NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS 1025

Finite element analysis and design

optimization of a non-circular
sandwich composite deep
submarine pressure hull
Mahmoud Helal, Taif, KSA, Mansoura, Egypt Diving depth is the criteria for designing the submarine
and Elsayed Fathallah, Cairo, Egypt pressure hull meant to achieve a definite collapse depth.
In this study, a methodology to optimize a sandwich com-
posite deep pressure hull is presented. Buoyancy factor
(BF) minimization is considered as an objective function.
Article Information
The optimization process is achieved by ANSYS parametric
design language (APDL). Composites failure criteria and
Correspondence Address
Associate Prof. Dr. Mahmoud Helal structural stability are considered as constraints. Addition-
Department of Mechanical Engineering ally, sensitivity analyses were conducted to analyze the
Faculty of Engineering
Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia
effects of geometric parameters on optimal structural
Al-hawyah, P. O. Box 888 design. The results showed that, the utilization of a sandwich
E-mail: eng_mah_helal@yahoo.com, composite pressure hull for a deep submarine at extreme
saidhabib2000@hotmail.com
depths is not safe. Additionally, the results propose that
Keywords
Sandwich composites, deep submarine, pressure hull, buoyancy the submarine designed should be able to operate at a
factor, ANSYS maximum diving depth of up to 7500 m.

Composite materials are used in the con-
struction of submarine pressure hulls due
to their high strength to weight ratio. Sub-
marine pressure hull designs are weight
critical, mainly when operating diving
depth H increases. For that reason, com-
posite pressure hulls will have larger col-
lapse depths for a specified weight to dis-
placement ratio. The excellent mechanical
properties and the behavior of composite
materials render composites a suitable
material for underwater pressure hulls
and help reduce the weight of a structure
[1]. For great depths, composites are the
only solution available, and it is thus im-
portant to recognize how hydrostatic pres-
sure affects both materials and structures
[2]. Helal et al. [3], presented the design
optimization for a deep submarine pres-
sure hull, for minimizing B.F and maxi-
mizing the deck area. Pan et al. [4] inves-
tigated the optimization of a cylindrical
composite shell subjected to hydrostatic
pressure. Ply orientation and thickness
were studied. Additionally, Jacob et al. [5]
presented a methodology for multi-objec-
tive design optimization for laminate com-
posite materials. The optimization varia-
bles are fiber orientation angles and fiber
volume fractions. Fathallah et al. [6-8]
presented the design optimization of com-
posite pressure hull to maximize the
buckling strength factor (λ ) and minimize
B.F.. Panteleev [9] investigated the design
optimization of metallic sandwich struc-
tures, achieving a decrease in weight of
23 % as compared with constant plate
thickness. Garland [10] showed that, the
weight to buoyancy ratio plays a signifi-
cant role in determining the payload of a
deep pressure hull. Furthermore, they de-
termined that higher strength material
requires less weight and provides better
buoyancy. Mohamed N. Lotfy et al. [11],
presented the comparison between Com-
posite and Steel Ferry using Finite Ele-
ment modeling. Yildiz et al. [12, 13] pre-
sented an optimum structural design for
obtaining light-weight and cost-effective
vehicle components. Baoping et al. [14]
the more applied load than the buckling
load, the subsequently burst and buckling
behavior can be occurred. While, Chan et
al. [15] optimized the composite cylinder
by using the material failure and buck-
ling. Imran et al. [16], used both analytical
analysis and multi-objective genetic algo-
rithm for the multi-objective optimization
of composite pressure hull. Walker et al.
[17] focused on the laminated composite
structures to reduce the deflection and
weight. Furthermore, Akbulut [18] mini-
mized the weight of composite plates sub-
jected to in-plane loading via an optimiza-
tion method. Bakshi and Chakravorty [19]
used first-ply failure to maximize the fail-

