3750
3732
4805
4498
5999
4172
4740
4622

1238
1714
1709
1683
1723
2209
2336
2868
2037
2410
2219

2.21
3.06
3.05
3.01
3.08
3.95
4.18
5.13
3.64
4.31
3.97

but having smaller values of safety factor, are considered as valid

solutions. These are called near optimal designs and are found in
every optimization and for all values of a, showing that GA is efcient in nding near optimal solutions. Table 5 also shows the average number of analyses required (An), the average number of
analyses effectively performed (Ar) and the ratio between Ar and
the size of the design space (SDS), for each value of a. The algorithm
has explored only a little part of the design space, but for optimizations presenting low reliability levels the search was extended to
more generations to seek for the best solution, requiring more analyses. Using computer memory to avoid repeated analyses during the
optimization gives a signicant reduction on the computational cost,
as can be seen from the difference between An and Ar in Table 5.
Although the variation of the number of layers is allowed in this
example, all the designs that form the pareto optimal set are composed by 20 plies. As layers with two plies and the symmetry condition have been used, laminates with total number of plies that
are multiple of 4 have been obtained. In this case, the optimization
process showed that laminates with 1216 plies are unfeasible,
while laminates with 24 plies are less efcient than those with
20 plies. The transition of the heaviest and less expensive design
(F) to the lightest and most expensive design (A) is accomplished
modifying gradually the material of the different layers. In each
subsequent design contained in the pareto set, the outer layers
composed by Kevlar-epoxy were replaced by a graphiteepoxy
layer, taking the maximum advantage of the stiffest material. The
variation of the weight observed from design A to F is much lower
than the variation of the cost. This implies that, unless for weight
critical applications, the cheapest design is the best one. However,
this conclusion may be strongly affected by the way the cost is
evaluated or even if the cost parameter (denoted by C) is modied.
4.3. Stiffness maximization of a composite laminated shell with
geometrically nonlinear behavior
This example deals with the application of the GA to obtain
the design of a composite shallow shell with the maximum stiffness with respect to a pressure load. The nonlinear behavior of
the structure is considered in the tness evaluation by taking into
account the critical load level and the maximum displacement of
the structure. These values are obtained by the geometrically
nonlinear analysis of the problem. The structural optimization is
performed by the GA through the manipulation of the laminate
stacking sequence, considering a xed number of layers. Constraints referred to material failure and number of contiguous
plies with the same ber orientation are imposed to the problem.
Two cases of optimization are studied in this example, considering the same geometry of the structure, but different magnitudes

F.S. Almeida, A.M. Awruch / Composite Structures 88 (2009) 443454

of the pressure load and thickness of the laminate, what results in

different levels of nonlinearity. In the rst case the structure is subjected to a pressure load q = 0.25 MPa, and the laminate have a total thickness h = 12.6 mm. The whole design space is previously
analyzed, allowing the study of the effect of some GA parameters
over the reliability and computational cost of the optimization process by numerous applications of the GA. The second case considers a pressure load q = 0.125 MPa and the laminate thickness
h = 6.3 mm. The nonlinear structural behavior observed in this case
is stronger than in the rst case, arising some difculties to the
analysis requiring a larger number of steps to produce an accurate
response for most laminate congurations. A strategy for the automatic renement of the basic load increment ki, used in the nonlinear analysis by the GDCM [6], is introduced to reduce the
computational cost. The effect of this strategy is studied in four
optimization processes performed for the second case. In both
cases the laminate is symmetric and formed by 14 layers that are
represented in the GA by a chromosome containing 7 genes. The
material chromosome is not necessary in this example, since the
unique layer characteristic that is allowed to be changed in the
optimization process is the bers orientation.
The boundary conditions and structural geometry are shown in
Fig. 10, together with the elastic and strength parameters of the
glassepoxy composite used in this example. FEM is used to solve
the geometrically nonlinear problem.
The tness value of each design obtained by the GA during the
optimization process is dened by Eq. (4), where two parameters
are used to characterize the structural stiffness and other two
parameters are used to consider the constraints violation. The
parameters used to evaluate the structural stiffness are the critical
load level (NCcrit), determined when the curve pressure  displacement at the central point A reaches the rst peak, and the value of
the maximum displacement at the same point (Umax), which is taken at the end of the load increment or when material failure is observed. In the case of unfeasible designs, the maximum load level
acting on the structure without material failure (NCmax), and the
number of violations of the limit of 4 contiguous plies with the
same ber orientation (Vnlc) are used as penalizations.

