Composite Structures 57 (2002) 415423

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Parametric optimisation of composite shell structures

for an aircraft Krueger ap
Javid Bayandor a, Murray L. Scott a,*
, Rodney S. Thomson b

a
The Sir Lawrence Wackett Centre for Aerospace Design Technology, Department of Aerospace Engineering,
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, G.P.O. Box 2476V, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia
b
Cooperative Research Centre for Advanced Composite Structures Limited, 506 Lorimer Street, Fishermans Bend, Victoria 3207, Australia

Abstract
This paper details the conceptual design optimisation of the conguration and composite lay-ups used to replace the conven-
tional honeycomb stiened structure of a Krueger ap. The multiple composite laminates selected for redesigning the lay-ups within
an initial symmetrical quasi-isotropic ply conguration of [0/45/
45/90]s , had to demonstrate full orthotropic characteristics. In
order to construct a numerical process to optimise the required multi-layered composite shells, a commercial nite element code,
Ansys, was used to develop a parametric analysis le. This analysis subroutine was then integrated into an Ansys Parametric Design
Language code embedding the objective of the optimisation processmass minimisationas well as all the constraints and the
allowable domains of the parameters. The paper, in its conclusion, presents a comparison between the original product and the
optimal design, and reviews the advantages of the future implementation of this design.
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Composite shells; Ply optimisation; Krueger ap; Stiened panels; Conceptual design

