International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmecsci

Multi-objective optimal structural design of composite superstructure using

a novel MONMPSO algorithm
Meghdad Gholami∗, Alireza Fathi, Ali Mohammad Baghestani
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Babol, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: As an application of composite science in the marine industry, the present paper deals with the multi-objective
Composite sandwich panel optimal structural design of a superstructure composite sandwich panel based on the first-order shear deformation
Fiber-reinforced laminate laminated plate theory (FSDT). Several parameters including the type of fiber, matrix and core material, the
Constrained multi-objective optimization
amount of reinforcement, the core, lamina and laminate thickness, the laminate arrangement (stacking sequence)
MONMPSO
and the laminate construction are considered as the design parameters. A novel Multi-Objective Niching Memetic
NSGA-II
FSDT Particle Swarm Optimization (MONMPSO) algorithm is proposed and its performance is evaluated using the
well-known non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II). The results show that the proposed MONMPSO
algorithm has a better performance in comparison to the NSGA-II algorithm in extracting the Pareto front pattern.
Based on the numerical results, many useful structural rules for designing a composite sandwich panel under the
out of plane pressure and buckling load have been deduced.

1. Introduction considering adhesive-area, local-buckling and embedding-volume con-

Nowadays, composite sandwich panels have many applications in
marine and aerospace industries [1–4] due to their excellent proper-
ties such as high strength-to-weight ratio [5,6], good energy absorp-
tion behaviour [7–12], corrosion and chemical resistance [13,14], ther-
mal and sound insulation [15–17], high bending stiffness characteris-
tics [18,19] and fire safety [20]. The optimal design of composite pan-
els has been an interesting research topic and has attracted much re-
search attention in the last two decades. Yuanlong et al. studied the
parametric optimization of a novel sandwich panel with double-V aux-
etic structure core under air blast loading in order to reduce the dy-
namic response using the multi-objective particle swarm optimization
algorithm (MOPSO) [7]. Yuan et al. presented the optimal design of
metallic sandwich panels with truss cores subjected to uniform ther-
mal loading. They considered the global buckling, the face sheet buck-
ling, the core member buckling and yielding as the failure modes (con-
straint conditions) [15]. Chu et al. proposed a novel approach using
the moving morphable component (MMC) topology optimization frame-
work to design sandwich panels with truss cores (SPTCs). They devel-
oped a multi-component topology description function (MCTDF) to de-
scribe the SPTCs in an explicit geometrical way [21]. Sun et al. studied
the topological optimization of biomimetic porous-core sandwich struc-
tures with carbon fiber reinforced polymer composite (CFRP) face-sheets
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gh.meghdad@yahoo.com (M. Gholami).
straints [22]. Zhang et al. presented the topological design of high-
performance sandwich structures with graded cellular cores (SSGCCs)
using a novel multiscale topology optimization method [23]. Irisarri
et al. presented a Pareto-based multi-objective evolutionary algorithm
for stacking sequence optimization of composite structural parts in or-
der to minimize the weight and maximize the buckling margins [24].
Aymerich and Serra studied the lay-up optimization of laminated pan-
els to maximize the buckling load considering the strength constraint
using the ant colony optimization (ACO) algorithm [25]. Madeira et al.
investigated the optimal design of laminated sandwich panels with a
viscoelastic core. They minimized weight and material cost and maxi-
mized modal damping by finding the optimal number of layers, layer
constituent materials, orientation angles and viscoelastic layer thick-
ness using the Direct Multi-Search (DMS) solver [26]. Shrivastava et al.
studied the weight minimization problem of multi-laminate aerospace
structures using a classical genetic algorithm (GA) interfaced with a
computer-aided engineering (CAE) solver [27]. Gantovnik et al. pro-
posed a GA with memory along with the spline interpolation for the
weight optimization of a sandwich plate with composite face-sheets sub-
jected to strength and buckling constraints [28]. Omkar et al. presented
a generic method for multi-objective design optimization of compos-
ite structures based on Vector Evaluated Artificial Bee Colony (VEABC)
algorithm in order to minimize the weight and the total cost of the com-
posite component to achieve a specified strength [29]. Martínez-Martín
and Thrall presented a multi-objective optimization procedure to design
material properties of honey-comb-core sandwich panels to minimize
the weight and enhance the thermal resistance within the context of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.106149
Received 15 April 2020; Received in revised form 27 September 2020; Accepted 13 October 2020
Available online 16 October 2020
0020-7403/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149

origami-inspired shelters [30]. Tan and Soh studied the multi-objective
optimization of sandwich panels with prismatic cores in order to mini-
mize the weight and maximize heat transfer performance using the ge-
netic algorithm [31].
In almost all of these studies, the classical laminated plate theory
(CLPT) [32] was used for modeling the composite panel. In CLPT, the
transverse shear deformation effects are neglected, whereas, in a com-
posite panel, the shear stress is important [33]. In order to overcome
these drawbacks, the first-order shear deformation laminated plate the-
ory (FSDT) [34,35] is used for multi-objective optimal design of a com-
posite sandwich panel under the out of plane uniform pressure and buck-
ling load. As an applied problem in marine industry, the weight/cost
minimization of a composite panel, which is the component scantlings,
and constraints of a superstructure is investigated in this study. The
reduction of superstructure weight can result in major improvements
in operational efficiency, including significant weight savings, reduced
fuel consumption, increased stability, lower through-life cost, increased
payloads, less environmental impact, etc. The process of constructing
an optimal composite sandwich panel is divided into three stages: de-
sign, manufacturing and assembly [36–38]. Therefore, in this research,
we consider the following crucial optimization parameters at the design
stage [39–46]: the type of fiber, matrix and core material (design param-
eters 1, 2 and 3), the laminate arrangement (lay-up) and construction
(design parameters 4 and 5), the amount of fiber reinforcement (design
parameter 6), the thickness of the core, lamina and laminate (design
parameters 7, 8 and 9).
Evolutionary based multi-objective optimization algorithms that are
a powerful new tool for solving complex engineering problems are used
to solve the constrained multi-objective optimization problem [47–50].
The most popular algorithm in this area is the non-dominated sorting
genetic algorithm (NSGA-II). This algorithm has been proposed based
on different concepts, including fitness sharing, niching and elitism
[51]. The computational runtime and precision of solving complex op-
timization problems are two significant factors to demonstrate the ef-
fectiveness of an optimization algorithm. Optimizations of composite
structures in industries are very on-demand and, at the same time,
maybe very complicated due to numerous design parameters and multi-
objective approach. Therefore, modifications of optimization algorithms
in this area are very important and valuable. In this paper, a novel multi-
objective Niching Memetic particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm
is proposed based on the modified Niching Memetic PSO (NMPSO)
[52], and a constraint-handling technique is used to solve complex
multi-objective constrained optimization problems and its performance
is compared with the well-known NSGA-II. The most significant mod-
ifications and enhancements of MONMPSO proposed in this paper
are:
6. The MONMPSO algorithm has a dynamic archive that is updated
twice in each iteration and can be resized depending on the Pareto
front. These features increase the accuracy, decrease the computa-
tional runtime and need a few populations in solving the optimiza-
tion problems.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the
governing equations of the composite sandwich panel. Section 3 gives
the objective function and constraints. Section 4 introduces the op-
timization algorithms and the numerical results are presented in
Section 5.
2. Composite sandwich panel governing equations
2.1. Geometry, loading and boundary conditions
As is shown in Fig. 1, the composite sandwich plate is composed of
two fiber reinforced composite face-sheets (laminate) and a core. The
panel dimensions are Lx and Ly which are dimensions of a part of the
composite panel that is located between the four stiffeners. The compos-
ite sandwich panel is subjected to out of plane lateral pressure load (e.g.
sides, front and aft superstructures). Also, in some sections of superstruc-
ture (e.g. inner, coach-roof and inner house superstructures), the panel
is subjected to in-plane compressive loading (buckling load). Therefore,
uniformly distributed out of plane pressure (p) and/or in-plane com-
pressing loads (Nx , Ny ) that may lead to buckling have been considered
in this optimization problem. In addition, depending on the position of
the panel in the composite superstructure, the panel may be subjected
to fixed or simply supported boundary conditions. For fixed boundary
conditions, the transverse and in-plane loads considered separately but
in simply supported case, simultaneous loads are also investigated.
2.2. Constitutive equation of the laminate
In CLPT, the transverse shear deformation effects are neglected,
which is not a suitable assumption for the analysis of composite pan-
els. To overcome this drawback, the FSDT is used. In the FSDT, the dis-
placements of a point located at a distance z from an arbitrarily chosen
reference plane are determined as [34,53]:
𝑢 = 𝑢0 − 𝑧𝜙𝑥𝑧 ; 𝑣 = 𝑣0 − 𝑧𝜙𝑦𝑧 ; 𝑤 = 𝑤0 (1)
where (u0 , v0 , w0 ) are the displacements of a material point on the refer-
ence plane x−y along the coordinate lines and (𝜙xz , 𝜙yz ) are the rotations
of the normal in the x–z and y-z plane, respectively. Consequently, the
in-plane strains of the reference plane and the transverse shear strains
may be expressed as:

⎧ 𝜀 ⎫ ⎧ 𝜀0 ⎫ ⎧𝜅 ⎫ ⎧ 𝜕 𝑢0 ∕𝜕 𝑥 ⎫ ⎧ −𝜕 𝜙xz ∕𝜕 𝑥 ⎫
1. Modification in Niching: the sub-swarms are created around the non- ⎪ 𝑥 ⎪ ⎪ 𝑥0 ⎪ ⎪ 𝑥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
dominated elite particles and their closest neighbor (instead of the ⎨ 𝜀 𝑦 ⎬ = ⎨ 𝜀 𝑦 ⎬ + 𝑧 ⎨ 𝜅𝑦 ⎬ = ⎨ 𝜕 𝑣0 ∕𝜕 𝑦 ⎬ + 𝑧⎨ −𝜕 𝜙yz ∕𝜕 𝑦 ⎬
⎪𝛾xy ⎪ ⎪𝛾 0 ⎪ ⎪𝜅xy ⎪ ⎪𝜕 𝑢0 ∕𝜕 𝑥 + 𝜕 𝑣0 ∕𝜕 𝑦⎪ ⎪−𝜕 𝜙xz ∕𝜕 𝑦 − 𝜕 𝜙yz ∕𝜕 𝑥⎪
particles whose variance of the objective function value is less than ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭ xy ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
a specific constant value).
2. Modification in Memetic: the local search is applied to the archived 𝜕 𝑤0 𝜕 𝑤0
𝛾𝑥𝑧 = − 𝜙𝑥𝑧 , 𝛾𝑦𝑧 = − 𝜙𝑦𝑧 (2)
first rank particle of each sub-swarms (instead of global or local best 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦
particles). The stress-strain relations for plane–stress condition take the form:
3. Modification in PSO: the MONMPSO algorithm uses the best non-
𝑄16 ⎤⎧ 𝜀𝑥 ⎫ { } [ ]{ }
dominated elite particles in each sub-swarm for updating the posi- ⎧ 𝜎 ⎫ ⎡𝑄 𝑄12
tion and the velocity (instead of using the global best of all swarms). ⎪ 𝑥 ⎪ ⎢ 11 ⎥⎪ ⎪ 𝜏xz 𝑄55 𝑄45 𝛾xz
⎨ 𝜎𝑦 ⎬ = ⎢𝑄12 𝑄22 𝑄26 ⎥⎨ 𝜀𝑦 ⎬;
𝜏yz
=
𝛾yz
(3)
4. Enhancement in handling the constraints: the MONMPSO algorithm ⎪𝜏xy ⎪ ⎢𝑄 ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ 𝑄45 𝑄44
𝑄26 𝛾
𝑄66 ⎦⎩ xy ⎭
uses a typical adaptive constraint handling method (instead of the ⎩ ⎭ ⎣ 16
penalty function method) in order to avoid dealing with too many
where [𝑄̄ ]is the stiffness matrix of lamina [34,53]. The stiffness matrix
penalty parameters.
of the laminate can be obtained as:
5. Enhancement in individual sorting: to sort the particles, the MON-
[ ]
MPSO algorithm uses a normalized mixed function, which is a com- ⎡ 𝐴 𝐿⎤ 𝐾
⎧ (𝑧 − 𝑧 ) ⎫
bination of objective function value and individual constraint viola- ⎢ [ 𝑖𝑗 ]𝐿 ⎥ ∑ ( ̄ ) ⎪( 2 𝑘 2 𝑘−1) ⎪
⎢ 𝐵𝑖𝑗 ⎥ = 𝑄𝑖𝑗 𝑘 ⎨ 𝑧𝑘 − 𝑧𝑘−1 ∕2⎬; 𝑖, 𝑗 = 1, 2, 6 (4)
( )
tion value. ⎢[𝐷 ]𝐿 ⎥ 𝑘=1 ⎪ 𝑧3 − 𝑧3 ∕3⎪
⎣ 𝑖𝑗 ⎦ ⎩ 𝑘 𝑘−1 ⎭
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149