FIT

!
NC crit  NC 2max
:
U max  V nlc 1

The constant value 1.0 is added to Vnlc in order to avoid a division by

zero in Eq. (4) when Vnlc = 0. In the rst case studied in this example,
considering q = 0.25 MPa and h = 12.6 mm, each of the 14 layers
that form the laminate contains two plies, oriented at 02, 45 or
902. These orientations are represented in the chromosomal string
by the codes 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The resulting laminate is
formed by 28 plies with an individual thickness of 0.45 mm. Consid-

451

Fig. 11. Critical load level and maximum displacement of feasible designs.

ering the number of genes in the chromosomal string and the number of possible values for each gene, the size of the design space in
this example is 2187. The whole design space has been analyzed to
allow the evaluation of the GA, and the feasible designs are shown
in Fig. 11, where the optimal design is indicated.
The optimal design, indicated in Fig. 11, is dened by the stacking sequence [(904, 45)2, 902]S and the following value of the
parameters were obtained: NCcrit = 0.563, Umax = 0.0272 m and
FIT = 20.698. As expected, the optimal design has most of its plies
with bers oriented at 90, providing the best bending properties.
The 45 plies are introduced in order to satisfy the constraint related to the number of contiguous plies with the same ber orientation. The curve load  displacement at point A for the optimal
design is presented in Fig. 12, together with the same curve for a
design conguration with a smaller tness value. In this case the
stacking sequence is [453, 04, 452]S, NCcrit = 0.228, Umax =
0.0307 m and FIT = 7.427. In the analyses executed for all the
points of the designs space the basic load increment ki in the GDCM
was taken equal to 0.05.
Nine combinations of the GA parameters P and NLG, presented in
Table 6, are used to study the inuence of these parameters in the
optimization performance. Considering that the maximum number
of analyses (Amax) to be executed in a optimization process is determined by the product (NLG + 1)  P, it is possible to impose an
upper limit to An by adjusting these two parameters. The values
of P and NLG are obtained by working with ranges of Amax/SDS equal
to 12.5%, 25% and 50%. Using the expression for Amax stated before

Fig. 10. Shallow shell geometry, boundary conditions and material properties.

452

F.S. Almeida, A.M. Awruch / Composite Structures 88 (2009) 443454

Fig. 12. Central displacement  load level for the optimal design and for a low tness value.

Table 6
Combination of the parameters P and NLG
Amax/SDS = 12.5%

Amax/SDS = 25.0%

Amax/SDS = 50.0%

Comb

P (Ne)

NLG
(NSD)

Comb

P (Ne)

NLG
(NSD)

Comb

P (Ne)

NLG
(NSD)

1
2
3

7 (1)
14 (2)
21 (3)

38 (30)
19 (15)
12 (10)

4
5
6

7 (1)
14 (2)
21 (3)

77 (44)
38 (22)
25 (15)

7
8
9

7 (1)
14 (2)
21 (3)

155 (55)
77 (27)
51 (18)

and adopting the population size P equal to 7, 14 and 21 (proportional to 1, 2 and 3 times the number of genes in the chromosome),
it is possible to determine the value of NLG for each range of Amax/
SDS. The values of the parameters Ne and NSD are conveniently adjusted in each of the nine combinations, but these parameters are
also decisive in the efciency of the process. The genetic operators
probabilities adopted here are poa = 4% and pgs = 80%, being the
remainder set of probabilities equal to zero because they are not
used in this problem. The GA is executed 50 times for each of the
nine combinations of parameters in order to study their inuence
in the apparent reliability (R) and in the computational cost of
the optimization process.
Fig. 13 shows the performance of the GA considering each one
of the combinations of P and NLG tested in this work. In combina-

Fig. 13. GA performance with different combinations of P and NLG.