1. Introduction
In a number of previous case studies, the design of the
primary and secondary structures of commercial aircraft
has been carried out using isotropic and anisotropic
materials. Recent increasing demands within the avia-
tion industry however, aim to benet from the sub-
stantial mass savings and the high structural integrity
oered by utilising advanced composite materials in
commercial eets. It has therefore become exceedingly
important for manufacturers to account for orthotropic
properties of such material and the challenges they
present during the optimisation process.
One such challenge posed by these characteristics
includes the deformation response of orthotropic ma-
terials, which has the following signicance in compar-
ison to those with isotropic properties: the general
response in orthotropic materials is direction dependant,
and normal and shear stresses instigate various combi-
nations of normal and shear strains. In isotropic mate-
rials however, the normal stresses only produce normal
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-3-9925-8064.
E-mail address: m.scott@rmit.edu.au (M.L. Scott).
0263-8223/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 3 - 8 2 2 3 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 0 9 - 5
strains and the shear stresses also promote only shear
strains. In orthotropic materials, the response directions
are representative of the axes of symmetry, the number
and the directions of which are normally controlled by
the microstructure of the material. As an example out-
lining the complexity involved in the orthotropic struc-
tures versus isotropic ones, a simple unidirectional
composite can be considered. This simple structure has
the orthotropic property with more than three axes
of symmetry including the longitudinal axis and all
other directions perpendicular to it. Therefore, due to
the existence of these additional axes of symmetry,
unidirectional composites are only transversely isotropic
[1] requiring an extensive series of modications within
the nite element (FE) and optimisation codes for the
structural analysis to hold.
Due to such complications, the experimental investi-
gations of particular responses of aircraft orthotropic
structures to external loading conditions, as opposed to
those of the isotropic ones, are considered a high add-on
cost to production of optimised aircraft components.
This however, is in contrast with the advantages that
applications of advanced composite materials in aero-
space structures oer. Thus, the present study is aimed
at introducing an automated numerical algorithm with
416 J. Bayandor et al. / Composite Structures 57 (2002) 415423
which the process of optimisation of such orthotropic
multi-layered structures can be facilitated, and the cost
associated with the required extensive testing reduced.
2. Krueger ap
The Krueger ap is a deployable leading edge lifting
component of the wing. It is located between the rst
engine and the root of the wing on each side of the fu-
selage in heavy transport aircraft. When idle, it rests on
the front part of the lower surface of the wing, con-
nected to the primary structure of the wing via two al-
uminium gooseneck ttings and their hinges (Fig. 1).
The gooseneck ttings are positioned on each side of the
middle transverse rib. On activation, the ap rotates
about the gooseneck hinges and forms an extension to
the upper surface of the wing with its bull nose creating
a new leading edge.
In conventional designs of Krueger aps, a honey-
comb stiened skin is supported by ribs and spars. This
type of conguration results in low impact tolerance of
the structure and, over time, possible delamination of
the skin at points of contact.
On the basis of the demands expressed by industry to
overcome these problems, a large commercial transport
aircraft Krueger ap was chosen to be optimised and
reproduced entirely from orthotropic laminated struc-
tures. The composite laminates were to replace the
honeycomb structures of the ap bays as well as the
aluminium ribs and spars.
3. Modelling and numerical procedures
In modelling the ap, idealised ttings were assumed
to be the sole bearers for bringing the actuator loads
into the ap structure.
Two critical scenarios were considered for the model:
opening ap and fully deployed ap. The load case de-
ned for the opening ap was a uniform pressure dis-
Fig. 1. Layout of the Krueger ap and its gooseneck ttings.
Fig. 2. Modelled load cases for opening ap (Case 1) and fully de-
ployed ap with the applied point loads (Case 2).
tribution prole over the ap surface, where the
deployed structure had a linear pressure prole (Fig. 2).
This pressure was applied over the ap surface in ad-
dition to the point loads imposed on the ap by the
leading edge bull nose.
3.1. Procedures map
Modelling displacements, applying constraints and
pressure distributions to the model, calculating the
failure indices and failure criteria within the layer ele-
ments, and optimising the laminates for a given design
objective were carried out using the pre- and post-pro-
cessing modules of the FE software Ansys. Parametric
solutions for global stiness and buckling eects, given
the predetermined material properties and subject to
volume reduction were then obtained through the Ansys
solver and post-processing modules, providing the sim-
ulation with the required initial sets of data for pursuing
the optimisation phase. This phase, based on predened
sets of analysis variables and objectives, enabled the
determination of a series of feasible responses within the
design domain of the problem. Of the solutions ob-
tained, the set with the lowest objective function value
that most closely met all the constraints, represented the
optimised shape for the composite structure lay-up of
the ap. The process also identied the infeasible an-
swers which violated the boundaries of the design space
as, due to the nature of the problem, some of the re-
sponse sets occurred outside the design domain.
3.2. Optimisation method
One of the two optimisation methods that Ansys
provides is a procedure based on the Ansys Parametric
Design Language (APDL). All the user dened para-
meters or functions introduced in this module using
 J. Bayandor et al. / Composite Structures 57 (2002) 415423
APDL commands, according to the objectives of the
problem, can be constrained or minimised. In this
method, constrained problems are transformed into
unconstrained ones, which are to be minimised in con-
verging processes. The optimum design, which is the end
result of such processes, has to meet all the predened
requirements with a minimum expense of certain factors
such as mass, dimensions, shape and volume, positions
of supports, stress or strain, cost and so on, making the
design as eective as possible [2].
The standard optimisation techniques used in this
module consist of a number of design tools which do not
directly perform the minimisation, but only oer an al-