Fig. 1. (a) The geometry and dimensions of the sandwich plate with fiber reinforced laminate face-sheets under three load cases: (b) out of plane, (c) in-plane and
(d) simultaneous out of plane and in-plane compressive loads.

where the parameters zk , zk − 1 are kth ply distances from the reference tions in handbooks or rules and regulations for any special service craft
plane. For a composite sandwich panel, assuming that the in-plane stiff- [55].
ness of the core is negligible (compared to face-sheets) and the thickness
of the core remains constant during loading, the [A], [B], [D] stiffness
2.3.1. Simply supported boundary condition
matrices are governed as a function of face-sheets stiffness matrix ([A]L ,
The governing equations of a composite panel, which is subjected to
[B]L , [D]L ). For a composite panel with symmetric cross-section, the
applied in-plane edge forces 𝑁̂ 𝑥 , 𝑁̂ 𝑦 and transverse distributed load p,
stiffness matrix is [34]:
Fig. 1, are [53]:
1 2 𝐿
[𝐴] = 2[𝐴]𝐿 ; [𝐵 ] = 0; [𝐷] = 𝑑 [𝐴] + 2𝑑 [𝐵 ]𝐿 + 2[𝐷]𝐿 (5) 𝜕 𝑁𝑥 𝜕 𝑁𝑥𝑦 𝜕 𝑁𝑦 𝜕 𝑁𝑥𝑦
2 + = 0; + =0
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑥
where (d = tC + tL ) is the center distance of two sides of laminates
𝜕𝑄𝑥 𝜕𝑄𝑦 𝜕 2 𝑤0 𝜕 2 𝑤0
and tC , tL are the core and laminate thicknesses, respectively, which are + + 𝑁̂ 𝑥 + 𝑁̂ 𝑦 +𝑝=0
shown in Fig. 1. 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑥2 𝜕𝑦2
The transverse shear forces [Q], the shear stiffness matrix of the sand- 𝜕 𝑀𝑥 𝜕 𝑀𝑥𝑦 𝜕 𝑀𝑥𝑦 𝜕 𝑀𝑦
+ − 𝑄𝑥 = 0; + − 𝑄𝑦 = 0
wich plate [𝑆̃ ]and the stress–strain relationship of core material can be 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦
calculated as follows [34]:
{ } [ ]{ } [ ] [ 𝑐 𝑐 ] { } { }{[ 0 ]} ⎡ 𝑁𝑥 ⎤ ⎡ 𝑀𝑥 ⎤
𝑄𝑥 𝑆̃ 𝑆̃12 𝛾𝑥𝑧 𝑆̃ 𝑆̃12 𝑑 2 𝐶̄55 𝐶̄45 [𝑁 ] [𝐴] [𝐵 ] 𝜀
𝑄𝑦
= ̃11
𝑆12 ̃
𝑆22 𝛾𝑦𝑧
; ̃11
𝑆12 ̃
𝑆22
= ̄ 𝑐 ̄ 𝑐 = | ; [𝑁 ] = ⎢ 𝑁𝑦 ⎥; [𝑀 ] = ⎢ 𝑀𝑦 ⎥;
𝑡𝐶 𝐶45 𝐶44 [𝑀 ] [𝐵 ] [𝐷 ] [𝜅] ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣𝑁xy ⎦ ⎣𝑀xy ⎦
{ 𝑐 } [ 𝑐 ]{ } [ 𝑐 ]{ }
𝜏𝑥𝑧 𝐶̄ 𝐶̄45
𝑐 𝑐
𝛾𝑥𝑧 𝑑 𝐶̄55 𝐶̄45
𝑐
𝛾𝑥𝑧 ⎡ 𝜀0 ⎤
= ̄55 = (6) [ 0 ] ⎢ 𝑥0 ⎥ ⎡ 𝜅𝑥 ⎤
𝑐
𝜏𝑦𝑧 𝐶45𝑐 𝐶̄ 𝑐
44
𝑐
𝛾𝑦𝑧 𝑡𝐶 𝐶̄45
𝑐 𝐶̄ 𝑐
44
𝛾𝑦𝑧 𝜀 = ⎢ 𝜀𝑦 ⎥; [𝜅] = ⎢ 𝜅𝑦 ⎥ (7)
⎢𝛾 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
For an isotropic core 𝐶̄44
𝑐
= 𝐸𝐶 ∕(2(1 + 𝜈𝐶 ) = and 𝐶̄55
𝑐
= 0, where 𝐶̄45
𝑐 ⎣ xy ⎦ ⎣𝜅xy ⎦
EC and 𝜈 C are Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the core, respec-
tively. For a symmetric composite panel, the coupling stiffness matrix is
[B] = 0 (Eq. (5)); therefore, the in-plane displacements are decoupled
with the transverse displacements in Eq. (7). The strain energy for a
2.3. Deflection, stress and buckling of composite sandwich panel
sandwich plate is:
For a composite sandwich panel with simply supported boundary 𝐿
1 𝐿𝑥 𝑦 𝑡𝑃 ∕2 ( )
conditions, the Navier solution [34,53,54] and for fixed boundary con- 𝑈= ∫ ∫ ∫ 𝜎 𝜀 + 𝜎𝑦 𝜀𝑦 + 𝜏𝑥𝑦 𝛾𝑥𝑦 + 𝜏𝑥𝑧 𝛾𝑥𝑧 + 𝜏𝑦𝑧 𝛾𝑦𝑧 𝑑 𝑧 𝑑 𝑦 𝑑 𝑥 (8)
2 0 0 −𝑡𝑃 ∕2 𝑥 𝑥
dition the Rayleigh-Ritz solution [53] can be used to calculate the de-
flection, strain, stress, etc. However, an alternative solution for com- where tP = tC + 2tL is the thickness of panel. For a simply supported
posite sandwich panel with fixed edges is using the reported equa- symmetrical orthotropic composite panel, 𝜀0𝑥 = 𝜀0𝑦 = 𝛾xy
0 = 0, B = 0 and
ij
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149