62 (2020) 10  © Carl Hanser Verlag, München  Materials Testing

1026 NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS

ure load of a thin composite conoidal analysis (FEA) is performed using ANSYS Q11 = (1 – υ12υ21)-1E1,
shell. Multi-objective optimization of T700 (APDL). T700/epoxy composites are prom- Q12 = (1 – υ12υ21)-1E1υ21,
(3)
Scarbon/S-2glass fiber was studied to ising for this application. Q22 = (1 – υ12υ21)-1E2,
minimize cost and weight by Kalantari et Lamina failure study. The laminate, Q66 = G12
al. [20]. While, Helal and Fathallah [21] formed by stacking several laminas that
aimed to minimize (B.F) for multiple inter- have a thickness, and an orientationwith with (E1, E2, G12, and υ21): elastic proper-
secting pressure hull. Helal et al. [22], respect to the laminate axes, is assigned to ties of the material along the principal
Studied the response of optimized pres- the lamina as shown in Figure 2. The in- directions.
sure hull subjected to non-contact under- plane stress and strain components are il- The straining action (forces and moments)
water explosion. John et al. [23] investi- lustrates in Equation (1) [27]: are defined as in Equations (4) and (5):
gated the corrosion effect on strength and
stability of a pressure hull. The results il- ⎧ ⎫ ⎡Q ⎤ ⎧ ε ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎪ σ xx ⎪ Q12 Q16 ⎪ N xx ⎪ ⎪ σ xx ⎪ ⎪ σ xx ⎪
lustrated that there is a reduction in the ⎢ 11 ⎥ ⎪ xx ⎪ n
⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎪⎨ ε ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ h /2 ⎪ ⎪ Zk ⎪ ⎪
overall collapse and the yield pressures ⎨ σ yy ⎢
⎬ = Q12 Q 22 Q 26 ⎬ ⎨ N yy ⎬ = ∫−h /2 ⎨ σ yy ⎬dz = ∑ ∫Z ⎨ σ yy ⎬dz (4)
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ yy ⎪ (1) ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ k=1 k−1 ⎪ ⎪
with values of 20 % and 40 %, respectively. ⎪ τ xy ⎪ ⎢Q Q 26 Q 66 ⎥ ⎪γ ⎪ ⎪ N xy ⎪ ⎪ τ xy ⎪ ⎪ τ xy ⎪
The egg-shaped pressure hulls were used ⎩ ⎭K ⎣ 16 ⎦ K ⎩ xy ⎭K ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
to improve the poor hydrodynamics of
spherical pressure hull with respect to with k: lamina number, Qij: elements of the ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
low buckling resistance and difficult inte- transformed reduced stiffness matrix [Q], ⎪M xx ⎪ ⎪ σ xx ⎪ n ⎪ σ xx ⎪
⎪ ⎪ h /2 ⎪ ⎪ Zk ⎪ ⎪
rior arrangements according to Zhang et given by Equation (2) [28]: ⎨M yy ⎬ = ∫−h /2 ⎨ σ yy ⎬Zdz =∑ ∫Z ⎨ σ yy ⎬Zdz (5)
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ k=1 k−1 ⎪ ⎪
al. [24]. Song et al. [25] used the multi is- ⎪M xy ⎪ ⎪ τ xy ⎪ ⎪ τ xy ⎪
land genetic algorithm to optimize a com- Q11 = Q11c4 + 2(Q12 + 2Q66)s2c2 + Q22s4 ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
posite cylindrical hull for obtaining minim Q22 = Q11s4 + 2(Q12 + 2Q66)s2c2 + Q22c4
weight. The stress condition and the buck- Q12 = (Q11 + Q22 + 4Q66)s2c2 + Q12(c4+ s4) with h: total shell thickness and (Zk, Zk-1,
ling behavior were estimated using FEA Q16 = (Q11 – Q22 – 2Q66)c3s + k =  1, 2, ..., n): coordinates of the kth lam-
by Ren et al. [26]. In this study, a subma- (Q12– Q22 + 2Q66)s3c (2) ina boundaries measured from the middle
rine pressure hull in the form of non-cir- Q26 = (Q11 – Q22 – 2Q66)cs3 + surface.
cular cross-sections, as shown in Figure 1, (Q12– Q22 + 2Q66)c3s From the above equation, the stress-
is proposed and the multi-objective opti- Q66 = (Q11 + Q22 – 2Q12 - 2Q66)s2c2 + strain relation is defined as Equation (6):
mization method is presented. Minimiza- Q66(s4+ c4)
tion of the buoyancy factor (weight/dis- ⎧N ⎫ ⎡ ⎧o ⎫
⎪ xx ⎪ ⎢A11 A12 A16 B11 B12 B16 ⎤ ⎪ε xx ⎪
placement) ratio of the pressure hull sub- with c = cosθ, s = sinθ, θk: orientation an- ⎥
⎪N ⎪ ⎢A A22 A26 B12 B22 B26 ⎥ ⎪⎪ε xx ⎪⎪
o
jected to hydrostatic pressure to reach gle of the kth layer and Qij: plane stress-re- ⎪ yy ⎪ ⎢ 12 ⎥ o
maximum operating depth is considered duced stiffness for the kth lamina which ⎪⎪N xy ⎪⎪ ⎢A
16
A26 A66 B16 B26 B66 ⎥ ⎪⎪γ xy⎪⎪
as an objective function. Finite element can be defined by Equation (3): ⎨ ⎬= ⎢ ⎥ ⎨ ⎬ (6)
M
⎪ xx⎪ ⎢B11
B12 B16 D11 D12 D16⎥ ⎪k ⎪
xx
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪
M
⎪ yy⎪ ⎢ 12B B22 B26 D12 D22 D26⎥ ⎪k yy⎪
⎪M ⎪ ⎢B B26 B66 D16 D26 D66⎥⎥ ⎪k ⎪
⎪⎩ xy⎪⎭ ⎣⎢ 16 ⎦ ⎪⎩ xy⎪⎭

Figure 1: Parameterization
with Aij: extensional stiffness, Bij: bending
of non-circular submersible
pressure hulls extensional stiffness and Dij: bending
stiffness.
The elements of the stiffness matrices
are given by Equation (7):
n
A ij = ∑ (Q ij )k (Zk − Z k−1 ),
k=1

1 n
Bij = ∑ (Q ij )k (Z2k − Z2k−1 ), (7)
2 k=1
1 n
Dij = ∑ (Q ) (Z3 − Z3k−1)
3 k=1 ij k k

with n: number of different plies in the

stacking sequence and Zk, Zk-1: upper and
lowercoordinates of the kth ply layer, as in
Figure 2b.
The principal stress and strains can be
Figure 2: The laminated composite shell and coordinate locations of the plies in a laminate obtained using the following transforma-
a) laminated composite, b) coordinate locations of the plies tion as in Equation (8) [27]:

62 (2020) 10
 NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS 1027

⎧σ ⎫ ⎡ 2 ⎤ ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ σ /X if σ11 > 0 or −σ11 / X c if σ11 < 0