tions 1, 2 and 3, referred to Amax/SDS = 12.5%, low computational

cost is obtained together with unacceptable levels of reliability.
The other combinations have generated good reliability levels
(over 95%, excepting combination 4 which has R = 90%) and the increase observed in the computational cost is not proportional to
the increase in Amax/SDS to 25% and 50%. Combinations with smaller values of P have shown to be not so expensive in terms of computational cost than the others belonging to the same range of
Amax/SDS. A reduction of 30% in the number of analyses to be executed in each optimization is observed as a consequence of the
adoption of a strategy to avoid the repetition of analyses that have
been performed previously. This aspect is more expressive in optimizations using smaller values of P, as for example in combination
7, where the saving in computational cost is of about 44%.
As it is shown in Fig. 13, the optimizations using small populations and many generations have the best performance in terms of
computational cost, maintaining good reliability levels. Although
the GA performance is highly dependent on the problem to be
solved, the tendencies observed in this example may be extended
to many other applications, helping to determine suitable values
of the parameters P and NLG. Furthermore, if optimizations resulting in designs with tness values grater or equal to 99% of the optimum design (quasi optimal designs) are considered as being
successful, the reliability level is increased to 100% in all the nine
combinations, as it is shown in Fig. 13. In fact, GA can nd designs
very close to the optimum, exploring only few points in the design
space.
In the second case studied in this example, considering
q = 0.125 MPa and h = 6.3 mm, each of the 14 layers that form
the laminate contains only one ply, which must be oriented at
45, +45 and 90. These orientations are represented in the chromosomal string by the codes 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The individual ply thickness (0.45 mm) and the size of the design space (2187)
are the same of the previous case. The GA parameter are adjusted
with the values P = 7, Ne = 1, NLG = 155, NSD = 55, poa = 4% and
pgs = 80%, according to the best combination found for the previous
case.
The reduction of the laminate thickness leads to a stronger nonlinear behavior of the structure, even if the load is reduced by the
same factor. As a consequence of this fact, many laminate congurations present in the design space of this example result in structures that cannot be accurately analyzed if the basic increment
load ki is taken equal to 0.05, as it was adopted in the previous case.
There is not a method to determine a priori the best value for the

F.S. Almeida, A.M. Awruch / Composite Structures 88 (2009) 443454

parameter ki. If the adopted value is too big, the nonlinear solution
is inaccurate or even may not converge. In the other hand, if the value is smaller than the necessary, the analysis process may became
very slow, which is very undesirable when an optimization by GA
is used. The challenge in this case is to nd a value for ki that provide accurate analyses for all the designs with the minimum computational cost.
In this example a strategy for the automatic renement of the
parameter ki is implemented to reduce the cost of the analyses
and to guarantee the convergence and the accuracy of the nonlinear solution. The rst step in the implementation is carried out
monitoring the structural response during the nonlinear solution
and identifying anomalous behaviors that can be interpreted as
solution instability or error. When this situation occurs, the process is stopped and restarted using a smaller value for ki. The
way the structural response is monitored and the factor of reduction of the parameter ki are problem dependent and can be implemented in different forms. In the present example the error is
identied when the increment in the displacement of the central
point of the shell in a specic load step is greater than 10 times
the maximum displacement veried in the previous load step.
The renement of the parameter ki is accomplished by taking one
half of its current value. A new structural analysis in the optimization process using GA to look for a new design is always started
using the value of ki dened by the user, even if the renement
process was used in the previous analysis.
The results of four optimizations executed for this case are presented in Table 7. The optimizations 1 and 2 were executed using
the xed value ki = 0.025, while the optimizations 3 and 4 were
executed using the value ki = 0.05, together with the renement
strategy. In the optimizations 1, 3 and 4 the optimal solution for
the problem is given by the laminate [904, 45, 902]S, with the following values for the critical load and maximum displacement:
NCcrit = 0.451 and Umax = 0.02895 m. This stacking sequence is almost similar to that obtained for the best design of the previous
example. It contains many plies with ber oriented at 90, in order
to maximize the shell stiffness, with a 45 ply introduced to attend
the problem constraint. The best design found by the optimization
2 is the laminate [902, 452, 90, 45, 90]S; however, the nonlinear
analysis of this structure, using ki = 0.025, results in a wrong solution, invalidating this optimization. The load level  central displacement curves for the designs found in optimizations 1, 3 and
4, together with the curve referred to the right solution (using
ki = 0.0125) of the design found in optimization 2, are shown in
Fig. 14. In this gure an additional region with snap-back and
snap-through points is observed in the curve corresponding to
the best design of optimization 2. This behavior occurs in many designs explored during the optimization process, making the nonlinear analysis of such structures much more difcult since these
behaviors are correctly reproduced only when small values of the
parameter ki are used.
The values adopted for the GA parameters resulted in a good
performance in terms of computational cost, considering the small
size of the design space in this problem. Furthermore, a great
reduction in the number of analyses to be executed in each optimization is obtained avoiding repeated analyses using a memory
Table 7
Optimization performance with or without the renement strategy
Optimization
1
2
3
4

ki
0.025
0.05
With ren.

a
Ttotal and Tan
optimization 1.