𝐷16 = 𝐷26 = 𝑆̃12 = 0. Therefore, by substituting Eqs. (2), (3) and (6) into ⎛ ⎡𝐹33 𝐹34 𝐹35 ⎤ [ ]⎞
𝐹 𝐹45 ⎟
Eq. (8), the strain energy may be simplified as [34]: × ⎜det ⎢𝐹34 𝐹44 𝐹45 ⎥∕ det 44 (13)
⎜ ⎢ ⎥ 𝐹45 𝐹55 ⎟
[ ( ) ( ) ⎝ ⎣𝐹35 𝐹45 𝐹55 ⎦ ⎠
𝐿 𝜕 𝜙𝑦𝑧 2 𝜕 𝜙𝑥𝑧 𝜕 𝜙𝑦𝑧
1 𝐿𝑥 𝑦 𝜕 𝜙𝑥𝑧 2
𝑈 = ∫ ∫ 𝐷11 + 𝐷22 + 2𝐷12 The critical buckling stress of sandwich panel in y-direction can be
2 0 0 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕 𝑥𝜕 𝑦
calculated as:
( )2 ( 0 )2 ( 0 )2 ] ( )
𝜕 𝜙𝑥𝑧 𝜕 𝜙𝑦𝑧 𝜕𝑤 𝜕𝑤 𝜆𝑖𝑗 𝑐𝑟 𝑁𝑦0
+ 𝐷66 + ̃
+𝑆11 ̃
− 𝜙𝑥𝑧 +𝑆22 − 𝜙𝑦𝑧 𝑑𝑦 𝑑𝑥
𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜎𝑐 𝑟−𝑏𝑢𝑐 𝑘𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 = (14)
𝑡𝐶 + 2𝑡𝐿
(9)
2.3.2. All edges fully fixed
The potential of the external forces for a sandwich plate under out The maximum deflection (wmax ) of a sandwich panel, which is sub-
of plane and in-plane loads is: jected to a uniform lateral pressure (p) with all edges fixed can be de-
[ ( 0 )2 ( ) ] termined as [55]:
𝐿𝑥 𝐿𝑦 𝑁̂ 𝜕𝑤 𝑁̂ 𝑦 𝜕 𝑤0 2 ( )
Ω = ∫ ∫ −𝑝𝑤0 + 𝑥 + 𝑑𝑦 𝑑𝑥 (10) ⎛ 2 ⎞
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 10−3 𝑝𝑏2 ⎜ 𝑏 1−𝜈𝑓
2 2 2
0 0
1 ⎟ 𝐸 𝑡𝑝 𝑡𝑠 ( )2
𝑤𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
0
⎜ 48𝐷 + ⎟ (𝑚𝑚); 𝐷𝑠 = 2 𝑡𝐶 +𝑡𝐿 (𝑁.𝑚𝑚)
The in-plane edge forces are assumed to be 𝑁̂ 𝑥 = −𝜆𝑁𝑥0 and 𝑁̂ 𝑦 = 8 ⎜ 𝑠 𝐺 𝑡
𝐶 𝐶⎟
⎝ ⎠
−𝜆𝑁𝑦0 where Nx0 and Ny0 are in-plane compressive loads. For a panel
(15)
with symmetric cross-section and lay-up, the general Navier solution
that satisfies the simply supported boundary conditions can be obtained where Etp , ts , GC and 𝜈 f are the tensile modulus of the sandwich plate
as: laminate, the mean skin thickness (mm), the core shear modulus and the
⎧ 𝑤𝑖𝑗 ⎫⎧ sin (𝑖𝜋𝑥∕𝐿 ) sin (𝑗𝜋𝑦∕𝐿 ) ⎫
Poisson’s ratio of fiber, respectively.
⎡ 𝑤0 ⎤ ∑ 𝐼 ∑𝐽
⎢𝜙 ⎥ = ⎪( ) ⎪⎪ ( 𝑥) ( 𝑦 )⎪ The resultant tensile and compressive stresses, at the extreme outer
𝜙 cos 𝑖𝜋𝑥∕𝐿𝑥 sin 𝑗𝜋𝑦∕𝐿𝑦 ⎬
⎢ 𝑥𝑧 ⎥ 𝑖=1 𝑗=1 ⎨ ( 𝑥𝑧 )𝑖𝑗 ⎬⎨ (
(11)
) ( ) fiber of an individual ply can be determined as follows [55]:
⎣𝜙𝑦𝑧 ⎦ ⎪ 𝜙𝑦𝑧 ⎪⎪sin 𝑖𝜋𝑥∕𝐿𝑥 cos 𝑗𝜋𝑦∕𝐿𝑦 ⎪ ( )
⎩ 𝑖𝑗 ⎭⎩ ⎭ ( ) ( )
( 𝑡) 0.1 𝐸 𝑡 𝑖 𝑦𝑖 𝑀 𝑁 0.1 (𝐸 𝑐 )𝑖 𝑦𝑖 𝑀 𝑁
𝜕(𝑈 +Ω) 𝜎 𝑖 = ∑𝐾 ; (𝜎 𝑐 )𝑖 = ∑𝐾 (16)
𝑡 𝑚𝑚2 𝑐 𝑚𝑚2
𝑖=1 (𝐸 )𝑖 𝐼𝑖 𝑖=1 (𝐸 )𝑖 𝐼𝑖
Based on the principle of stationary potential energy 𝜕 𝑤𝑖𝑗
= 0,
𝜕(𝑈 +Ω) 𝜕(𝑈 +Ω)
= 0, = 0. Thus, by substituting Eq. (11)into Eqs. (9) and where yi shows the distance of individual ply from the neutral axis (yS ).
𝜕 (𝜙𝑥𝑧 )𝑖𝑗 𝜕 (𝜙𝑦𝑧 )𝑖𝑗
Moreover, M, Et (Ec ) and I are bending moment, tensile (compressive)
(10), the following equations for finding unknowns wij , (𝛾 xz )ij and(𝛾 yz )ij
modulus of individual ply and second moment of area for a 1 cm length
yield:
of the cross section of individual ply, respectively. The bending moments
( )2 ( )2
⎛⎡𝐹33 𝐹34 𝐹35 ⎤ ⎡𝑁𝑥0 𝑖𝜋∕𝐿𝑥 + 𝑁𝑦0 𝑗𝜋∕𝐿𝑦 0 0⎤⎞ at panel boundaries under the base of stiffener (Mb ) and at the center of
𝐿𝑥 𝐿𝑦
⎜⎢𝐹 𝐹44 𝐹45 ⎥ − 𝜆⎢ 0 0 0⎥⎟ panel (Mc ), will be determined from [55]:
4 ⎜⎢ 34 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎟
⎝⎣𝐹35 𝐹45 𝐹55 ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0⎦⎠ 10−5 𝑘𝑝𝑏2 10−5 (1.5 − 𝑘)𝑝𝑏2 𝛾3 + 1 𝑏
⎧ 𝑤𝑖𝑗 ⎫ ⎧𝑝𝐿 𝐿 ∕(𝜋 2 𝑖𝑗 )⎫ 𝑀𝑏 = , 𝑀𝑐 = (𝑁.𝑚); 𝑘 = , 𝛾 = 𝑤 (17)
⎪( ) ⎪ ( )( )⎪ 𝑥 𝑦 ⎪ 12 12 𝛾 +1 𝑏
𝑖 𝑗
⎨(𝛾𝑥𝑧 )𝑖𝑗 ⎬ = 1 − (−1) 1 − (−1) ⎨ 0 ⎬; 𝑖, 𝑗 = 1, 2, 3, … The core shear stress at the center (𝜏 C )c and the edges (𝜏 C )e of the
⎪ 𝛾𝑦𝑧 ⎪ ⎪ 0 ⎪
⎩ 𝑖𝑗 ⎭ ⎩ ⎭ sandwich panel can be determined as follows [55]:
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 𝑝𝑏 𝑁 ( ) 𝑝𝑏 𝑁
𝜙𝑥𝑧 = 𝑖𝜋∕𝐿𝑥 𝑤𝑖𝑗 − 𝛾𝑥𝑧 𝑖𝑗 ; 𝜙𝑦𝑧 𝑖𝑗 = 𝑗𝜋∕𝐿𝑦 𝑤𝑖𝑗 − 𝛾𝑦𝑧 𝑖𝑗 𝜏𝐶 𝑐 = × 10−3 , 𝜏𝐶 𝑒 = ( ) × 10−3 (18)
𝑖𝑗 2𝑡𝐶 𝑚𝑚2 2 𝑡𝐶 + 𝑡𝐿 𝑚𝑚2
( )4 ( )( )2 ( )2 ( )4
𝐹33 = 𝐷11 𝑖𝜋∕𝐿𝑥 + 2 𝐷12 + 2𝐷66 𝑖𝜋∕𝐿𝑥 𝑗𝜋∕𝐿𝑦 + 𝐷22 𝑗𝜋∕𝐿𝑦 The critical buckling stress of sandwich panel is calculated as [55]:
( )3 ( )( )( )2 ( )1∕3
𝐹34 = −𝐷11 𝑖𝜋∕𝐿𝑥 − 𝐷12 + 2𝐷66 𝑖𝜋∕𝐿𝑥 𝑗𝜋∕𝐿𝑦 𝜎𝑐 𝑟−𝑏𝑢𝑐 𝑘𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 0.5 𝐸 𝑐𝑝 𝐸𝐶 𝐺𝐶 (19)
( )3 ( )( )2 ( ) where Ecp is the compressive modulus of the sandwich plate laminate.
𝐹35 = −𝐷22 𝑗𝜋∕𝐿𝑦 − 𝐷12 + 2𝐷66 𝑖𝜋∕𝐿𝑥 𝑗𝜋∕𝐿𝑦
3. Optimization problem
( )( )( )
𝐹45 = 𝐷12 + 2𝐷66 𝑖𝜋∕𝐿𝑥 𝑗𝜋∕𝐿𝑦 ;
( )2 ( )2 3.1. Objective function
𝐹44 = 𝐷11 𝑖𝜋∕𝐿𝑥 + 𝐷66 𝑗𝜋∕𝐿𝑦 + 𝑆̃11
The first objective function is the weight of panel per unit area. The
( )2 ( )2
𝐹55 = 𝐷22 𝑗𝜋∕𝐿𝑦 + 𝐷66 𝑖𝜋∕𝐿𝑥 + 𝑆̃22 (12) panel weight can be calculated from:
𝐾
For each set of i and j, we solve Eq. (12) to obtain three unknowns ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ∑ ( )
wij , (𝛾 xz )ij and(𝛾 yz )ij (as a consequence (𝜙xz )ij and (𝜙yz )ij ). Hence, we can 𝑤 𝐴 𝑃 =2 𝑤 𝐴 𝐿 +𝜌 𝐶 𝑡 𝐶 ; 𝑤 𝐴 𝑙 𝑖 = 𝑊 𝐹 𝜌 𝐹 +𝑊 𝑀 𝜌 𝑀 𝑡 𝑖 ; 𝑤 𝐴 𝐿 = 𝑤𝐴 𝑙 𝑖
𝑖=1
obtain the deflection and rotation by Eq. (11). The in-plane stresses of
(20)
each layer can obtained from Eqs.(3) and (11).
In the presence of applied transverse load, p ≠ 0, it results from where WF , WM , 𝜌F and 𝜌M are the weight fractions and densities of fiber
Eq. (12) that wij = (𝛾 xz )ij = (𝛾 yz )ij = 0 for i or j=2, 4, 6,… . In the ab- and matrix, 𝜌C is the density of core, ti is the thickness of ith lamina
sence of transverse load, p = 0, algebraic Eq. (12) changes to an eigen- ply, and (wA )l , (wA )L , and (wA )P are the weight of lamina, laminate and
value problem which determines buckling load of the plate. The values panel per unit area, respectively.
of (𝜆ij )cr for the buckled plate are the eigenvalues of Eq. (12) and are The cost of the panel per unit area is the second objective function.
obtained by setting the determinant of the coefficient matrix to zero. Assuming an identical manufacturing process, the sensitivity of all de-
Therefore, the load parameter (𝜆ij )cr (the lowest values determine the sign parameters on the panel cost can be studied. Thus, the cost objective
critical load) can be obtained as [34]: function will be:
( ) 𝐾
∑
1 ( ) ( )
𝜆𝑖𝑗 𝑐𝑟
= ( )2 ( )2 𝜑 𝑃 = 2 𝜑 𝐿 + 𝜌𝑀 𝑡 𝐶 𝜑 𝐶 ; 𝜑 𝑙 = 𝑊 𝐹 𝜌𝐹 𝜑 𝐹 + 𝑊 𝑀 𝜌𝑀 𝜑 𝑀 𝑡 𝑖 ; 𝜑 𝐿 = 𝜑𝑙 𝑖
𝑁𝑥0 𝑖𝜋∕𝐿𝑥 + 𝑁𝑦0 𝑗𝜋∕𝐿𝑦 𝑖=1
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149