⎪⎪ 11 ⎪⎪ ⎢ c s2 2cs ⎥ ⎪σ xx ⎪ ⎪ 11 t
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ Equation 11
⎨σ 22 ⎬ = ⎢ s
2
c2 −2cs ⎥ ⎨σ yy ⎬ , FI = max ⎨ σ 22 / Yt if σ 22 > 0 or −σ 22 / Yc if σ 22 < 0
⎪ ⎪ ⎢−cs cs
⎪⎩ τ12 ⎪⎭K ⎢⎣ ( 2 ⎥ ⎪
c −s ⎥ τ ⎪
2
)
⎦ K ⎪⎩ xy ⎪⎭K
⎪
⎪⎩ τ12 / S
(8)
⎧ε ⎫ ⎡ 2 ⎤ ⎧ ⎫
⎪⎪ 11 ⎪⎪ ⎢ c s2 cs ⎥ ⎪ ε xx ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎨ε22 ⎬ = ⎢ s −cs ⎥ ⎨ ε yy ⎬
2
c2 ure. The Tsai-Hill failure criterion assumed ⎧ σ ⎫ ⎡ Q Q12 0 ⎤⎧ ε ⎫
⎪ ⎪ ⎢
⎪⎩ε12 ⎪⎭K ⎢⎣ ( ⎥
−2cs 2cs c2 − s2 ⎥ ⎪γ ⎪)
⎦ K ⎪⎩ xy ⎪⎭K
that there is an interaction between longi-
⎪⎪ 11
⎨ σ 22
⎪⎪ ⎢ 11
⎢
⎬ = Q12 Q 22 0
⎥ ⎪⎪ 11
⎥⎨ ε
⎥ ⎪ 22
⎪⎪
⎬ (18)
tude, traverse and shear strength as in ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎪
Equation (12) [32]: ⎪⎩ τ12 ⎪⎭ ⎢⎣ 0 0 Q 66 ⎥ ⎪ γ 12
⎦⎩ ⎪⎭
The sandwich treated here as a laminate
where the core is just a ply with thickness σ211/X2 + σ222/Y2 – σ11σ22/X2 + τ212/S2 = 1 (12) The expressions for the coefficients (F11, F22,
equals the core thickness [27]. For a shell F66, F1, F2 and F12) are given by Equation (19):
that consists of laminated facings layers with X and Y: longitudinal and traverse
and isotropic core layer, the extensional strength, respectively, whether compres- 1 1 1 1 1
F11 = ,F = ,F = ,F = − ,
stiffness matrix [A] and the bending stiff- sion or tension which is dependent on the X t X c 22 Yt Yc 66 S2 1 X t X c
ness matrix [D] are as in Equation (9) [29]: stress status in the laminates. 1 1 1 (19)
Hou criteria consider four failure modes: F2 = − , F = − F11F12
Yt Yc 12 2
⎡ A ⎤ = h ⎡ Q ⎤ + (h − h ) ⎡ Q ⎤ Fiber-failure, matrix-crushing, matrix-
⎣ ⎦ c ⎣ ⎦c c ⎣ ⎦f
(9) cracking and delaminating.
h3c (h3 − h3c ) The criterion can be expressed as in When FI reaches or exceeds unity, failure
⎡ D ⎤ = ⎡Q ⎤ + ⎡Q ⎤
⎣ ⎦ 12 ⎣ ⎦c 12 ⎣ ⎦f Equations (13-16) [33, 34]: will occur. In finite element procedure, fail-
ure criteria are presented using a failure
with hc: thickness of the core layer and h: ⎛ σ2 ⎞ ⎛ σ2 + σ2 ⎞ index and defined as Equation (20) [36]:
total thickness of the hull wall. Fiber tension :d2f = ⎜ 11 ⎟ + ⎜ 12 2 13 ⎟ (13)
⎜⎝ X2 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ SL ⎟⎠ Stress
The matrix [Q]c represents the reduced stiff- t
FI = (20)
ness of the isotropic core layer and matrix [Q]f Strength
represents the reduced stiffness of the angle Matrix cracking
ply laminated facings. The reduced stiffness ⎛ σ2 ⎞ ⎛ σ2 ⎞ ⎛ σ2 ⎞ The von Mises yielding criterion is em-
Matrix cracking
matrix components [Q]c of the isotropic core : d2mt = ⎜ 22 ⎟ + ⎜ 12 ⎟ + ⎜ 23 ⎟ (14)
ployed to calculate the yielding failure of the
⎜⎝ Y2 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ S2 ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ S2 ⎟⎠
layer are defined as in Equation (10): t L T isotropic core layer. The yielding strength
2 load factor, based on the von-Mises yielding
1 ⎛ −σ 22 ⎞ ⎛ Yc σ 22 ⎞ ⎛ σcriterion,
⎞ ⎛ σ 2 is⎞ defined as in Equation (21):
2
Q11 = Q22 = (1 – υ2c)-1Ec, 2 22 12
Matrix crushing :dmc = ⎜ ⎟ +⎜ 2 ⎟ −⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟
2 -1
Q12 = Q21 = (1 – υ c) Ecυc, 4 ⎝ ST ⎠ ⎜⎝ 4S Y ⎟⎠ ⎝ Yc ⎠ ⎜⎝ S2 ⎟⎠
(10) T c L
Q22 = 0.5(1 + υc) Ec = Gc,
-1
(15)
2
σ11 − σ11σ 22 + σ 222
2
Q66 = Q61 = Q26 = Q62 = 0 1 ⎛ −σ ⎞ ⎛ Y2σ ⎞ ⎛ σ ⎞ ⎛ σ 2 ⎞ FI = (21)
Matrix crushing :d2mc = ⎜ 22 ⎟ + ⎜ c 2 22 ⎟ − ⎜ 22 ⎟ + ⎜ 12 ⎟ σ0
4 ⎝ ST ⎠ ⎜⎝ 4S Y ⎟⎠ ⎝ Yc ⎠ ⎜⎝ S2 ⎟⎠
T c L
with Ec, υc and Gc: elastic modulus, Pois-
son’s ratio and shear modulus for the core with σ0: material allowable yielding
layer, respectively. Delamination: strength of the core layer σ11 and σ22: in-
2 2 2
A successfully designed structure re- ⎛σ ⎞ ⎛σ ⎞ ⎛σ ⎞ plane principal stress.
quires efficient and safe use of materials.
2
ddel = ⎜ 33
⎟ +⎜
23
⎟ +⎜
31
⎟ (16) In this work, both maximum stress and
In maximum stress criterion, the compo- ⎝ Z T ⎠ ⎝ S T ⎠ ⎝ SL ⎠ the Tsai-Wu failure criteria are used to as-
nents of principal stress in each ply are sess the capacity of angle-ply laminated face
compared to corresponding strength val- with σ33: stress-through-the-thickness direc- sheets of a multilayer-sandwich pressure
ues Xt, Xc, Yt, Yc and S. Where Xt and Xc are tion, ZT: tensile strength in the through- hull. Also, the maximum yielding failure-
the longitudinal tensile and compressive thickness direction, ST and SL: transverse and strength of the core material is considered.
strength, respectively. Yt and Yc are those longitudinal of shear strength, respectively.
in the transverse direction and S denotes The Tsai-Wu failure criterion is the most Sandwich composite
the ultimate in-plane shear strength [30]. global failure criterion and can be written pressure hull modeling and
Also, an isotropic sandwich core mate- as in Equation (17) [35]: solution procedure
rial is considered and the maximum stress
criterion will be applied for the failure FI = F11σ211 + F22σ222 + F66τ212 + F1σ11 + The materials for an underwater pressure
analysis and defined using a failure index F2σ22 + 2F12σ11σ22 (17) hull must be capable of withstanding very
as in Equation (11) [31]. high external pressures as well as having
with σ11 and σ22: stress in the longitudinal suitable properties that can withstand envi-
see Equation 11 (11) and transverse fiber directions, respec- ronmental influences [37]. T700/epoxy
tively, τ12: in-plane shear stress which are composites were used to construct a model
In general, stress (or strains) may interact obtained using the following relationship for the upper and lower faces which display
with each other which can be lead to fail- as in Equation (18): high stiffness and strength. Additionally,