ternative means for the system to identify the feasible
domain and recognise the characteristics of the prob-
lems variables. These tools include: single loop analysis,
random, sweep, factorial and gradient tools as well as,
subproblem approximation and the rst-order optimi-
sation methods.
The subproblem approximation method, due to its
independency from using derivatives of the problem
variables, is the rst candidate used in the optimisation
subroutine. This advanced zero-order tool replaces the
dependant variables through the least square tting
approximation process. The constrained problem is then
converted to an unconstrained problem using penalty
functions (the subproblem). The penalised functions are
then minimised until the convergence is reached or the
iterations are terminated.
The rst-order method is based on design sensitivities
and provides high accuracy. In this method, the problem
is again converted to an unconstrained one by adding
functions to the objective function. However, unlike the
subproblem method, it is the actual FE representation
of the problem that is minimised, not an approximation.
The method uses gradients of the dependant variables.
In each iteration, using a steepest descent or conjugate
direction method, a search direction is selected and the
unconstrained problem is minimised along the specied
direction [2]. As is expected, each iteration consists of a
large number of subiterations carrying search directions
as well as gradients. Hence, the rst-order method for
optimisation performs several analysis loops and re-
quires substantially longer CPU time in comparison to
that required by the subproblem method.
Both of the optimisation methods perform a series of
analysisevaluationmodication loops. They start by
analysing the initial design, proceed to performing
evaluation of the results against specic design criteria,
and nally modifying the design as required. This multi-
functional cycle is repeated until the design specica-
tions and criteria are met.
Additionally, Ansys provides a number of tools ca-
pable of increasing the eciency of the above mentioned
optimisation methods; as such, the random design iter-
ation technique can be named. This technique enables
417
Fig. 3. Topology optimisation resultslight areas indicate where
material is needed.
feeding of the optimisation methods with the calculation
results of randomly selected initial data which serve as
starting points for the optimisation processes.
3.3. Topology optimisation
The early design of the ap constituted a heavy sec-
ondary wing structure. Therefore, an overall revision of
the topology of the component was required prior to
performing any lay-up optimisation on the ap.
Using Ansys, topology optimisation was performed
on a grid stiened conguration of the ap determining
the primary load paths under the dened load cases. The
results suggested an initial conguration consisting of
two to three spars and three ribs, by revealing the areas
within which material was required (Fig. 3).
These results were used as the basis for the parametric
design, to optimise the structural conguration, and the
later lay-up optimisations.
To carry out the parametric design optimisation, the
thicknesses of the skin, thicknesses and positions of the
ap ribs and spars, as well as possible tapering of
the spars height and width were considered as design
variables (DVs). Constraints were the maximum de-
ection, given strain allowables, and a buckling factor,
versus minimised mass dened as the objective function.
The optimisation enabled determination of the opti-
mum stiening arrangement as well as optimum thick-
nesses of the modelled ap.
3.4. Initial parametric model
The composite lay-up of the ap (Fig. 4) was eec-
tively optimised in two stages. In the rst stage, the ply
stacking sequence was determined where the second
stage dealt with optimising the ply thicknesses for a
given stacking sequence.
418 J. Bayandor et al. / Composite Structures 57 (2002) 415423
Fig. 4. Skin lay-up of the modelled Krueger ap.
To simulate the complex reaction of the composite
skin to external pressure elds, Ansys Shell99 option,
covering the principles of the linear layered structural
shells, was used as the primary candidate. This option
can perform analysis on up to 250 constant thickness or
125 tapered layers, sucient to correspond with the
projects manufacturing requirements. Nevertheless, in
special cases, where greater numbers of layers are re-
quired, user input constitutive matrices can overwrite
the analysis input.
Each Shell99 element used in the analysis has six
degrees of freedom at each node constituting x, y and z
directional nodal translations, as well as rotations about
the nodal x, y, and z axes. The element is fully dened
by its eight nodes (mid-side and corner nodes), average
or corner layer thickness, orthotropic material proper-
ties and its ply orientations. For the initial parametric
run, as the lay-up material was orthotropic, it was re-
quired to have the values of Youngs modulus in all
three coordinate system directions, the three dimen-
sional Poissons ratio, the shear modulus, as well as the
3-D failure criteria dened using the manufacturers
product specications. The 3-D failure criteria were
limited to ve main strengths in the principal direc-
tions of the material including the longitudinal tensile
strength, transverse tensile strength, shear strength, lon-
gitudinal compressive strength, and transverse compres-
sive strength [3]. Also, the number of plies, their
symmetry status and orientations were to be provided
from the earlier optimisation phase. This information
was added to the program using constitutive matrices
(Keyopt options) that relate generalised forces and mo-
ments to generalised strains and curvatures. The con-
stitutive matrices allow for incorporating an aggregate
composite material behaviour, supplying a thermal load
vector if required and, dening an unlimited number of
layers. However, the matrix approach does not provide
detailed results in each ply, as individual layer details are
not specied.
In the initial modelling stage, the orthotropic skin
model was originally set up with Shell99 elements, while
Shell63, a lower order nodal element type, was used to
mesh the spars, ttings and ribs. Consequently, prob-
lems were encountered in matching the mid-side nodes
between the two element types. This was due to the fact
that the removal of the mid-side nodes from Shell99
elements, as permitted in other element types, was not
possible.
To overcome this problem, the way and order in
which the structure was meshed became critical. To
ensure that the nodes of the two elements coincided at
the right locations, dierent element sizes for the con-
cerned regions were dened. Alternatively, where re-
quired, the Shell93 elements replaced the Shell63 type
elements providing the equivalent mid-side nodes for the
matching regions of the model. Due to the application