(21) 4. Multi-objective optimization methodology

where 𝜑F , 𝜑M , 𝜑C , 𝜑l , 𝜑L and 𝜑P are the cost of fiber, matrix, core, The non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) procedure
lamina, laminate and panel per unit area, respectively. [51] is one of the popularly used evolutionary multi-objective optimiza-
tion (EMO) procedures that attempts to find multiple Pareto-optimal so-
3.2. Constraints lutions in a multi-objective optimization problem. In this research, we
proposed a novel MONMPSO algorithm based on the Niching-Memetic
- The allowable span-deflection ratio, for superstructure panels PSO algorithm [52] and the normalized non-dominated sorting algo-
should be more than 50 [55]. rithm [56], by storing the non-dominated elite population into an ex-
ternal archive. In the proposed MONMPSO algorithm, the new objective
𝑔1 ∶ 𝑤0𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑏∕50 ≤ 0 (22) functions are obtained using the adaptive penalty method as a constraint
- In designing each section of a craft in marine (or even aircraft) handling technique as the following equations [56]:
industry, the sum of fiber-reinforced amount of face-sheets has a rea-
sonable minimum and maxima. The lower limit of reinforcement is de- 𝐹𝑖 (𝑋 ) = 𝑓𝑑 𝑖 (𝑋 ) + 𝑓𝑝 𝑖 (𝑋 ), 𝑖 = 1, 2, … , 𝑙, 𝑙∶ number of object ive f unct ions
pendent on minimum required strength, and its maxima is related to (29)
weight, cost and manufacturing consideration.
( ) ( ) ( )
𝑔2 ∶ 𝑚𝐹 𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝑚𝐹 ≤ 𝑚𝐹 𝑚𝑎𝑥 (23) 𝑣 (𝑋 ) 𝛾𝑓 = 0 𝑓𝑖 (𝑋 )−min 𝑓𝑖 (𝑋 )
𝑓 𝑑 𝑖 (𝑋 ) = { √ ; 𝑓̃𝑖 (𝑋 ) = ( ) ( )
The relation between the reinforcement amount and thickness of ̃
𝑓𝑖 (𝑋 )2 + 𝑣(𝑋 )2 𝛾𝑓 ≠ 0 max 𝑓𝑖 (𝑋 ) −min 𝑓𝑖 (𝑋 )
lamia is as follows [55]:
[ ( )] 𝑚
𝑚𝐹 𝑖 𝜗𝐹 𝑖 ∕𝑊𝐹 − 𝜗𝐹 𝑖 − 𝜗𝑀𝑖 𝑉𝐹 𝜗𝐹 1 ∑ 𝐺 𝑗 (𝑋 ) ( )
𝑣 (𝑥 ) = ( ) ; 𝐺𝑗 (𝑋 ) = max 0, 𝑔𝑗 (𝑋 ) (30)
𝑡𝑖 = ×10 −3
(𝑚𝑚); 𝑊𝐹 = ( ) 𝑚 𝑗=1 max 𝐺𝑗 (𝑋 )
𝜗𝐹 𝑖 𝜗𝑀𝑖 𝜗𝐹 𝑉𝐹 + 𝜗𝑀 1 − 𝑉𝐹
(24)
( ) number of feasible particles
𝑓𝑝 𝑖 (𝑋 ) = 1 − 𝛾𝑓 Z(𝑋 ) + 𝛾𝑓 Y𝑖 (𝑋 ); 𝛾𝑓 =
where ϑF , ϑM , mF and VF are specific gravity of fiber and matrix, mass population size
of reinforcement (g/m2 ) and fiber volume fraction, respectively.
- The limiting values for lamina tensile stress criteria and core shear
0 𝛾𝑓 = 0 0 if X is feasible
stress criteria for local and global loading conditions are [55]: Z (𝑋 ) = { , Y 𝑖 (𝑋 ) = { ̃ (31)
𝑣 (𝑋 ) 𝛾𝑓 ≠ 0 𝑓 𝑖 (𝑋 ) otherwise
𝜎𝑡 𝜏
𝑔3 ∶ − 0.3 ≤ 0; 𝑔4 ∶ ( 𝐶) where 𝑓̃𝑖 (𝑋), v(X), fd i (X) and fp i (X) are the normalized objective func-
(𝜎 𝑡 )ult 𝜏𝐶 ult
( ) tions, individual constraint violation, the distance function and the
− 0.45 for PVC coreor0.35for other cores ≤ 0 (25) penalty function. In this approach, only infeasible solutions will be pun-
ished. In this method, the normalized mixed function is defined as sum
where (𝜎 t )ult and (𝜏 C )ult are the ultimate tensile strength of lamina and of all normalized objective functions 𝐹̄𝑖 (𝑋) as:
the shear strength of core, respectively.
𝑟
- The Tsai-Hill failure theory is used as yield criterion of a lamina as ( ) ∑ ( ) 𝐹𝑖 𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑋 ) − 𝐹𝑖 (𝑋 )
[54]: 𝐹̄𝑚𝑖𝑥 𝑋𝑗 = 𝐹̄𝑖 𝑋𝑗 ; 𝐹̄𝑖 (𝑋 ) = ;
𝑖=1
𝐹𝑖 𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑋 ) − 𝐹𝑖 𝑚𝑖𝑛 (𝑋 )
[ ]2 [ ]2 [ ]2
𝜎1 ⎡ 𝜎 𝜎 ⎤ 𝜎2 𝜏12 𝑖 = 1, 2, … , 𝑙; 𝑗 = 1, 2, … 𝑁 (32)
𝑔5 ∶ ( 𝑡 ) ⎢
− ( ) 1 2 ⎥
+ ( 𝑡) + ( ) − 1 < 0 (26)
𝜎1 𝑢𝑙𝑡 ⎢ 𝜎𝑡 2 ⎥ 𝜎2 𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝜏12 𝑢𝑙𝑡
⎣ 1 𝑢𝑙𝑡 ⎦ where l is the number of objective functions, and N is population size.
where 𝜎1 ((𝜎1𝑡 )𝑢𝑙𝑡 ) and 𝜎2 ((𝜎2𝑡 )𝑢𝑙𝑡 ) are the normal stresses (ultimate The normalized non-dominated sorting technique is obtained by sorting
strength) in parallel and perpendicular to the fiber direction, respec- the normalized mixed function in descending order that the following
tively, and 𝜏 12 ((𝜏 12 )ult ) is the shear stress (ultimate strength) in 1-2 individual will not dominate the individuals in front.
plane. In MONMPSO method, the main core procedure of the algorithm
- The compressive stress-critical buckling stress ratio must be less is similar to NMPSO algorithm. However, the new objective function
than a specified value: will be obtained by the constraint handling technique and ranking ac-
cording to the normalized non-dominated sorting technique (Eq. (32)).
𝜎𝑃𝑐 After that, the obtained non-dominated solutions are used for updating
𝑔6 ∶ − 0.3 ≤ 0 (27)
𝜎𝑐 𝑟−𝑏𝑢𝑐 𝑘𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 the external archive (an external non-dominated elite population) and
all the sorted particles are compared with particles in external elite pop-
where 𝜎𝑃𝑐 is the panel compressive stress.
ulation by the relationship of Pareto constrained-dominance. The par-
- The core thickness should be available from the manufacturing abil-
ticles that are not dominated by the archive will be chosen for archive
ity aspects.
updating. Furthermore, we proposed some modifications in implemen-
( ) ( )
𝑔7 ∶ 𝑡𝐶 𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝑡𝐶 ≤ 𝑡𝐶 𝑚𝑎𝑥 (28) tation of the NMPSO algorithm as follows. In MONMPSO algorithm, the
sub-swarms are created around the archived first rank particles (non-
dominated elite particles) and its closest neighbor (modified Niching).
3.3. Problem definition
As a result, the center of sub-swarms may change due to updating the
archive in each iteration. Furthermore, the local search is applied to
The constrained multi-objective optimization problem can be de-
the archived first rank particle of each sub-swarms (modified Memetic).
scribed as follows:
As the third modification, we use these non-dominated elite particles in
(( ) )
Minimize ∶𝑓 (𝑥) = 𝑤𝐴 𝑃 , 𝜑𝑃 each sub-swarm 𝐺𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 for updating the position (𝑋 𝑖 )and the velocity (𝑉 𝑖 ),
instead of a global best that has minimum fitness of all swarms. Fig. 2
shows a pseudo code of the proposed MONMPSO algorithm for solving
Subjectto ∶𝑔𝑗 (𝑥), = 1, 2, … , 7 constrained multi-objective optimization problem.
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149

Fig. 2. Pseudo code of MONMPSO algorithm for solving constrained multi-objective optimization problem.

Table 1
Mechanical properties of fibers.

Specific Strength Specific Modulus

×106 𝑃 𝑎.𝑘𝑔𝑚 ×106 𝑃 𝑎.𝑘𝑔𝑚
3 3
Fibers Density g/cm3 Tensile Strength Mpa Tensile Modulus Gpa Cost $/kg

Glass E-Glass [57] 2.6 3445 72.3 1.32 27.8 0.85

S-Glass [57] 2.5 4585 86.9 1.83 34.7 4
Carbon T700-XGT7-24k [58] 1.78 4700 250 2.64 140.45 26.7
T700-XGT49-12k [58] 1.78 4900 250 2.75 140.45 26.25
T300-XGCF-12k [58] 1.78 3640 242.5 2.04 136.23 22.5
Hexcel-IM10-12k [59] 1.79 6964 310 3.89 173.18 28.8
Hexcel-IM7-6k [59] 1.78 5516 276 3.1 155.05 28.2
Hexcel-AS4-36k [59] 1.79 4413 231 2.46 129.05 26.94
Pyrofil-MR40-12k [60] 1.76 4410 295 2.5 167.61 27.6
Polymer UHMWPE-PE1600D [61] 0.97 3410 132 3.51 136.1 17.5
Kevlar-XGPAF600 [62] 1.47 2050 102 1.39 69.38 29.9

Table 2
Mechanical properties of matrix.

Tensile Strength Tensile Modulus Specific Strength Specific Modulus

×106 𝑃 𝑎.𝑘𝑔𝑚
3
Matrix (Resin) Density g/cm3 MPa GPa Cost $/kg

Vinyl ester Fiber Glast-1110 [63] 1.03 82 3.72 0.079 3.61 22.03
Hetron-FR992-vinylester [64] 1.16 90 3.45 0.077 2.97 25.08
DERAKANE 411-350 [64] 1.14 86 3.2 0.075 2.81 22.32
Polyester Isophthalic-Fiber Glast-90 [63] 1.06 64.12 4.06 0.06 3.83 17.13
HETRON-197P [64] 1.13 112.38 9.72 0.1 8.6 28.43
Orca 200-P16A [65] 1.1 61.65 4.69 0.056 4.26 9.1
Fiberlay-Orca 301-P17 [65] 1.1 58.82 3.13 0.053 2.84 11.86
Epoxy System1000-fiber glast [63] 1.14 318.31 18.82 0.279 16.5 31.4
Pro-Set Lam 125 [66] 1.15 56 3.89 0.048 3.38 27.31
Pro-Set Lam 135 [66] 1.16 77 3.79 0.066 3.26 27.31
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149

Table 3
Mechanical properties of core.

Tensile Strength Tensile Modulus Shear Strength Shear Modulus Specific Strength Specific Modulus Cost
×106 𝑃 𝑎.𝑘𝑔𝑚
3
Core Density g/cm3 MPa GPa MPa GPa $/kg

Balsa Baltek SB.50 [67] 0.109 9 1.66 1.8 0.136 0.082 15.24 23.3
Baltek SB.100 [67] 0.148 12 2.79 2.6 0.187 0.081 18.85 28
Baltek SB.150 [67] 0.285 18.3 6.6 5.2 0.362 0.064 23.17 51.7
PVC Divinycell-H80 [68] 0.08 2.2 0.08 1 0.031 0.027 1 98.7

Fig. 3. The first rank Pareto front of NSGA-II and MONMPSO algorithms and the non-dominated Pareto front for the composite panel under p= (a) 50, (b) 100, (c)
150 kPa.

5. Numerical results and discussion
In this research, the composite panel dimensions are considered to
be Lx = 1900 mm, Ly = 400 mm and bw = 100 mm. The lower bound and
upper bound of mF (inner and outer laminates) is (mF )min =1500 g/m2
and (mF )max =5000 g/m2 respectively (as reported in [55]). Furthermore,
it is assumed that the available core thickness should be in 20-to100
mm range i.e. (tC )min =20 mm, (tC )max =100 mm. The weight fraction of
unidirectional lamina for glass fiber reinforcement is 0.6 and the fiber
volume fraction of unidirectional lamina for reinforcement types other
than glass fibers is 0.41. The optimization problem can be summarized
as follows:
Objectives: minimize the weight function and the cost function of
the composite panel under the out of plane lateral pressure loading and
in-plane buckling load.
Constraints: allowable deflection, shear strength of core, laminate
and core thickness, lamina strength and critical buckling load or stress.
Design parameters: material types of fiber, matrix and core, re-
inforcement amount, lamina and laminate thicknesses, core thickness,
laminate arrangements, stacking sequence and laminate type and con-
struction.
The mechanical properties of fibers, matrixes and cores are shown in
Tables 1-3. In the present research, the following two different types of
laminate are considered. a) Especially orthotropic laminate: this lami-
nate is constructed from [0/90] layers (lamina). b) Quasi-isotropic lam-
inate: this laminate is constructed from [0/90/-45/+45] layers.
5.1. Optimization results of composite panel under out of plane pressure
load condition
Fig. 3 shows the first rank Pareto front of NSGA-II and MONMPSO
algorithms and the non-dominated Pareto front (comparing the NSGA-
II and MONMPSO Pareto front) for the composite panel under p=50,
100, 150 kPa out of plane pressure. As it can be seen in this figure (p
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani
Fig. 4. The first rank Pareto front of NSGA-II and MONMPSO algorithms and the non-dominated Pareto front for the composite panel under p= (a) 200, (b) 250, (c)
300 kPa.
=50 kPa), the MONMPSO algorithm extracts a better solution (Pareto
front) than NSGA-II algorithm. Because, the point {2} is not dominated
by previous point {1} on the NSGA-II Pareto front curve. However, the
point of {3} on the MONMPSO Pareto front dominates the points {1}
and {2} on NSGA-II Pareto front. Therefore, there are at least two points
on the NSGA-II Pareto front curve above the MONMPSO Pareto front.
At low pressure, the lightest fibers with a low amount of reinforcement
(as a result minimum lamina and laminate thicknesses) are selected.
In this pressure, both especially orthotropic [0/90] and quasi-isotropic
[-45/+45/0/90] laminates regardless of their arrangement are usually
on the Pareto front curve. When the cost or weight is most important,
the selected core is Baltek SB50 or Divinycell-H8 0 with low thickness,
respectively.
The first Pareto front for the composite panel under p=200, 250,
300 kPa is depicted in Fig. 4. The corresponding design parameters are
shown in Table 4. For p= 200 kPa, there are at least 6 points ({1}, {2},
{4}, {5}, {7}, {8}) on the NSGA-II Pareto front curve above the MON-
MPSO Pareto front (the points of {3}, {6} and {9} for the MONMPSO
Pareto front dominate those points). For p= 300 kPa, the point of {3}
for the MONMPSO Pareto front dominates the points of {1} and {2} on
NSGA-II Pareto front curve.
The following important results can be concluded from Fig. 4 and
Table 4. With increasing transverse pressure from 200 to 300 kPa, the
suggested fibers, matrix, core and the laminate arrangement, the thick-
ness of laminate and the amount of reinforcement are similar for the
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149
Pareto front that have identical shape; except point of {10} for p=200
kPa in Fig. 4 which is different. Indeed, in this optimization problem for
a range of pressures that have unique Pareto front pattern, each corre-
sponding point (peer-to-peer) on the Pareto front curve of that pressure,
has same materials and panel components. In fact, in this condition,
all of the design parameters remain constant except the thickness of the
core. For the composite panel under three pressure ranges of p=400-450
kPa, p=500-750 kPa and p=800-900 kPa, the other three unique Pareto
front pattern occur.
The third identical shape of the first Pareto front for the composite
panel occurs under 400 and 450 kPa out of plane pressure (see Fig. 5).
The points of {1, 2} for 400 and 450 kPa pressures and the points of
{4, 5} for 450 kPa pressure on NSGA-II Pareto front curve are above the
obtained Pareto front from MONMPSO algorithm; Because, the points of
{3, 6} dominate those points. As preceding conclusions, all obtained de-
sign parameters (except the core thickness) from the optimization prob-
lem for 400 and 450 kPa are similar. Therefore, we illustrate only the
design parameters of the composite panel under 450 kPa out of plane
pressure in Fig. 6. The core thickness of the composite panel under 400
kPa is 87.91 mm for points of {1-5} and 43.95 mm for points of {6-8}.
The fourth identical shape of the first Pareto front for the compos-
ite panel under 500, 600, 700 and 750 kPa out of plane pressures is
demonstrated in Fig. 7. As it is clear from this figure, the point of {3}
for 500, 600, 700 and 750 kPa, the point of {6} for 600 and 700 kPa
and the point of {9} for 700 kPa on the MONMPSO Pareto front curve
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149