62 (2020) 10
1028 NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS

Figure 3: Collapse depth

vs. buoyancy factor for a
visual comparison of
structural materials [39]

Figure 4: Entire design variables for composite

structure

PVC foam (low-density material) is used as
core materials in the sandwich pressure
hulls. The material properties of T700/
epoxy composites and PVC foam are given
in Table 1 [38, 39]. T700/epoxy composites
show promise for this application according
to [7]. The displacement of a vessel being
constant, higher material weight means
lower payload. Additionally, depth is the
most important design variable and a deci-
sive structural design criterion [40]. A sub-
marine must never approach collapse
depth. It must never descend more deeply
than its service diving depth. Ideally, the
hull should maintain a minimum weight for
a certain displacement. To achieve this, the
hull density must be close to that of the sur-
rounding sea water. This allows for a higher
payload and a longer range for a given pres-
sure hull. Figure 3 presents the plot of col-
lapse depth vs. buoyancy factor for a visual
comparison of structural materials [41].
Composite modeling for a sandwich pres-
sure hull is carried out using the commercial
software ANSYS (APDL). The structure is
builded using SHELL281 element that is
used for modeling sandwich constructions.
BEAM189 is used for the rings and long
beams [42, 43]. The shell consists of a total of
seventeen layers with a stacking sequence
[(-θ/θ)4/C]s including a core layer as shown
in Figure 4. The configuration of the layers is
defined layer by layer from bottom to top. The
bottom layer is designated as Layer 1. The
displacement boundary conditions is applied
as in [44]. Mesh density has a great influence
on the results; therefore a mesh convergence
check is conducted. The buckling and static
structure analyses are performed via linear
and elastic analysis. These analyses are easy
and quick to conduct. Moreover, they can be
used for preliminary design considerations.
Figure 5 shows the full shell and beam ele-
ment mesh for the global model.
Optimization design
method of composite
sandwich pressure hull
Properly designing sandwich composite
structures is far from a simple task. The ap-
plication of a sandwich composite material
introduces many design variables, since
properties such as material, orientation and
thickness for each individual ply must be
specified throughout the structure. Further-
more, the analysis models are often large
and many design criteria are present as
mass, stiffness and buckling [45-49]. In this
study, the multi-objective optimization of a
sandwich composite pressure hull were sub-
jected to hydrostatic pressure to decrease
the buoyancy factor (BF) and increase the
deck area under the constraints on the
buckling, deflection and failure strength of
the sandwich composite pressure hull. The
parametric model of the sandwich compos-
ite hull needs to be built first. Subsequently,
the objective function, design variables,
constraints, and variable bounds must to be
defined and determined. Figure 6 presents
the optimization procedures flow chart.
Parameters (design variables). The radii
of the ellipse of the sandwich composite
pressure hull Dmin and Dmax, thickness t of
the individual ply thickness, thickness Tcore
of the core layer, fiber orientation angle α of
the individual ply are taken as design varia-
bles. For composite pressure hull diameters:
DiL ≤ Di ≤ DUi, i = max, min (22)

with Di, DiL and DUi: ith sandwich composite

Material Material and strength properties pressure hull diameters, and its upper and
E11 = 132 GPa, E22 = 10.3 GPa, E33 = 10.3 GPa, G12 = 6.5 GPa, G13 = 6.5 GPa, lower limits, respectively.
T700/epoxy
G23 = 3.91 GPa, υ12 = 0.25, υ13 = 0.25, υ23 = 0.38, Xt = 2150 MPa, Xc = 2150 MPa, For length of the main part:
composites
Yt = 298 MPa, Yc = 298 MPa, S = 778 MPa, ρ = 1570 kg × m-3
E = 250 MPa, G = 73 MPa, υ = 0.3, Xt = 7.1 MPa, Xc = 5.4 Mpa, Yt = 7.1 MPa, LiL ≤ Li ≤ LUi, i = 1, 2, 3, 4 (23)
H200
Yc = 5.4 MPa, S = 3.5 MPa, ρ = 200 kg × m-3
with Li, LUi and LiL: ith sandwich composite
Table 1: Strengths of unidirectional composites and material properties in the sandwich components
[7, 38, 39] pressure hull length of the main part, and
its upper and lower limits, respectively.
For core thickness:
Figure 5: Mesh of the
global model, a) shell TL ≤ Tcore ≤ TU (24)
element (SHELL281),
b) beam element with Tc, TU and TL: core thickness of the
(BEAM189)
sandwich composite pressure hull, and its
upper and lower limits, respectively.