of a higher order element type however, this method
increased the computer resource requirements consid-
erably, which has the potential to adversely aect the
accuracy of the solution in extreme cases [4].
The real attributive constants (properties that depend
on the element type) for Shell99 are the key elements for
constructing the multi-layered composite skin. The ini-
tial number of constants supplied for the analysis was
12 3  NL, with NL 8, where NL represented the
number of plies used to construct the laminate [5]. For
each element the real constant table was specied con-
stituting the material property, ply orientation angle and
layer thickness. For orthotropic materials, densities are
dened by the software. As their material properties are
direction dependant, they had to be applied in the model
such that the required properties face the correct direc-
tions. To ensure this, the element coordinate system was
used, rather than the default system. The local coordi-
nate system was created such that its x-axis was aligned
with the bre direction of the skin.
For the ap composite skin lay-up optimisation, the
ply conguration was dened layer by layer from the
bottom surface of the component (layer 1) to the top one
(layer 8), with additional layers stacked in the same as-
cending order from the bottom to the top in the positive
normal direction of the element coordinate system. The
numbering sequence of the lay-up was found dependant
on the surface normal of the elements. Where the surface
normal faced outwards with reference to the structure,
the bottom layer became the designated layer 1, and the
layer numbers increased as the layers approached the
top layer. If the surface normal was facing the structure
however, the opposite held. Therefore, if two elements
had an opposing element normal, their respective lay-
ering sequence would then be in a reverse orderthis
was avoided using the Enorm command only when the
elements were located in the same plane. Nevertheless,
in a symmetrical lay-up, where the thicknesses above
and below the centreline are optimised to the same
 J. Bayandor et al. / Composite Structures 57 (2002) 415423
Fig. 5. Initial layer stacking sequencethe hatch lines are indicative of
the orientation angle in each ply.
values, this does not seem to create a concern. However,
even for such cases, care must be taken to ensure the
accuracy of the results.
During the optimisation process, an initial symmet-
rical ply stacking sequence of [0/45/
45/90]s was used
followed by further alternate sequencing (Fig. 5). This
allowed the embedment of laminate symmetry in the
design, reducing the need for investigating a large
number of coupling eects exhibited by composite
structures. Of these eects, coupling between twisting
and bending or bending and extension can be named,
which can be produced by unsymmetric laminates.
After producing the geometry of the ap encom-
passing the composite shell lay-up, the design was me-
shed using eight-noded quadratic elements [6].
For pursuing the analysis, it was critical to have the
failure criteria established for the composite layers,
constituting the structure of the ap. The maximum
stress failure criterion, with nine specied failure stres-
ses, was applied to the problem which showed whether a
certain layer had failed under external applied loadings.
Since the failure criteria are orthotropic, the failure
stress and strain values had to be provided for all di-
rections. Introducing the constraints of the problem and
the pressure distributions over the structure allowed the
simulation to proceed with nalising the parametric re-
sponse.
Following the solution, in the post-processing module,
the required parametric responses of the system, such as
maximum stresses and strains, and the required tabular
and graphical result sets, were extracted and viewed. This
concluded the cluster of commands in a batch run com-
prising the analysis le, saved under inp (or ans) exten-
sion, and used during the optimisation process.
3.5. Ply optimisation
At this stage, the parametric model was solved using
an ADPL optimisation le developed to embed the de-
419
sign space of the problem. This le was integrated with
the analysis code.
In the optimisation module, the DVs and the state
variables (SVs), as well as the objective function were to
be declared within the Opt processor [7]. The unique
dependant variable, the optimisation objective function
to be minimised during the optimisation loop, for the
ap design was chosen to be minimised volume, as vol-
ume is directly proportional to the mass of the structure.
Therefore, minimising the total volume, in eect, repre-
sented the mass minimisation for the composite ap.
The required DVs were assigned to the individual ply
thicknesses of the multi-layered structure with both their
upper and lower limits derived from extreme experi-
mental values. As the lay-up was symmetrical about the
centreline, the DV count reduced from eight to four. For
each value, a convergence tolerance of 0.005 was as-
sumed.
For this case, the SVs, being response quantities,
which are functions of the DVs, were selected to be the
stresses limited by the maximum stress failure criteria in
each ply. Each criterion was required to be less than 1.0
for the given limit loadings. Deection allowables and
eigenvalues identifying the buckling thresholds com-
prised other SV parameters.
The maximum global deections and the lowest
buckling loads used ensured that the entire ap could
not deect beyond 6.6 mm, and buckling did not
occur below the limit load.
The optimisation commands were executed using
both the subproblem and the rst-order method sub-
routines. This was conducted by varying the input
within the range of given extremes to achieve the opti-
mum design.
The DV parameters were initially introduced within
the analysis le. The initial values represented a poten-
tial design solution for the starting point of the analy-
sis and assumed dierent values as the optimisation
progressed. In every stage of the solution, the failure
indices for the maximum stress failure criteria were
calculated at the top and the bottom of each laminate at
all of the aps in-plane integration points. The maxi-
mum stress endured in dierent directions within each
layer was evaluated in these points by using up to six
criteria (Table 1).
The stored optimisation database in each step of this
process contained the optimisation environment, which
included the optimisation variable denitions, the pa-
rameters, all the optimisation specications, and the
accumulated design sets. Executing the command layer
with a non-zero layer number before the command
Rsys, Solu [2] brought up the result display in the layer
coordinate system. Up to a total number of 130 opti-
mised data sets could be saved by the optimiser and
displayed. Any data set beyond 130 replaced the worst
design set.
420 J. Bayandor et al. / Composite Structures 57 (2002) 415423