Table 4
The first Pareto front and corresponding design parameters of the composite panel under 200, 250 and 300 kPa out of plane
pressures.
𝑔
Pressure (kPa) 𝜑P (wA )P Fiber (𝑚𝐹 ∶ 𝑚2
) Matrix Core (tC :mm) Laminate (tL : mm)

200 185.177 15.877 E-Glass (2259.7) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB50 (63.5) [90/0] (2.25)
185.42 14.248 E-Glass (1846.7) Orca 301-P17 Baltek SB50 (63.5) [0/90] (1.84)
193.452 13.025 E-Glass (1500) Fiber Glast -1110 Baltek SB50 (63.49) [0/90] (1.54)
194.706 12.783 E-Glass (1500) Derakane 411-350 Baltek SB50 (63.49) [0/90] (1.45)
198.558 12.745 E-Glass (1500) Hetron-FR992 Baltek SB50 (63.49) [0/90] (1.43)
209.046 12.699 S-Glass (1500) Derakane 411-350 Baltek SB50 (63.49) [90/0] (1.47)
212.824 12.663 S-Glass (1500) Hetron-FR992 Baltek SB50 (63.49) [90/0] (1.46)
227.651 12.368 E-Glass (1500) System 1000- F. G. Baltek SB100 (43.95) [0/90] (1.45)
242.182 12.284 S-Glass (1500) System 1000- F. G. Baltek SB100 (43.95) [90/0] (1.47)
436.219 12.265 T300 (1500) Orca 301-P17 Baltek SB150 (21.97) [0/90] (2.05)
453.474 12.257 AS4 (1500) Orca 301-P17 Baltek SB150 (21.97) [0/90] (2.05)
456.047 12.180 T300 (1500) Fiber Glast -1110 Baltek SB150 (21.97) [0/90] (2.05)
473.682 12.173 AS4 (1500) Fiber Glast -1110 Baltek SB150 (21.97) [0/90] (2.04)
250 225.55 17.651 E-Glass (2271.4) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB50 (79.36) [90/0] (2.25)
225.649 16.011 E-Glass (1857.5) Orca 301-P17 Baltek SB50 (79.36) [0/90] (1.84)
233.765 14.755 E-Glass (1500) Fiber Glast -1110 Baltek SB50 (79.36) [0/90] (1.54)
235.019 14.513 E-Glass (1500) Derakane 411-350 Baltek SB50 (79.36) [0/90] (1.45)
238.871 14.475 E-Glass (1500) Hetron-FR992 Baltek SB50 (79.36) [0/90] (1.43)
249.359 14.429 S-Glass (1500) Derakane 411-350 Baltek SB50 (79.36) [90/0] (1.47)
253.136 14.393 S-Glass (1500) Hetron-FR992 Baltek SB50 (79.36) [90/0] (1.46)
273.189 13.995 E-Glass (1500) System 1000- F. G. Baltek SB100 (54.94) [0/90] (1.45)
287.72 13.91 S-Glass (1500) System 1000- F. G. Baltek SB100 (54.94) [90/0] (1.47)
517.177 13.831 T300 (1500) Orca 301-P17 Baltek SB150 (27.47) [0/90] (2.05)
537.006 13.746 T300 (1500) Fiber Glast -1110 Baltek SB150 (27.47) [0/90] (2.05)
554.641 13.739 AS4 (1500) Fiber Glast -1110 Baltek SB150 (27.47) [0/90] (2.04)
300 265.95 19.412 E-Glass (2279.2) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB50 (95.23) [90/0] (2.25)
266.04 17.767 E-Glass (1864) Orca 301-P17 Baltek SB50 (95.23) [0/90] (1.84)
274.077 16.485 E-Glass (1500) Fiber Glast -1110 Baltek SB50 (95.23) [0/90] (1.54)
275.332 16.244 E-Glass (1500) Derakane 411-350 Baltek SB50 (95.23) [0/90] (1.45)
279.184 16.206 E-Glass (1500) Hetron-FR992 Baltek SB50 (95.23) [0/90] (1.43)
289.672 16.159 S-Glass (1500) Derakane 411-350 Baltek SB50 (95.23) [90/0] (1.47)
293.449 16.124 S-Glass (1500) Hetron-FR992 Baltek SB50 (95.23) [90/0] (1.46)
318.728 15.621 E-Glass (1500) System 1000- F. G. Baltek SB100 (65.93) [0/90] (1.45)
333.259 15.537 S-Glass (1500) System 1000- F. G. Baltek SB100 (65.93) [90/0] (1.47)
598.136 15.396 T300 (1500) Orca 301-P17 Baltek SB150 (32.96) [0/90] (2.05)
617.964 15.311 T300 (1500) Fiber Glast -1110 Baltek SB150 (32.96) [0/90] (2.05)
635.599 15.305 AS4 (1500) Fiber Glast -1110 Baltek SB150 (32.96) [0/90] (2.04)

Fig. 5. The first rank Pareto front of NSGA-II and MONMPSO algorithms and the non-dominated Pareto front for the composite panel under p=(a) 400, (b) 450 kPa.

dominate the points of {1,2}, {4,5} and {7, 8} on the NSGA-II Pareto
front, respectively. The design parameters of the composite panel under
600 kPa lateral pressure is shown schematically in Fig. 8. All obtained
design parameters from optimization problem for 500, 600, 700 and
750 kPa are similar, except the core thickness of the composite panel
which is 54.94, 76.92 and 82.91 mm, under 500, 700 and 750 kPa,
respectively.
In Fig. 9, the fifth identical shape of the first Pareto front for the
composite panel under 800 and 900 kPa out of plane pressure is shown.
It can be seen once more that the performance of the MONMPSO al-
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani
Fig. 6. The first Pareto front and optimization results for the composite panel
under p=450 kPa.
gorithm in finding Pareto front is better than the NSGA-II algorithm.
Because for 800 kPa pressure, the points {2} and {5, 6} on NSGA-II
Pareto front is above the MONMPSO Pareto front and not dominated
by {1} and {4}, respectively. However, the points {3} and {7} for the
MONMPSO Pareto front dominate the points {1, 2} and {4, 5, 6} on
NSGA-II Pareto front curve, respectively. Therefore, there are at least 5
Fig. 7. The first Pareto front of NSGA-II and MONMPSO algorithms and the non-dominated Pareto front for the composite panel under p=(a)500, (b)600, (c)700,
(d)750 kPa.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149
Fig. 8. The first Pareto front and optimization results for the composite panel
under p=600 kPa.
points on the NSGA-II Pareto front curve above the MONMPSO Pareto
front. It should be mentioned that the difference of objective functions
value for the MONMPSO and NSGA-II algorithms for these figures are
very small. The design parameters of the composite panel under 800 kPa
out of plane pressure is demonstrated in Fig. 10. All of the design pa-
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani
Fig. 9. The first rank Pareto front of NSGA-II and MONMPSO algorithms and the non-dominated Pareto front for composite panel under p=(a) 800, (b) 900 kPa.
Fig. 10. The first Pareto front and optimization results for the composite panel
under p=800 kPa.
rameters for 900 kPa remain constant except the thickness of the core,
which is 98.9 mm.
At above 900 kPa pressure, the composite panel fails due to shear
stress of core. It shows that at first, the composite panel under out of
plane pressure fails when the core shear stress reaches to critical shear
strength. So, the selection of a stronger core is suggested in the design.
If there is no more available core, the effective shear strength of the core
material in the direction of the panel breadth, can be increased by the
addition of shear ties [55]. The other way is changing the stiffener space
(decrease of s).
Some other conclusions that can be obtained from proceeding re-
sults are as follows. In the upper segment of Pareto front figure that
the weight function value is high, the glass and polymeric fibers are se-
lected, and in that’s the lower segment, the carbon fibers are selected.
In other words, when for a designer the cost is more important than
weight, the glass and polymeric fibers are suggested; and if the weight
is more important than cost, the carbon fibers are suggested. Further-
more, for low pressures, the selected laminate is both of quasi-isotropic
and especially orthotropic laminate. For other pressures, the especially
orthotropic laminate is proposed. In addition, it can be concluded that
a panel with low cost fibers such as E-glass and S-glass or a panel with
high strength fibers such as AS4 and IM10 is the best choice, if it is
only a matter of cost or weight to the designer, respectively. Also, as
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149
the pressure increases, the thickness of selected core reaches into max-
imum and then the core with more density and strength is selected.
This behavior continues until the densest and strongest possible core
with the highest permissible thickness is selected. The second mode of
failure is the stress in the laminate, which to fix this factor, stronger
fibers and matrices should be selected. The jump of results in preced-
ing figures is due to two reasons. The cost difference between glass and
UHMWPE fibers with other fibers is considerable and it has a moderate
strength. As a result, by changing the selected fiber (a design parame-
ter) from glass and UHMWPE fibers into carbon fibers, the cost suddenly
increases; whereas, laminate needs much less amount of reinforcement,
so the weight suddenly decreases.
5.2. Optimization results of composite panel under buckling load condition
Fig. 11 shows the first rank Pareto front of NSGA-II and MONMPSO
algorithms and the non-dominated Pareto front for the composite panel
under Ny =7000, 8000, 10000, 12000 kN in-plane compressive loads.
The corresponding design parameters are illustrated in Table 5. For
Ny =7000 kN, the points of {1} and {3} on the NSGA-II Pareto front
curve are above the MONMPSO Pareto front and are dominated by {2}
and {4}, respectively. For Ny =12000 kN, the MONMPSO algorithm was
able to find point}1{that the NSGA-II could not find it.
For the composite panel under buckling load, the selection of ma-
trix is very important. The matrix with the lowest price with adequate
strength is proposed, when the cost is more important than the weight;
otherwise, the matrix with high strength is recommended. When the ma-
trix or laminate arrangement changes, the fibers also change (usually to
less strength and cost fiber). Furthermore, the thickness of the core and
the laminate will usually be as high as possible (with respect to the
cost and weight), because when the thickness is high, the compressing
stress will be less and therefore the buckling does not occur. By tracking
from less into the higher cost on the Pareto front curve (high into less
weight), usually the laminate thickness decreases. It can be seen that the
quasi-isotropic laminate is usually chosen; probably because the higher
number of panel layers reduce the possibility of buckling. Moreover, in
some parts of the Pareto front, the number of points close together is
very high that makes them look like a line. In these points, the amount
of reinforcement and thickness of laminate gradually decrease and the
thickness of the core gradually increases (see Table 5, Ny =8000 kN).
These results show that all of design parameters are active parameters
and any changes in each of parameters of design, change the other. How-
ever, a general behavior in this load case is observed. As it can be seen
in the preceding figures, the MONMPSO algorithm has high accuracy
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani
Fig. 11. The first rank Pareto front of NSGA-II and MONMPSO algorithms and the non-dominated Pareto front for the composite panel under Ny =(a) 7000, (b) 8000,
(c) 10000, (d) 12000 kN.
for solving complex constrained multi-objective optimization problem.
The most challenging part of obtaining Pareto front is when that’s curve
approaches to a horizontal or vertical line. Because the changes of ob-
jective functions value of two adjacent points on Pareto front are very
small.
5.3. Optimization results of composite panel under simultaneous out of
plane pressure and buckling load for all edge simply supported boundary
condition
Fig. 12 shows the first rank Pareto front of NSGA-II and MONMPSO
algorithms and the non-dominated Pareto front for the composite panel
under simultaneous p=200, 500, 850 kPa out of plane pressure and
Ny =1000, 7000, 12000 kN in-plane compressive loads.
As it can be seen in Fig. 12, the MONMPSO algorithm extracts a bet-
ter solution (Pareto front) than NSGA-II algorithm. The obtained Pareto
fronts of MONMPSO algorithm in all applied compressive loads domi-
nate the Pareto fronts of NSGA-II algorithm. The first Pareto front and
corresponding design parameters of the composite panel under these
loads are shown in Table 6.
The constraint amounts of composite panel under mentioned load
conditions are listed in Table 7.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149
Many important results could be obtained from Fig. 12 and
Tables 6 and 7, which are listed as follows:
(a) At low out of plane pressure and low buckling load (p=200 kPa,
Ny =1000 kN):
- If the cost is more important than the weight, the constraint of
layer stress (g3 ) is the active constraint, otherwise, the core shear
stress constraint (g4 ) will be the active one.
- In these compressive loads, the choice of fiber, core and laminate
type will be important. Moving from high-weight (low-cost) to
low-weight (high-cost) on Pareto front, the fibers change from
cheaper to more expensive, and the core changes from a low-
strength core to a high-strength core; the reinforcement amount
also decreases to minimum amount (the amount of reinforcement
constraint g2 is active).
(b) At low out of plane pressure and moderate-high buckling loads
(p=200 kPa, Ny =7000, 12000 kN):
- As the in-plane compressive load increases, the buckling con-
straint (g6 ) will be the active constraint. Therefore, the matrix
material selection will be important. When the cost is more im-
portant than the weight, a cheaper matrix with adequate strength
is suggested, otherwise, the matrix with high strength is pro-
posed. Furthermore, a core (and panel) with the highest possi-
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149