62 (2020) 10

For ply thickness:
tL ≤ ti ≤ tU, i = 1, 2, 3, ..., n (25)
with ti, tL and tU: ith thickness and the lower
and upper bounds imposed on individual
ply thickness, respectively.
For fiber orientation angle:
αL ≤ αi ≤ αU, i = 1, 2, 3, ..., n (26)
with αi, αL and αU: ith orientation angle of
each layer and their lower and upper
bounds, respectively.
Objective of the optimization. The buoy-
ancy factor B.F, considered as the weight to
buoyancy ratio (W/B), is regarded as one of
the most important factors for judging struc-
tural efficiencies. The lower the W/B ratio,
the higher the structural efficiencies. The
objective function of the optimization is to
minimize the B.F of the pressure hull, under
the constraints of both material and buck-
ling failure. The optimization problem can
be identified mathematically as follows:
see Equation 27 (27)
Constraints on optimization. As for the
design of the sandwich composite pressure
hull, the essential requirement is the safety
of the structure. Accordingly, failure of the
materials and the buckling in the structure
should be avoided. Tsai-Wu and maximum
stress failure criteria are adopted to judge
material safety. The critical buckling load
Pcr and the maximum deflection value δ are
compared with the operating load P and
maximum permissible deflection value
δmax, respectively to ensure the safety of
the structures. Thus, safety constraints are
performed as outlined below.
Material strength constraints on the
structural hull. The factors of safety for
both Tsai-Wu FSTW and maximum stress
FSMS failure criteria are used as material
failure constraints. FSTW and FSMS are the
inverse of Tsai-Wu FTWSR and maximum
stress failure criteria FMAXF, respectively. In
order to avoid material failure, both FSTW
and FSMS must be larger than 1. For the
core layer, von-Mises stress σv must be
lesser than yield stress σy of the core layer.
These constraints are represented as:
g1: FSTW(i) ≥ 1, i = 1, 2, 3, ..., n (28)
g2: FSMS(i) ≥ 1, i = 1, 2, 3, ..., n
with FSTW and FSTW: factors of safety for
both Tsai-Wu and maximum stress failure
62 (2020) 10
NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS
criteria, respectively for each ith layer and
n: number of layers.
g3: σy ≥ σv (29)
with σy and σv: is the yielding strength and
actual stress, respectively.
Instability constraint. The buckling
strength factor λ is used as an instability
constraint. In order to ensure material sta-
bility λ must be larger than 1.
Pcr
g4 : λ = ≥1 (30)
P with total half laminate thickness equals
with P and Pcr: is the maximum actual op-
erating loading and the minimum critical
buckling load, respectively.
Maximum operating depth constraint.
g5: H ≤ Hmax (31)
with H and Hmax: operating depth for the
composite pressure hull and its maximum
limits, respectively.
Maximum deflection value constraint.
g6: δ ≤ δmax (32)
with δmax and δ: is the maximum permissi-
ble and the composite pressure hull values,
respectively.
Results and discussion
The optimization results of a sand-wich
composite deep submarine pressure hull
Total pressure hull weight
F(X) :MinimizeB.F =
Thefluiddisplaced by thebody volume
1029
for minimizing the BF are presented in Ta-
ble 2. It can be observed that the BF equals
0.6 at the maximum depth and H equals
7500 m. In addition, the maximum deflec-
tion value δ equals 26.8 mm and buckling
strength factor λ equals 47.9. The maxi-
mum stress failure criteria FMAXF and Tsai-
Wu FTWSR are applied for the firstply fail-
ure. The maximum value was achieved on
the face sheet at 17th Layer due to high
compressive stress with safety factors FSTW
and FSMS that equal 1.587 and 1.408, re-
spectively. The optimized α equals 53° and
52.04 mm while core thickness Tcore equals
14.0 mm. Based on these results, at ex-
treme high operational depths the lower
and upper facings becomes thicker, while
core thickness becomes thinner. Further-
more, the results imply that material fail-
ure rather than shell buckling is the criti-
cal design consideration at extreme high
operational depths. This matches the re-
sults obtained in [29].
Sensitivity analysis and parametric
study. In order to achieve the best analysis,
a sensitivity analysis and a parametric
study were presented. The results obtained
are presented and summarized in Fig-
ures 7 and 8 which are discussed below.
Analysis of the effect of fiber orienta-
tion α on design variables and con-
straints. The effects of α upon Tsai-Wu
failure index for both the upper and lower
faces of the sandwich composite hull is
presented in Figure 7. It reveals a quantity
of interesting features when analyzed
Equation 27
Figure 6: Optimization
procedures flow chart
1030 NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS

FSTW FTWSR FSMS FMAXF FSTW FTWSR FSMS FMAXF Buckling strength factor (λ) 47.9
layer-1 1.639 0.610 1.493 0.670 layer-12 1.695 0.590 1.515 0.66 t1 3.82 mm
layer-2 1.695 0.590 1.538 0.650 layer-13 1.613 0.620 1.449 0.69 t2 6.50 mm
layer-3 1.667 0.600 1.499 0.667 layer-14 1.667 0.600 1.493 0.67 t3 7.27 mm
layer-4 1.724 0.580 1.553 0.644 layer-15 1.592 0.628 1.429 0.70 t4 8.42 mm
layer-5 1.639 0.610 1.493 0.670 layer-16 1.639 0.610 1.471 0.68 α1 53°
layer-6 1.724 0.580 1.548 0.646 layer-17 1.587 0.630 1.408 0.71 Tcore 14.00 mm
layer-7 1.639 0.610 1.486 0.673 Dmax 2.00 m LAY9_SXMAX 3.48 × 106 (Pa)
layer-8 1.706 0.586 1.541 0.649 Dmin 1.96 m LAY9_SXMIN -9.48 × 105 (Pa)
layer-10 1.686 0.593 1.517 0.659 Operating depth (H) 7500 m LAY9_SYMAX 4.36 × 106 (Pa)
layer-11 1.613 0.620 1.458 0.686 Maximum deflection (δMAX) 26.873 mm LAY9_SYMIN -2.04 × 105 (Pa)
B.F 0.6