Table 1
Maximum stress failure criteria
rxt rxc
or f whichever applicable
rxtf rxc
ryt ryc
or f whichever applicable
rytf ryc
rzt rzc
fcmax max of f
or f
whichever applicable
r
  rzc
zt
rxy 
f Fig. 6. Plan view of the panel assembly of the Krueger ap concept.
rxy
ryz 
rfyz
jrxz j
rfxz

rit the greater of 0 or ri (i-directional stress in a layer) and i x, y, z.

ric the lesser of ri or 0 and i x, y, z.
rfit i-directional failure stress in layer under tension.
Fig. 7. Cross-sectional details of the Krueger ap.
The analysis was continued until either the results
converged or the optimiser reached the maximum
number of loops allowed by the program. Encountering properties throughout. Figs. 6 and 7 display the plan
the maximum number of sequential infeasible answers and the cross-sectional views of the concepts of the ap
could also terminate the analysis. structural conguration consisting of a number of DVs
used to construct the parametric model. Two concepts
were considered: blade stiened spars and C-spars. The
4. Results and discussion included the positions of the stiening elements (Fig. 6)
and the dimensions and thicknesses of the skin and
At the end of the optimisation process, the result sets, stieners.
a combination of feasible and infeasible data, were lis- Table 2 provides an overview of the component mass
ted. The best design had to satisfy all the constraints as breakdown of the Krueger ap C-spar concept versus
well as producing the minimum volume. Where all sets the blade stiened concept. Note that the leading and
were infeasible, the best design set was declared as the the trailing edge spars consist of the web and the upper
one closest to the frame of the design space, irrespective ange, whilst the lower ange masses are included in the
of the value of the volume. skin. From Table 2, it is evident that the C-spar model
Deriving the maximum indices in each ply, the layer provides a more ecient design compared to that of the
in which the material failure would occur was identied. blade stiened spars, with a 2.0 kg mass saving. Hence,
Accordingly, the thickness of each laminate was opti- the subsequent optimisation of the aerodynamic skin
mised to withstand the ultimate loads and avoid fail- was performed on the former, using an APDL code
uretaking into account the pre-dened allowables and based analysis in order to replace the quasi-isotropic
the boundary condition constraints. This was carried laminates of the skin with a fully optimised, laminated,
out using the Etable command, which retrieved the re- composite lay-up.
quired values from the calculation and assigned them to In arriving at the indicated solutions, it was found
the dened parameters such as maximum failure indices. that Ansys could not eectively handle a high number of
In this case, the Etable command operated in conjunc- DVs. Solutions to parametric models with over 12 DVs
tion with the programs Shell option, capable of storing often led to convergence problems.
the corresponding results from the bottom of the bot-
tom layer, the top of the top layer and the layer with the Table 2
maximum failure criterion value. Mass breakdown for main components in blade stiened spar concept
This enabled undertaking of a number of design versus C-spar concept
studies that allowed the work to establish the governing Component Blade stiened spar C-spar conguration
eects of the layer thickness and the lay-up sequencing conguration (kg) (kg)
on the structural behaviour of the ap. Leading edge spar 1.30 2.84
Mid spar 2.06 1.54
Trailing edge spar 2.85 3.29
4.1. Mass optimisation
Mid-rib 0.18 0.16
Aerodynamic skin 15.2 11.8
Prior to performing the ply optimisation, the struc-
Total 21.6 19.6
tural lay-out was optimised assuming quasi-isotropic
 J. Bayandor et al. / Composite Structures 57 (2002) 415423 421