Table 5
The first Pareto front and corresponding design parameters of the composite panel under 7000, 8000, 10000 and 12000 kN in-plane
compressive loads.
𝑔
Compressive load(kN) 𝜑P (wA )P Fiber (𝑚𝐹 ∶ 𝑚2
) Matrix Core (tC :mm) Laminate (tL : mm)

7000 363.878 20.023 UHMWPE (1726.8) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB50 (100) [0/-45/45/90] (4.34)
410.464 19.717 T300 (2204) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB50 (100) [0/-45/45/90] (3.02)
414.325 18.556 MR40 (1908.5) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB50 (100) [0/-45/45/90] (2.64)
414.765 17.131 T300 (1543.7) System 1000-F. G. Baltek SB50 (100) [0/-45/45/90] (2.11)
424.94 16.744 MR40 (1500) System 1000-F. G. Baltek SB50 (97.89) [0/-45/45/90] (2.07)
427.965 16.691 IM10 (1500) System 1000-F. G. Baltek SB50 (97.66) [0/-45/45/90] (2.04)
8000 411.393 23.967 UHMWPE (2474) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB50 (100) [0/-45/45/90] (6.22)
493.710 23.558 UHMWPE (1968.7) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB100 (88.90) [0/90] (4.95)
493.759 23.402 UHMWPE (1916.3) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB100 (89.71) [0/90] (4.81)
493.844 23.304 UHMWPE (1882.6) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB100 (90.25) [0/90] (4.73)
493.983 23.202 UHMWPE (1847) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB100 (90.83) [0/90] (4.64)
494.112 23.131 UHMWPE (1821.9) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB100 (91.25) [0/90] (4.58)
494.396 23.012 UHMWPE (1779.1) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB100 (91.97) [0/90] (4.47)
494.647 23.932 UHMWPE (1749.3) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB100 (92.49) [0/90] (4.39)
495.128 22.806 UHMWPE (1701.8) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB100 (93.34) [0/90] (4.27)
495.619 22.703 UHMWPE (1661.9) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB100 (94.07) [0/90] (4.17)
496.239 22.598 UHMWPE (1619.6) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB100 (94.87) [0/90] (4.07)
496.250 19.958 UHMWPE (1672.7) System 1000-F. G. Baltek SB50 (100) [0/90/-45/45] (4.2)
507.53 19.634 MR40 (2157.1) System 1000-F. G. Baltek SB50 (100) [0/90/-45/45] (2.98)
510.803 19.530 IM10 (2141.1) System 1000-F. G. Baltek SB50 (100) [0/90/-45/45] (2.91)
552.829 19.520 MR40 (1500) System 1000-F. G. Baltek SB100 (90.85) [0/-45/45/90] (2.07)
555.398 19.456 IM10 (1500) System 1000-F. G. Baltek SB100 (90.60) [0/-45/45/90] (2.04)
10000 531.609 33.947 UHMWPE (4362.2) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB50 (100) [0/90/-45/45] (10.96)
567.567 27.514 UHMWPE (2406.5) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB100 (100) [0/-45/45/90] (6.05)
638.625 27.434 T300 (3157.8) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB100 (100) [0/-45/45/90] (4.32)
646.162 23.464 UHMWPE (1600.1) System 1000-F. G. Baltek SB100 (100) [0/-45/45/90] (4.02)
654.210 23.06 MR40 (2040.1) System 1000-F. G. Baltek SB100 (100) [0/-45/45/90] (2.82)
657.093 22.955 IM10 (2023.2) System 1000-F. G. Baltek SB100 (100) [0/-45/45/90] (2.75)
12000 654.065 34.698 UHMWPE (3766.8) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB100 (99.97) [0/-45/45/90] (9.47)
757.291 34.663 UHMWPE (3854.7) Isophthalic-F.G.90 Baltek SB100 (99.95) [0/-45/45/90] (9.69)
805.303 29.414 UHMWPE (2698.8) System 1000-F. G. Baltek SB100 (100) [0/90/-45/45] (6.78)
848.308 29.381 IM10 (3617.3) System 1000-F. G. Baltek SB100 (100) [0/90/-45/45] (4.92)

ble thickness (the core thickness constraint g7 is active) and a
quasi-isotropic laminate are offered.
- At p=200 kPa, Ny =7000 kN, when the weigh is more important
than the cost, the reinforcement amount decreases to minimum
amount (the amount of reinforcement g2 will be the active con-
straint).
(c) At moderate out of plane pressure and low-moderate buckling loads
(p=500 kPa, Ny =1000, 7000 kN):
- As the out of plane pressure load increases (to p=500 kPa), the
layer stress and the core shear stress constraints (g3 and g4 are the
active constraints) will be more important (compared to p=200
kPa). Therefore, both the fiber and core materials will be impor-
tant.
- When the weigh is more important than the cost, the reinforce-
ment amount decreases to minimum amount (the amount of rein-
forcement g2 will be the active constraint) to reduce the weight.
(d) At moderate out of plane pressure and high buckling load (p=500
kPa, Ny =12000 kN):
- As the in-plane compressive load increases (to Ny =12000 kN),
the buckling constraint (g6 ) will be the active constraint; there-
fore, the matrix material will be more important.
- Since the out of plane pressure is significant, considering the
weight and cost, an especially orthotropic laminate is recom-
mended.
- The core shear stress constraint g4 is the other active
constraint.
(e) At high out of plane pressure and low-moderate bucking loads
(p=850 kPa, Ny =1000, 7000 kN):
- In these compressive loads, the fiber and core materials and lam-
inate constructions are very important. The core should be as
thick and strong as possible and the laminate should have quasi-
isotropic construction to reduce the core shear stress and the
layer stresses (g3 and g4 are the active constraints).
- At p=850 kPa, Ny =1000 kN, when the weigh is more important
than the cost, a low amount of reinforcement is proposed to re-
duce the weight of composite panel; otherwise, a high amount of
reinforcement is suggested (g2 is the active constraint).
- At p=850 kPa, Ny =7000 kN, when the weigh is more important
than the cost, a high strength core with maximum available thick-
ness (g7 is the active constraint) is offered.
(f) At high out of plane pressure and high buckling load (p=850 kPa,
Ny =12000 kN):
- In these compressive loads, the shear stress of the core is very im-
portant. Since, at these compressive loads, the panel approaches
to the failure, the strongest core with the greatest possible thick-
ness (g4 and g7 are the active constraints) is suggested. There-
fore, the amount of reinforcement must be increased to the max-
imum amount. The panel may fail at higher compressive loads
(i.e. higher than p=850 kPa, Ny =12000 kN).
- At high in-plane compressive load (Ny =12000 kN) the matrix
material is more important. Furthermore, at high out of plane
pressure load (p=850 kPa), the fiber and core materials and lam-
inate constructions are also very important. In these compressive
loads, a quasi-isotropic laminate is suggested.
The Tsai-Hill failure theory constraint (g5 ) in these compressive loads
is not an active constraint, therefore, the separation of layers or delam-
ination is not the failure mode. However the maximum stress criteria
constraint (g3 ) is an active constraint in preceding mentioned compres-
sive loads and the failure mode of composite panel is the matrix failure
(transverse to the fiber direction).
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149

Table 6
The first Pareto front and corresponding design parameters of the composite panel under [p, Ny ]= [200,1000], [200,7000], [200,12000],
[500,1000], [500,7000], [500,12000], [850,1000], [850,7000], [850,12000] (kPa, kN) simultaneous loads.
𝑔
p(kPa) Ny (kN) point 𝜑P (wA )P Fiber (𝑚𝐹 ∶ 𝑚2
) Matrix Core (tC :mm) Laminate (tL : mm)