Table 2: Results of the optimal design of the sandwich composite deep pressure hull

carefully. The Tsai-Wu failure index is
more sensitive with respect to α. The max-
imum Tsai-Wu failure occurs when
(α = 0°). Additionally, it occurs at the first
layer (Layer 1) in the lower face and equals
2.255 with a safety factor of FSTW equals to
0.443 which is less than one. Thus, failure
will occur due to high tensile stress at
Layer 1. In the case of the upper face, max-
imum Tsai-Wu failure occurs at the upper-
most layer, Layer 17, and equals 1.79, re-
spectively, with a safety factor of FSTW that
equals 0.559. This is caused by high com-
pressive stress at Layer 17.
Moreover, the figure illustrates that the
difference between the maximum and
Figure 7: Effect of fiber orientation α on the design variables and constraints, a) effect of α on Tsai-Wu
failure index (lower face sheet), b) effect of α on Tsai-Wu failure index (upper face sheet)
Figure 8: Effect of fiber orientation α on a) buckling strength factor, b) maximum deflection value δMAX
minimum value of the failure index is
large in the case of the lower face when
α = 0°. In the case of the upper face, the
difference between the maximum and
minimum value of the failure index is
smaller than that of the lower one. While α
increases, the maximum Tsai-Wu failure
index decreases and reaches a minimum
value when α = 65° for both the upper and
the lower faces. Moreover, the difference
between the maximum and minimum
value of the failure index decreases and
reaches the minimum value when α = 40°.
For both the upper and lower faces, the
value of the failure index is nearly the
same for all layers. As α increases Tsai-Wu
failure still decreases and reaches a mini-
mum value when α = 65°. Thereafter, in-
creasing α increases the failure index up
to α = 90°.
Figure 8a presents the effect of α upon
the buckling strength factor. It illustrates
that the maximum effective range of fiber
orientation when α is between 40° and
80°. The maximum buckling strength fac-
tor equals 69 and occurs when α is be-
tween 55° and 60°. The minimum value
equals 8.5 and occurs when α = 35°.
Thereafter, as α increases, the buckling
strength factor increases and reaches a
maximum value when α = 60°. As α in-
creases, the buckling strength factor de-
creases again and reaches another mini-
mum value which equals 10 and occurs
when α = 90°. From the above results, it
can be seen that the fiber orientation
has high impact on the buckling strength
factor.
Figure 8b shows the effects of α on the
maximum deflection values. As can be
seen, the maximum effective range of
fiber orientation occurs when α is be-
tween 0° and 60°. The minimum and
maximum deflection values are equal to
0.018 m and 0.058 m, respectively, the
maximum deflection value occurs when α
equals 0°. As α increases, the maximum
deflection value decreases and reaches its
minimum value at α equals 55°. Subse-
quently, as α increases, the maximum de-
flection value increases up to α = 90°. Ac-
cording to the previous results, the mini-
mum deflection value and the maximum
buckling strength factor can be occurred
when α reached 55° to 60°. Moreover, the
fiber orientation α is extremely cooper-
ated with the maximum buckling strength
factor and the minimum deflection value.