4.2. Eect of layer thickness Table 4

Eect of layer sequence
An understanding of the eects of load transfer Lay-up Umax1 Umax2 Unmax1 Unmax2
through the orthotropic material was gained by keeping sequence (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
the lay-up sequencing unchanged, while varying the [90/0/
45/45]s 6.83 4.06
2.77
7.85
[90/
45/45/0]s 6.83 3.79
2.49
8.69
thickness of the plies in each direction. The optimised
[90/0/45/
45]s 7.29 4.01
2.64
9.30
layer thicknesses, calculated using this approach, can be [0/90/
45/45]s 8.76 3.94
2.57
8.20
found in Table 3. Note that Umax and Unmax are the [45/
45/90/0]s 9.22 3.40
1.75
8.81
structures maximum positive and negative deections, [
45/45/0/90]s 10.74 3.51
2.08
8.26
respectively. The numbers correspond to each of the [45/
45/0/90]s 10.90 3.25
1.55
9.98
[0/
45/45/90]s 15.27 3.51
2.06
11.25
considered load cases.
Run A was an initial optimised conguration, whilst
the other runs were created by arbitrarily swapping the
thicknesses of each ply so that the total thickness was
of [45/
45/0/90]s did not exhibit as high structural e-
constant. The initial design, Design Set A, produced the
ciency as that of [90/0/
45/45]s . Accordingly, since the
lowest deections for the given mass. Subsequently, in-
design was being driven by deection, the 90 plies,
creasing the bre thickness in the 0 or 45 directions
which provide the highest overall stiness, were placed
and reducing the thickness in the 90 direction to as far from the centreline of the lay-up in order to en-
maintain the mass, resulted in a dramatic increase in the hance the stiness. Therefore, given its deection char-
deection response. Hence, as the optimum result de- acteristics, the lay-up sequence of [90/0/
45/45]s was
picts, for the particular lay-up sequence used, employing
found to be capable of providing the highest structural
a greater ply thickness in the 90 direction proved ad-
integrity for the ap structure under investigation.
vantageous. This direction may well change if the
It needs to be noted that since the objective function
loading, position and direction of the internal structural
is independent of the orientation of the layers, some
members, or the lay-up sequence alter.
simulation runs may experience convergence diculties
[8]. As an alternative to the mass minimisation objective
4.3. Eect of lay-up sequence function, the laminate strength maximisation option can
be considered where required.
A model with a constant set of layer thicknesses
highlighted the eect of lay-up sequence on the stiness 4.4. Ply optimisation
of the structure. This was achieved through varying the
lay-up sequence during each run of the simulation. All Based on the outcomes of the investigation into ply
the layer thicknesses were assumed constant with the
thickness and lay-up sequence, the composite laminate
value of 0.32 mm. A summary of the results is provided
optimisation of the aerodynamic skin of the Krueger
in Table 4.
ap was performed. The skin was selected as it repre-
From Table 4, it is evident that the appearance of the
sented the element of the design with the highest mass
90 plies at the centreline of the lay-up resulted in the
(refer to Table 2). Table 5 compares the initial design
highest deections, whilst the sequences with the 90 options and the skin optimised C-spar model. According
layers positioned furthest from the centreline displayed to Table 5, an optimised composite skin replacing the
the lowest structural responsee.g. the lay-up sequence quasi-isotropic skin can oer a signicant mass saving,
where the cross-sectional areas of the ribs and spars
Table 3
and their structural specications remain unchanged.
Eect of layer thickness Placing the 90 plies on the surfaces of the laminate led
Parameter Design set to greater mass savings for the reasons discussed in
Section 4.3.
A B C D E F
45 ply (mm) 0.246 0.817 0.201 0.246 0.817 0.082
0 ply (mm) 0.201 0.201 0.246 0.817 0.201 0.201
Table 5
90 ply (mm) 0.817 0.246 0.246 0.201 0.246 0.817
Optimised specications of the Krueger ap components

45 ply (mm) 0.246 0.246 0.817 0.246 0.817 0.164
Conguration Opt. mass (kg)
Umax1 (mm) 6.43 8.94 7.30 8.28 4.39 8.33 Blade stiened spar concept 21.6
Umax2 (mm) 3.78 3.20 3.53 2.99 3.40 4.12 C-spar concept 19.6
Unmax1 (mm)
2.29
2.07
2.22
1.66
2.12
2.49 C-spar with ply optimised skin [45/
45/0/90]s 18.3
Unmax2 (mm)
5.84
11.20
5.82
6.58
4.19
7.57 C-spar with ply optimised skin [90/0
45/45]s 16.8
Total V (m3 ) 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.015 0.011 Mass saving through ply optimisation 2.8
422 J. Bayandor et al. / Composite Structures 57 (2002) 415423