An

Ar

Ar/SDS (%)

Ttotala

Tana

483
441
504
651

293
297
259
325

13.4
13.6
11.8
14.8

1.000
0.996
0569
0.682

1.000
0.982
0.643
0.616

dimensionless

values

obtained

with

reference

to

the

453

Fig. 14. Load level  central displacement for the best design obtained in optimizations 1, 2, 3 and 4.

which store previous results. In the optimization 4 the number of

analyses is reduced in 50%. Some advantages were observed in
the use of the renement strategy. First, it is possible to reduce
the average time of the analyses (Tan) from 1.000 in the optimization 1 (when the renement strategy was not used) to 0.616 in the
optimization 4, resulting in 32% of time saving in the total optimization time (Ttotal). The second advantage lies in the guarantee of
the correct solution for the nonlinear analysis of the structure,
avoiding the use of a wrong structural response by the GA, as occurred in the optimization 2.
5. Final remarks
The GA was successfully applied to obtain the optimal design of
composite laminate structures such as plates and shells subjected
to different load conditions. Two examples of multiobjective optimization were presented, and some aspects related to the formulation of the objective function and its inuence on the optimization
process were discussed. The performance of the GA in terms of
computational cost and reliability was studied, showing that the
method is very efcient in nding near optimal solutions, and an
important saving in computer time can be obtained by de use of
suitable values for the GA parameters and when results of different
analyses are stored.
In the third example the GA was used together with a nonlinear
FEM analysis to maximize the stiffness of a composite shell. Two
cases of laminate thickness and load level were considered to explore different levels of nonlinearity of the structural response.
The inuence of the population size P and the limit of the number
of generations NLG over the reliability and the computational cost
of the method were investigated in this example. The results demonstrated that when relatively small populations associated with a
large limit of the number of generations are used, better performances of the GA are obtained. A strategy for the automatic renement of the basic load level (ki), used in the nonlinear analysis, was
proposed. It showed to be very important for the improvement of
the optimization process, since a sensible reduction of the average
time of the structural analysis was obtained.

Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the Brazilian agencies CNPq and
CAPES for its nancial support.

454

F.S. Almeida, A.M. Awruch / Composite Structures 88 (2009) 443454

References
[1] Walker M, Smith RE. A technique for the multiobjective optimization of
laminated composite structures using genetic algorithms and nite element
analysis. Compos Struct 2003;62:1238.
[2] Grdal Z, Haftka RT, Hajela P. Design and optimization of laminated composite
materials. Wiley & Sons; 1999.
[3] Soremekun GAE, Grdal Z, Haftka RT, Watson LT. Composite laminate design
optimization by genetic algorithm with generalized elitist selection. Comput
Struct 2001;79:13143.
[4] Goldberg DE. Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine
learning. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company; 1989.
[5] Bathe KJ, Ho L. A simple and effective element for analysis of general shell
structures. Comput Struct 1981;13:67381.

[6] Yang Y, Shieh M. Solution method for nonlinear problems with multiple
critical points. AIAA J 1990;28(12):21106.
[7] Daniel IM, Ishai O. Engineering mechanics of composite materials. Oxford
University Press; 1994.
[8] Soremekun GAE. Genetic algorithms for composite laminate design and
optimization. M.Sc. thesis (Master of Science in Engineering Mechanics).
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksbourg, Virginia, USA; 1997.
[9] Nagendra S, Jestin D, Grdal Z, Haftka RT, Watson LT. Improved genetic
algorithm for the design of stiffened composite panels. Comput Struct
1996;58(3):54355.
[10] Almeida FS. Laminated composite material structures optimization with
genetic algorithms. M.Sc. thesis PPGEC/UFRGS, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do
Sul, Brazil; 2006 [in Portuguese].