62 (2020) 10

Conclusions
A methodology and a sensitivity analysis
for optimizing a sandwich composite deep
submarine pressure hull were presented
and developed for the purpose of minimiz-
ing the BF in order to achieve maximum
operating depth. Buckling, deflection and
material failure were considered in this
study. From the aforementioned results,
the core thickness becomes thinner and
thickness of the facings become thicker at
extreme depths. Additionally, at extreme
depths the core thickness exercises little
influence on the maximum deflection
value and the buckling strength factor. Fur-
thermore, at extreme operational depths,
these forces are critical design considera-
tions and not shell buckling at extreme op-
erational depths. The core layer plays a
minor role in resisting deformation and
shell buckling at extreme operational
depths. Thus, when designing a composite
deep submarine pressure hull subjected to
high loads, it is recommended not to use a
core layer. It should be added that the sub-
marine designed could operate at a diving
depth of 7500 m.
Declaration of
conflicting interests
The authors declare that there is no con-
flict of interest.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Taif Univer-
sity, Mansoura University and Military
Technical College (Egypt) for providing fa-
cilities to carry out the present research
which was supported by The Council of Sci-
entific Research, Taif University, KSA.
References
 1 E. Fathallah, H. Qi, L. Tong, M. Helal: Optimal
Design Analysis of Composite Submersible
Pressure Hull, Applied Mechanics and
Materials 578 (2014), pp. 89-96
DOI:10.4028/www.scientific.net/
AMM.578-579.89
 2 P. Davies: Behavior of marine composite
materials under deep submergence, Marine
Applications of Advanced Fibre-Reinforced
Composites (2016), pp. 125-145
DOI:10.1016/B978-1-78242-250-1.00006-5
 3 M. Helal, H. Huang, D. Wang, E. Fathallah:
Numerical Analysis of Sandwich Composite
Deep Submarine Pressure Hull Considering
Failure Criteria, J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 7 (2019),
Vol. 377, pp. 1-22
DOI:10.3390/jmse7100377
62 (2020) 10
 4 G. Pan, J. Lu, K. Shen, J. Ke: Optimization of
composite cylindrical shell subjected to hydro-
static pressure, Proc. of the Intern. Conf. on
Intelligent Robotics and Applications ICIRA
(2015), pp. 81-90
DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-22879-2_8
 5 J. Pelletier, S. Vel: Multi-objective optimization
of fiber reinforced composite laminates for
strength, stiffness and minimal mass,
Computers and Structures 84 (2006), No. 29-30,
pp. 2065-2080
DOI:10.1016/j.compstruc.2006.06.001
 6 E. Fathallah, H. Qi, L. Tong, M. Helal: Design
optimization of composite elliptical deep-s
ubmersible pressure hull for minimizing the
Buoyancy factor, Advances in Mechanical
Engineering 6 (2014)
DOI:10.1155/2014/987903
 7 E. Fathallah, H. Qi, L. Tong, M. Helal: Design
optimization of lay-up and composite material
system to achieve minimum buoyancy factor for
composite elliptical submersible pressure hull,
Composite Structures 121 (2015), pp. 16-26
DOI:10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.11.002
 8 E. Fathallah, H. Qi, L. Tong, M. Helal: Multi-
objective optimization of composite elliptical
submersible pressure hull for minimize the
Buoyancy factor and maximize buckling load
capacity, Applied Mechanics and Materials
578 (2014), pp. 75-82
DOI:10.4028/www.scientific.net
AMM.578-579.75
 9 A. Panteleev: Optimal design of minimum
weight sandwich plates and shallow shells,
Applied Mechanics 20 (1984), No. 11,
pp. 103-107
DOI:10.1007/BF01273674
10 F. Elsayed, H. Qi, L. L.Tong, and M. Helal:
Optimal structure design of elliptical deep-
submersible pressure hull, Materials Science
Forum 813 (2015), pp. 85-93
DOI:10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.813.85
11 M. Lotfy, Y Khalifa, A. Dessouki, E. Fathallah:
Dynamic Behavior of Steel and Composite
Ferry Subjected to Transverse Eccentric
Moving Load Using Finite Element Analysis,
Applied Sciences 10 (2020), 5367, pp. 1-23
DOI:10.3390/app10155367
12 A. R. Yildiz: Optimal structural design of
vehicle components using topology design
and optimization, Materials Testing 50 (2008),
No. 4, pp. 224-228
DOI:10.3139/120.100880
13 T. Güler, E. Demirci, A. Yıldız, U. Yavuz:
Lightweight design of an automobile hinge
component using glass fiber polyamide com-
posites, Materials Testing 60 (2018), No. 3,
pp. 306-310
DOI:10.3139/120.111152
14 B. Ca, Y. Liu, Z. Liu, X. Tian, R. Ji, H. Li: Relia-
bility-based load and resistance factor design
of composite pressure vessel under external
hydrostatic pressure, Composite Structures 93
(2011), No. 11, pp. 2844-2852
DOI:10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.05.020
15 G. Lee, J. Kweon, J. Choi: Optimization of
composite sandwich cylinders for underwater
vehicle application, Composite Structures 96
(2013), pp. 691-697
DOI:10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.08.055
NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS 1031
16 M. Imran, D. Shi, L. Tong, A. Elahi, H. Waqas,
M. Uddin: Multi-objective design optimization
of composite submerged cylindrical pressure
hull for minimum buoyancy factor and maxi-
mum buckling load capacity, (2020), pp. 1-17
DOI:10.1016/j.dt.2020.06.017
17 M. Walker, R. Smith: A technique for the
multiobjective optimisation of laminated
composite structures using genetic algorithms
and finite element analysis, Composite
Structures 62 (2003), No. 1, pp. 123-128
DOI:10.1016/S0263-8223(03)00098-9
18 M. Akbulut, F. Sonmez: Optimum design of
composite laminates for minimum thickness,
Computers and Structures 86 (2008),
No. 21-22, pp. 1974-1982
DOI:10.1016/j.compstruc.2008.05.003
19 K. Bakshi, D. Chakravorty: First ply failure
study of thin composite conoidal shells
subjected to uniformly distributed load,
Thin-Walled Structures 76 (2014), pp. 1-7
DOI:10.1016/j.tws.2013.10.021
20 M. Kalantari, C. Dong, I. Davies: Multi-objec-
tive robust optimization of multi-directional
carbon/glass fibre-reinforced hybrid compos-
ites with manufacture related uncertainties
under flexural loading, Composite Structures
182 (2017), pp. 132-142
DOI:10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.09.019
21 M. Helal, E. Fathallah:Multi-objective optimiza-
tion of an intersecting elliptical pressure hull as
a means of buckling pressure maximizing and
weight minimization Materials Testing 61
(2019), Vol. 12, pp.1179 -1191
DOI:10.3139/120.111442
22 M. Helal, H.Huang, E. Fathallah, D. Wang,
M. ElShafey, M. Ali: Numerical Analysis and
Dynamic Response of Optimized Composite
Cross Elliptical Pressure Hull Subject to Non-
Contact Underwater Blast Loading, Applied
Sciences 9 (2019), 3489, pp.1-26
DOI:10.3390/app9173489
23 J. MacKay, M. Smith, F. van Keulen, T. Bosman,
N. G. Pegg: Experimental investigation of the
strength and stability of submarine pressure
hulls with and without artificial corrosion
damage, Marine Structures 23 (2010), No. 3,