4.5. Performance

A number of post-processing graphs (Figs. 811)

detail the performance of the optimised Krueger ap
under the two primary load cases considered. A scaling
factor of 6.0 has been applied to all plots to aid visu-
alisation.
The results, as expected, show that the deection is
the driving factor for the design. The failure indices on
the plies are well below critical, and the buckling loads
are suciently higher than the limit.
The use of a tailored composite skin has increased the
structural stiness, as opposed to isotropic or quasi-
isotropic skin lay-upsalso investigated in detail during
the course of the study. Where the latter only allows for
up to 14.5% of the material to be removed, 29.5% mass Fig. 10. Y deectionap fully deployed.
reduction is readily achievable using orthotropic mate-
rials.
Further mass savings would be possible by altering
the lay-up sequencing or ply count, and re-optimisation

Fig. 11. Bucklingap fully deployed.

of the stieners in order for the simulation to reect the

Fig. 8. Y deectionap opening. latest skin changes. Optimisation of spar and rib lami-
nates would also lead to improved structural perfor-
mance.

5. Conclusion

A procedure for a commercial aircraft component ply

Fig. 9. Bucklingap opening.
optimisation was developed using the optimisation ca-
pabilities of the software Ansys. The study provides a
means to facilitate and economise the recently started
practice of replacing the conventional materials used in
aerospace structures with advanced optimal multi-lay-
ered composite materials to reduce mass in conventional
designs as well as in future concepts.
By using an orthotropic skin for a heavy transport
aircrafts secondary component, a Kreuger ap, the
study achieved a higher structural stiness for the ap as
well as a considerably lower mass, compared to those of
 J. Bayandor et al. / Composite Structures 57 (2002) 415423
the components original skin lay-up consisting only of
isotropic and quasi-isotropic materials. The new lay-up
resulted in a mass saving of 1.3 kg for the [45/
45/0/90]s
lay-up sequence, and 2.8 kg for [90/0
45/45]s . The
parametric study indicated that further mass savings on
the stiening members were also possible.
It was found that by moving the 90 plies away from
the centre of the laminate, the structural deections can
dramatically decrease. However, other considerations
such as applicability of this option, and most impor-
tantly, requirements for using particular structural bre
orientations on the outer surface to avoid premature
damage, need also be accounted for.
The next focus of this research would be directed
towards two main areas. Firstly, introducing the ply
bre orientation as a DV so that, for a given number of
plies, determining the best position of each ply within
the multi-layered stack would be possiblewith or
without overwriting the problems symmetry status. The
second focus would be dening additional DVs enabling
optimisation of the individual ply thicknesses for
achieving improved load capability in the layered com-
posite structures. Further development of the Ansys
optimiser to improve the solution robustness for a larger
number of DVs is also required.
423
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the collabo-
rative eorts of the Hawker de Havilland Engineering
Team on this project: Chris Howe, Andrew Bergen, and
Ben Saunders.
References
[1] Niu CY. Composite Airframe StructuresPractical Design Infor-
mation and Data. Hong Kong: Conmilit Press Ltd.; 1992.
[2] Ansys Inc. Ansys advanced analysis techniques guide. 4th ed.
Canonsburg, USA: SAS IP Inc.; 1999.
[3] Agarwal B, Broutman L. Analysis and performance of ber com-
posites. 2nd ed. New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons Inc.; 1990.
[4] Thomson RS, Scott ML. Experience with the nite element
modelling of a full-scale test of a composite aircraft control
surface. J Compos Struct 2000;50:33145.
[5] Ansys Inc. Shell99-linear layered structural shell. Ansys elements
reference. Canonsburg, USA: SAS IP Inc.; 1999.
[6] Ansys Inc. Shell99-element library. Ansys theory reference. 11th ed.
Canonsburg, USA: SAS IP Inc.; 1999.
[7] Ansys Inc. Design optimisation. Ansys theory reference. 11th ed.
Canonsburg, USA: SAS IP Inc.; 1999.
[8] Gurdal Z, Haftka RT, Hajela P. Design and optimization of
laminated composite materials. New York, USA: John Wiley and
Sons Inc.; 1999.