p=200 {1} 195.68 16.97 E-Glass (2443.9) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 50 (66.88) [0/90] (2.42)
Ny =1000 {2} 204.86 15.35 E-Glass (1926.3) F.Orca 301-P17 Baltek SB 50 (70.83) [0/90] (1.90)
{3} 211.74 13.88 E-Glass (1524.3) F. Glast-1110 Baltek SB 50 (70.48) [0/90] (1.57)
{4} 215.70 13.16 E-Glass (1500) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 50 (67.01) [0/-45/45/90] (1.45)
{5} 260.04 12.92 S-Glass (1500.2) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 100 (48.26) [0/90] (1.47)
{6} 310.80 12.77 T700 12k (1500) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 100 (45.79) [0/-45/45/90] (2.05)
{7} 340.99 12.65 MR40 (1500) F. Glast-1110 Baltek SB 100 (45.42) [0/-45/45/90] (2.07)
{8} 363.79 12.61 IM10 (1500) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 100 (44.36) [0/-45/45/90] (2.04)
p=200 {1} 364.72 20.093 UHMWPE (1740.1) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 50 (100) [0/90/-45/45] (4.37)
Ny =7000 {2} 410.90 19.743 T300 (2211.1) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 50 (99.97) [0/-45/45/90] (3.02)
{3} 414.91 17.137 T300 (1545.2) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 50 (100) [0/-45/45/90] (2.11)
{4} 424.93 16.744 MR40 (1500) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 50 (97.89) [0/-45/45/90] (2.07)
{5} 427.99 16.692 IM10 (1500) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 50 (97.67) [0/-45/45/90] (2.04)
p=200 {1} 654 34.689 UHMWPE (3764.5) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 100 (100) [0/-45/45/90] (9.46)
Ny =12000 {2} 757 34.642 UHMWPE (3849.4) Iso. F.G.-90 Baltek SB 100 (100) [0/-45/45/90] (9.67)
{3} 805.83 29.434 UHMWPE (2702.4) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 100 (100) [0/-45/45/90] (6.79)
{4} 848.3 29.381 IM10 (3617.3) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 100 (100) [0/90/-45/45] (4.92)
p=500 {1} 579.32 28.490 UHMWPE (2591.3) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 100 (100) [90/0/-45/45] (6.51)
Ny =1000 {2} 685.02 28.129 UHMWPE (2634.1) F. Glast-1110 Baltek SB 100 (100) [90/0/-45/45] (6.62)
{3} 878.353 25.512 UHMWPE (2103.1) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 150 (50.52) [-45/45/90/0] (5.28)
{4} 883.39 24.752 E-Glass (2307.4) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 150 (55.2) [90/0] (2.23)
{5} 891.02 23.038 UHMWPE (1500) F.Orca.301-P17 Baltek SB 150 (53.02) [0/90] (3.77)
{6} 941.78 21.562 IM10 (1500) F.Orca.301-P17 Baltek SB 150 (54.64) [0/90] (2.04)
{7} 969 21.317 IM10 (1500) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 150 (53.58) [0/90/-45/45] (2.04)
p=500 {1} 1072.6 36.378 UHMWPE (3857.6) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 150 (56.13) [0/-45/45/90] (9.69)
Ny =7000 {2} 1079.3 32.308 UHMWPE (2821.1) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 150 (61.06) [0/-45/45/90] (7.09)
{3} 1097.3 29.13 UHMWPE (1950.9) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 150 (66.04) [0/90] (4.90)
{4} 1128.4 29.069 UHMWPE (1872.1) F.Orca.301-P17 Baltek SB 150 (67.29) [0/90] (4.7)
{5} 1147.2 27.997 UHMWPE (1500.9) F.Orca.301-P17 Baltek SB 150 (70.41) [0/90] (3.77)
{6} 1174.9 26.89 IM10 (1806.8) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 150 (69.02) [0/90] (2.46)
{7} 1188.6 25.55 IM10 (1500) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 150 (68.45) [0/90] (2.04)
p=500 {1} 1195.2 42.3 UHMWPE (4734.8) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 150 (60.66) [0/-45/45/90] (11.9)
Ny =12000 {2} 1200.1 39.498 UHMWPE (4018.7) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 150 (64.08) [0/-45/45/90] (10.1)
{3} 1211.4 37.32 UHMWPE (3427.5) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 150 (67.4) [0/90] (8.61)
{4} 1277.0 36.10 UHMWPE (2814.7) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 150 (74.51) [0/90] (7.07)
{5} 1361.9 35.05 MR40 (3648.2) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 150 (71.62) [0/90] (5.05)
{6} 1362.1 32.389 UHMWPE (2312.0) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 150 (69.71) [0/90] (5.81)
{7} 1427.0 30.97 IM10 (1971.1) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 150 (80.8) [0/90] (2.68)
p=850 {1} 1401.2 45.374 E-Glass (5000) F. Glast-1110 Baltek SB 150 (87.81) [90/-45/45/0] (5.15)
Ny =1000 {2} 1408.1 35.074 E-Glass (2359.3) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 150 (90.71) [90/-45/45/0] (2.28)
{3} 1423.0 34.167 UHMWPE (1717.0) F.Orca.301-P17 Baltek SB 150 (88.05) [-45/45/90/0] (4.31)
{4} 1460 32.868 UHMWPE (1500) F. Glast-1110 Baltek SB 150 (88.72) [90/0/-45/45] (3.77)
{5} 1470 31.935 T300 (1500) Deraka.411-350 Baltek SB 150 (90.8) [0/90/-45/45] (2.05)
{6} 1477.9 31.6 T300 (1500) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 150 (89.69) [90/0/-45/45] (2.05)
{7} 1497.5 31.530 IM10 (1500) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 150 (89.41) [90/0/-45/45] (2.04)
p=850 {1} 1584.2 44.562 UHMWPE (3435.1) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 150 (92.67) [0/90/-45/45] (8.63)
Ny =7000 {2} 1586.3 42.024 UHMWPE (2798.7) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 150 (95.56) [0/90/-45/45] (7.03)
{3} 1596.6 39.796 UHMWPE (2199.9) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 150 (98.85) [-45/45/0/90] (5.53)
{4} 1627.1 39.687 UHMWPE (2123.6) F.Orca.301-P17 Baltek SB 150 (99.88) [0/-45/45/90] (5.33)
{5} 1654.2 39.069 UHMWPE (2059.9) Iso. F.G.-90 Baltek SB 150 (99.82) [0/-45/45/90] (5.17)
{6} 1684.2 38.561 MR40 (2507.9) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 150 (100) [0/90/-45/45] (3.47)
{7} 1710.0 36.448 IM10 (1971.9) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 150 (100) [0/90/-45/45] (2.68)
p=850 {1} 1704.7 51.912 UHMWPE (4673.7) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 150 (95.5) [0/90/-45/45] (11.7)
Ny =12000 {2} 1705.8 49.756 UHMWPE (4136.5) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 150 (97.89) [0/90/-45/45] (10.4)
{3} 1708.4 48.042 UHMWPE (3701.4) Orca 200-P16A Baltek SB 150 (99.95) [0/90/-45/45] (9.3)
{4} 1807.2 47.832 UHMWPE (3750.4) Iso. F.G.-90 Baltek SB 150 (100) [0/90/-45/45] (9.43)
{5} 1862.2 47.647 UHMWPE (3783.8) F. Glast-1110 Baltek SB 150 (100) [0/90/-45/45] (9.51)
{6} 1901.2 44.492 UHMWPE (2953.1) Sys.1000-F.G. Baltek SB 150 (100) [0/90/-45/45] (7.42)
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149

Fig. 12. The first rank Pareto front of NSGA-II and MONMPSO algorithms and the non-dominated Pareto front for composite panel under [p, Ny ]= (a)[200,1000],
(b)[200,7000], (c)[200,12000], (d)[500,1000], (e)[500,7000], (f) [500,12000], (g) [850,1000], (h) [850,7000], (i) [850,12000] (kPa, kN) simultaneous loads.

6. Conclusions
In this paper, the multi-objective optimization of a composite sand-
wich panel under out of plane uniform pressure and buckling load is
investigated. The panel weight and its cost are the objective functions
of this study. This paper proposed a general and practical procedure for
multi-objective optimization of composite sandwich panels with fiber
reinforced composite laminate face-sheets. It was shown that the pro-
posed MONMPSO algorithm has a better performance in comparison to
the NSGA-II algorithm in extracting the Pareto front pattern. Based on
the numerical simulations, the following results can be deduced consid-
ering the design of a composite sandwich panel:
(A) For the composite panel under out of plane pressure:
A-1: At low out of plane pressure, the optimum panel would be a
panel made of orthotropic or quasi-isotropic laminates with any
lay-up arrangements and low amount of reinforcement with light
fibers.
A-2: There is a unique Pareto front pattern for each range of pressure.
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani
Fig. 12. Continued
A-3: Since the failure mode of the composite panel under out of plane
pressure load is the core shear stress failure, selection of strong
cores is advised. If the strong core is not available, it is recom-
mended to use the shear ties or to change the stiffener space.
A-4: For the composite panel under a certain pressure, when the
weight is more important than the cost, the carbon fibers are
suggested; otherwise, the glass and polymeric fibers are advised.
(B) For the composite panel under buckling load:
B-1: For the composite panel under buckling load, the matrix ma-
terial is very important. If the cost is more important than
the weight, the matrix with the lowest price (having adequate
strength) is preferred; otherwise, the matrix with high strength is
suggested.
B-2: It is recommended that the thickness of the core and the lami-
nate be as high as possible (concerning the cost and weight) and
select a quasi-isotropic laminate to increase the critical buckling
load.
(C) For the composite panel under simultaneous out of plane pressure
and buckling load:
C-1: At low out of plane pressure and low buckling load, if the cost
is more important than the weight, the layer stresses play an
essential role in optimization problem and a cheaper fiber and
an especially orthotropic laminate are proposed (to reduce the
cost). Otherwise, the core shear stress is important and a moder-
ate strength core and a quasi-isotropic laminate are suggested.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149
C-2: At low out of plane pressure and moderate-high buckling
loads, the critical buckling load is important. Therefore, when
the cost is more important than the weight, a cheaper matrix
with adequate strength is recommended, otherwise, the matrix
with high strength is proposed. Furthermore, a core with the
highest possible thickness and a quasi-isotropic laminate are
proposed.
C-3: At moderate out of plane pressure and low-moderate buck-
ling loads, the layer stress and the core shear stress are two
considerable factors in optimization problem. Therefore, the
selection of the fiber and the core materials will be impor-
tant. When the weight is more important than the cost, a
minimum reinforcement amount is proposed to reduce the
weight.
C-4: At moderate out of plane pressure and high buckling load, the
critical buckling and the out of plane pressure of composite panel
are two significant factors. Hence, the matrix material is impor-
tant and an especially orthotropic laminate is a preferable choice.
C-5: At high out of plane pressure and low-moderate bucking loads,
the fiber and core materials and laminate constructions are very
important. It is recommended that the core be as thick and strong
as possible, and laminate be quasi-isotropic to reduce the core
shear stress and the layer stresses.
C-6: At high out of plane pressure and high buckling load, the
strongest core with the greatest possible thickness is offered to
reduce the core shear stress. Due to the high out of plane pres-
sure and buckling load, the fiber-core materials and the matrix
material are very important respectively. In these compressive
loads, a quasi-isotropic laminate is proposed.
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149

Table 7
The constraint of the composite panel under [p, Ny ]= [200,1000], [200,7000], [200,12000], [500,1000],
[500,7000], [500,12000], [850,1000], [850,7000], [850,12000] (kPa, kN) simultaneous loads.