pp. 339-359
DOI:10.1016/j.marstruc.2010.06.001
24 J. Zhang, M. Wang, W. Wang, W. Tang, Y. Zhu:
Investigation on egg-shaped pressure hulls,
Marine Structures 52 (2017), Supplement C,
pp. 50-66
DOI:10.1016/j.marstruc.2016.11.005
25 B. Song, D. Lyu, J. Jiang: Optimization of
composite ring stiffened cylindrical hulls for
unmanned underwater vehicles using multi-
island genetic algorithm, Journal of Reinforced
Plastics and Composites 37 (2018), No. 10,
pp. 668-684
DOI:10.1177/0731684418760203
26 M. Ren, T. Li, Q. Huang, B. Wang: Numerical
investigation into the buckling behavior of
advanced grid stiffened composite cylindrical
shell, Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
Composites 33 (2014), No. 16, pp. 1508-1519
DOI:10.1177/0731684414537881
27 C. Kassapoglou: Design and Analysis of
Composite Structures: With Applications to
Aerospace Structures, John Wiley & Sons,
1032 NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS
New York, USA (2013)
DOI:10.1002/9780470972700
28 A. Kaw: Mechanics of Composite Materials,
2nd Ed., CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group,
Boca Raton, Florida, USA (2006)
DOI:10.1201/9781498711067
29 C. Liang, H. Chen, C. Jen: Optimum design of
filament-wound multilayer sandwich submers-
ible pressure hulls, Ocean Engineering 30
(2003), No. 15, pp. 1941-1967
DOI:10.1016/S0029-8018(03)00044-1
30 A. Orifici, I. Herszberg, R. Thomson: Review
of methodologies for composite material
modelling incorporating failure, Composite
Structures 86 (2008), No. 1-3, pp. 194-210
DOI:10.1016/j.compstruct.2008.03.007
31 E. Barbero: Finite Element Analysis of Compos-
ite Materials Using Abaqus, CRC PressTaylor
& Francis Group, Boca raton, Florida (2013)
DOI:10.1201/b14788
32 H. Jingxuan, R. Mingfa, S. Shiyong, H.
Qizhong, S. Xiannian: Failure prediction on
advanced grid stiffened composite cylinder un-
der axial compression, Composite Structures 93
(2011), No. 7, pp. 1939-1946
DOI:10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.02.003
33 C. Santiuste, S. Sánchez-Sáez, E. Barbero:
A comparison of progressive-failure criteria in
the prediction of the dynamic bending failure
of composite laminated beams, Composite
Structures 92 (2010), No. 10, pp. 2406-2414
DOI:10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.03.004
34 J. Hou, N. Petrinic, C. Ruiz, S. Hallett: Predic-
tion of impact damage in composite plates,
Composites Science and Technology 60 (2000),
No. 2, pp. 273-281
DOI:10.1016/S0266-3538(99)00126-8
35 R. Lopez, L. Miguel, I. M. Belo, J. Cursi: Advan-
tages of employing a full characterization
method over form in the reliability analysis
of laminated composite plates, Composite
Structures 107 (2014), pp. 635-642
DOI:10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.08.024
36 E. Barbero: Finite Element Analysis of
Composite Materials Using ANSYS, 2nd Ed.,
CRC Press, Boca raton, Florida, USA (2013)
DOI:10.1201/b16295
37 C. Ross: A conceptual design of an underwater
missile launcher, Ocean Engineering 32
(2005), No. 1, pp. 85-99
DOI:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2004.04.008
38 J. Zheng, P. Liu: Elasto-plastic stress analysis
and burst strength evaluation of Al-carbon
fiber/epoxy composite cylindrical laminates,
Computational Materials Science 42 (2008),
No. 3, pp. 453-461
DOI:10.1016/j.commatsci.2007.09.011
39 B. Panahi, E. Ghavanloo, F. Daneshmand: Tran-
sient response of a submerged cylindrical
foam core sandwich panel subjected to shock
loading, Materials and Design 32 (2011), No. 5,
pp. 2611 -2620
DOI:10.1016/j.matdes.2011.01.034
40 R. Craven, D. Graham and J. Dalzel-Job:
Conceptual design of a composite pressure
hull, Ocean Engineering 128 (2016), pp. 153-162
DOI:org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.10.031
41 C. Smith: Design of submersible pressure
hulls in composite materials, Marine
Structures 4 (1991), pp. 141-182
DOI:10.1016/0951-8339(91)90018-7
42 N. N.: ANSYS Theory Reference Release 14.5
(2012)
43 G. Erdogan: The Finite Element Method and
Applications in Engineering Using ANSYS,
Springer, New York, USA (2006)
DOI:10.1007/978-1-4899-7550-8
44 S. Ma, H. Mahfuz: Finite element simulation of
composite ship structures with fluid structure
interaction, Ocean Engineering 52 (2012),
pp. 52-59
DOI:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2012.06.010
45 E. Lund: Buckling topology optimization of
laminated multi-material composite shell
structures, Composite Structures 91 (2009),
No. 2, pp. 158-167
DOI:10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.04.046
46 S. Sørensen, R. Sørensen, E. Lund: DMTO –
A method for discrete material and thickness
optimization of laminated composite structures,
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization
50 (2014), No. 1, pp. 25-47
DOI: 10.1007/s00158-014-1047-5
47 E. Lindgaard, E. Lund: Nonlinear buckling
optimization of composite structures, Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering
199 (2010), No. 37, pp. 2319-2330
DOI:10.1016/j.cma.2010.02.005
48 E. Lindgaard, E. Lund, K. Rasmussen: Nonlinear
buckling optimization of composite structures
considering worst shape imperfections, Inter-
national Journal of Solids and Structures 47
(2010), No. 22, pp. 3186-3202
DOI:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2010.07.020
49 E. Lindgaard, E. Lund: A unified approach to
nonlinear buckling optimization of composite
structures, Computers & Structures 89 (2011),
No. 3, pp. 357-370
DOI:10.1016/j.compstruc.2010.11.008
Bibliography
DOI 10.3139/120.111580
Materials Testing
62 (2020) 10, pages 1025-1032
© Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG
ISSN 0025-5300
The authors of this contribution
Associate Professor Mahmoud M. K. Helal,
received his BSc and MSc degrees from the
Production and Mechanical Design Department,
Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University in
2000 and 2005, respectively. In 2011 he received
his Ph.D. degree from the Harbin Institute of
Technology (HIT). He works as an Assistant Pro-
fessor in the Production and Mechanical Design
Department at Mansoura University. Now he works
as an associate Professor in Mechanical Design
at College of Engineering -Taif University. His
research interests lie in structural optimization, the
strength of the materials, MEMS design assembly,
micromanipulation robot and solid mechanics.
Assistant Professor Elsayed Fathallah,
received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees
in Civil Engineering from the Civil Engineering
Department of the Military Technical College in
1999 and 2007, respectively. In 2015 he received
his Ph.D. degree from Harbin Engineering Univer-
sity, College of Aerospace and Civil Engineering.
He works as an Assistant Professor in both the
Civil Engineering and Ships and Submarines En-
gineering Departments at the Military Technical
College. His research focuses on the strength of
material and structural optimization. 
62 (2020) 10