p(kPa) Ny (kN) point g1 g3 fiber-direction g3 transverse-direction g4 g5 g6

p=200 {1} -6.91 -0.272 0 (1st-layer) -0.00024 -0.91 -0.185

Ny =1000 {2} -6.73 -0.2625 0 (1st-layer) -0.0102 -0.91 -0.1672
{3} -6.51 -0.25 0 (1st-layer) 0 -0.91 -0.14
{4} -6.91 -0.272 -0.13 0 -0.97 -0.187
{5} -6.48 -0.269 -0.073 0 -0.94 -0.948
{6} -6.83 -0.25 -0.036 0 -0.93 -0.18
{7} -6.90 -0.244 -0.158 0 -0.97 -0.18
{8} -7.1 -0.274 -0.188 0 -0.98 -0.2
p=200 {1} -7.46 -0.282 -0.184 -0.06 -0.98 0
Ny =7000 {2} -7.46 -0.274 -0.193 -0.056 -0.98 0
{3} -7.46 -0.274 -0.229 -0.054 -0.99 0
{4} -7.46 -0.276 -0.233 -0.0478 -0.99 0
{5} -7.46 -0.284 -0.234 -0.0471 -0.99 0
p=200 {1} -7.68 -0.293 -0.25 -0.159 -0.99 0
Ny =12000 {2} -7.68 -0.293 -0.257 -0.159 -0.99 0
{3} -7.68 -0.294 -0.273 -0.155 -0.99 0
{4} -7.68 -0.294 -0.274 -0.154 -0.99 0
p=500 {1} -7.35 -0.278 -0.164 0 -0.98 -0.27
Ny =1000 {2} -7.34 -0.277 -0.213 0 -0.99 -0.27
{3} -6.78 -0.25 0 (4th-layer) 0 -0.9 -0.245
{4} -6.19 -0.247 0 (2nd-layer) 0 -0.91 -0.221
{5} -6.62 -0.241 0 (1st-layer) 0 -0.913 -0.237
{6} -6.70 -0.24 -0.039 0 -0.932 -0.239
{7} -6.80 -0.247 -0.076 0 -0.95 -0.246
p=500 {1} -7.22 -0.277 -0.116 0 -0.966 -0.097
Ny =7000 {2} -7.08 -0.267 -0.051 0 -0.938 -0.07
{3} -6.98 -0.257 0 (1st-layer) 0 -0.910 -0.045
{4} -6.92 -0.252 -0.059 0 -0.942 -0.033
{5} -6.78 -0.239 0 (1st-layer) 0 -0.91 -0.009
{6} -6.96 -0.251 0 (1st-layer) 0 -0.91 -0.04
{7} -7.00 -0.254 -0.105 0 -0.962 -0.05
p=500 {1} -7.31 -0.281 -0.149 0 -0.977 -0.023
Ny =12000 {2} -7.25 -0.277 -0.123 0 -0.968 -0.007
{3} -7.25 -0.276 -0.127 0 -0.97 0
{4} -7.25 -0.272 -0.105 -0.024 -0.962 0
{5} -7.26 -0.264 -0.147 -0.001 -0.976 0
{6} -7.23 -0.275 -0.193 0 -0.98 0
{7} -7.24 -0.268 -0.164 -0.032 -0.98 0
p=850 {1} -6.681 -0.248 -0.0018 0 -0.91 -0.264
Ny =1000 {2} -6.673 -0.247 -0.0011 0 -0.91 -0.264
{3} -6.89 -0.234 0 (4th-layer) 0 -0.91 -0.27
{4} -6.819 -0.224 -0.0046 0 -0.91 -0.268
{5} -6.713 -0.155 -0.0143 0 -0.91 -0.265
{6} -7.00 -0.207 -0.054 0 -0.94 -0.273
{7} -7.06 -0.246 -0.079 0 -0.95 -0.274
p=850 {1} -7.25 -0.268 -0.088 0 -0.95 -0.175
Ny =7000 {2} -7.19 -0.262 -0.043 0 -0.93 -0.165
{3} -7.119 -0.255 0 (3rd-layer) 0 -0.91 -0.154
{4} -7.07 -0.249 -0.044 0 -0.93 -0.147
{5} -7.081 -0.25 -0.009 0 -0.91 -0.14
{6} -7.15 -0.23 -0.018 0 -0.92 -0.159
{7} -7.192 -0.259 -0.129 0 -0.97 -0.165
p=850 {1} -7.34 -0.276 -0.14 0 -0.97 -0.124
Ny =12000 {2} -7.31 -0.274 -0.122 0 -0.96 -0.117
{3} -7.291 -0.271 -0.103 0 -0.96 -0.111
{4} -7.28 -0.27 -0.129 0 -0.97 -0.11
{5} -7.28 -0.269 -0.175 0 -0.98 -0.109
{6} -7.34 -0.278 -0.21 0 -0.992 -0.123

Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Supervision, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing. Ali Mohammad Baghestani: Supervision, Methodology, Writ-
ing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
References

CRediT authorship contribution statement
Meghdad Gholami: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Validation, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing
- review & editing, Visualization, Project administration. Alireza Fathi:
[1] Zhuang W, Yang C, Wu Z. Modal and aeroelastic analysis of trapezoidal corrugated-
core sandwich panels in supersonic flow. Int J Mech Sci 2019;157-158:267–81.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.04.052.
[2] Zheng X, Sun Y, Huang M, An D, Li P, Wang B, Li R. Symplectic superposition
method-based new analytic bending solutions of cylindrical shell panels. Int J Mech
Sci 2019;152:432–42. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.01.012.
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani
[3] Li X, Li YH, Xie TF. Vibration characteristics of a rotating composite laminated
cylindrical shell in subsonic air flow and hygrothermal environment. Int J Mech
Sci 2019;150:356–68. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.10.024.
[4] Ranjan Kar V, Kumar Panda S. Post-buckling behaviour of shear deformable func-
tionally graded curved shell panel under edge compression. Int J Mech Sci 2016;115-
116:318–24. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2016.07.014.
[5] Liu J, Zhang T, Jiang W, Liu J. Mechanical response of a novel composite Y-
frame core sandwich panel under shear loading. Compos Struct 2019;224:111064.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111064.
[6] Ahmadi H, Rahimi G. Analytical and experimental investigation of transverse load-
ing on grid stiffened composite panels. Compos Part B: Eng 2019;159:184–98.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.09.040.
[7] Yuanlong W, Wanzhong Z, Guan Z, Chunyan W. Analysis and parametric optimiza-
tion of a novel sandwich panel with double-V auxetic structure core under air blast
loading. Int J Mech Sci 2018;142-143:245–54. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.05.001.
[8] Hassoon O, Tarfaoui M, El Malki Alaoui A, El Moumen A. Mechanical be-
havior of composite structures subjected to constant slamming impact velocity:
An experimental and numerical investigation. Int J Mech Sci 2018;144:618–27.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.05.035.
[9] Huang W, Fan Z, Zhang W, Liu J, Zhou W. Impulsive response of composite sand-
wich structure with tetrahedral truss core. Compos Sci Technol 2019;176:17–28.
doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2019.03.020.
[10] Fu K, Wang H, Chang L, Foley M, Friedrich K, Ye L. Low-velocity impact behaviour
of a shear thickening fluid (STF) and STF-filled sandwich composite panels. Compos
Sci Technol 2018;165:74–83. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2018.06.013.
[11] Tie Y, Hou Y, Li C, Meng L, Sapanathan T, Rachik M. Optimization for maximiz-
ing the impact-resistance of patch repaired CFRP laminates using a surrogate-based
model. Int J Mech Sci 2020;172:105407. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.105407.
[12] Yan L, Yu B, Han B, Chen C Q, Zhang QC, Lu TJ. Compressive strength and energy
absorption of sandwich panels with aluminum foam-filled corrugated cores. Compos
Sci Technol 2013;86:142–8. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2013.07.011.
[13] Zhang L, Chen Y, He R, Bai X, Zhang K, Ai S, Yang Y, Fang D. Bending behav-
ior of lightweight C/SiC pyramidal lattice core sandwich panels. Int J Mech Sci
2020;171:105409. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.105409.
[14] Ilinzeer S, Rupp PA, Weidenmann K. Influence of corrosion on the mechanical prop-
erties of hybrid sandwich structures with CFRP face sheets and aluminum foam core.
Compos Struct 2018;202(1):142–50. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.01.012.
[15] Yuan W, Song H, Huang C. Failure maps and optimal design of metallic sandwich
panels with truss cores subjected to thermal loading. Int J Mech Sci 2016;115-
116:56–67. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2016.06.006.
[16] Wang X, Wei K, Tao Y, Yang X, Zhou H, He R, Fang D. Thermal protec-
tion system integrating graded insulation materials and multilayer ceramic ma-
trix composite cellular sandwich panels. Compos Struct 2019;209(1):523–34.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.11.004.
[17] Tang Y, Xin F, Lu TJ. Sound absorption of micro-perforated sandwich panel
with honeycomb-corrugation hybrid core at high temperatures. Compos Struct
2019;226:111285. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111285.
[18] Zhou W, Yong L, Shi Z, Lin J. An analytical solution for elastic buckling analysis
of stiffened panel subjected to pure bending. Int J Mech Sci 2019;161-162:105024.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.105024.
[19] Paulo RMF, Carlone P, Valente RAF, Teixeira-Dias F, Rubino F. Numerical sim-
ulation of the buckling behaviour of stiffened panels: benchmarks for assess-
ment of distinct modelling strategies. Int J Mech Sci 2019;157-158:439–45.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.04.042.
[20] de Boer J, Hofmeyer H, Maljaars J, van Herpen R. Two-way coupled CFD fire and
thermomechanical FE analyses of a self-supporting sandwich panel façade system.
Fire Saf J 2019;105(1):154–68. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2019.02.011.
[21] Chu S, Gao L, Xiao M, Li H. Design of sandwich panels with truss
cores using explicit topology optimization. Compos Struct 2019;210:892–905.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.12.010.
[22] Sun Z, Li D, Zhang W, Shi S, Guo X. Topological optimization of biomimetic
sandwich structures with hybrid core and CFRP face sheets. Compos Sci Technol
2017;142(1):79–90. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2017.01.029.
[23] Zhang Y, Xiao M, Zhang X, Gao L. Topological design of sandwich structures with
graded cellular cores by multiscale optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
2020;361:112749. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2019.112749.
[24] Irisarri FX, Bassir DH, Carrere N, Maire JF. Multiobjective stacking sequence op-
timization for laminated composite structures. Compos Sci Technol 2009;69(7-
8):983–90. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2009.01.011.
[25] Aymerich F, Serra M. Optimization of laminate stacking sequence for
maximum buckling load using the ant colony optimization (ACO)
metaheuristic. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manufactur 2008;39:262–72.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2007.10.011.
[26] Madeira JFA, Araújo AL, Mota Soares CM, Mota Soares CA, Ferreira AJM. Multiob-
jective design of viscoelastic laminated composite sandwich panels. Compos Part B:
Eng 2015;77(1):391–401. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.03.025.
[27] Shrivastava S, Mohite P, Yadav T, Malagaudanavar A. Multi-objective multi-
laminate design and optimization of a carbon fibre composite wing tor-
sion box using evolutionary algorithm. Compos Struct 2018;185(1):132–47.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.10.041.
[28] Gantovnik VB, Gurdal Z, Watson LT. A genetic algorithm with memory for optimal
design of laminated sandwich composite panels. Compos Struct 2002;58(4):513–20.
doi:10.1016/S0263-8223(02)00128-9.
[29] Omkar S, Senthilnath J, Khandelwal R, Naik GN, Gopalakrishnan S. Artificial bee
colony (ABC) for multi-objective design optimization of composite structures. Appl
Soft Comput 2011;11(1):489–99. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2009.12.008.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149
[30] Martínez-Martín F, Thrall A. Honeycomb core sandwich panels for origami-
inspired deployable shelters: multi-objective optimization for minimum
weight and maximum energy efficiency. Eng Struct 2014;69(1):158–67.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.03.012.
[31] Tan X, Soh A. Multi-objective optimization of the sandwich panels with pris-
matic cores using genetic algorithms. Int J Solids Struct 2007;44(17):5466–80.
doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2007.01.006.
[32] Nasihatgozar M, Daghigh V, Eskandari M, Nikbin K, Simoneau A. Buckling analysis
of piezoelectric cylindrical composite panels reinforced with carbon nanotubes. Int
J Mech Sci 2016;107:69–79. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2016.01.010.
[33] Xie F, Yegao Q, Zhang W, Peng Z, Meng G. Nonlinear aerothermoelastic
analysis of composite laminated panels using a general higher-order
shear deformation zig-zag theory. Int J Mech Sci 2019;150:226–37.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.10.029.
[34] Kollar LP, Springer GS. Mechanics of composite structures. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press; 2003.
[35] Eisenträger J, Naumenko K, Altenbach H, Köppe H. Application of the first-order
shear deformation theory to the analysis of laminated glasses and photovoltaic pan-
els. Int J Mech Sci 2015;96-97:163–71. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2015.03.012.
[36] Kaufmann M, Zenkert D, Akermo M. Cost/weight optimization of composite
prepreg structures for best draping strategy. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manufactur
2010;41:464–72. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2009.11.012.
[37] Todoroki A, Sekishiro M. Stacking sequence optimization to maximize the buck-
ling load of blade-stiffened panels with strength constraints using the itera-
tive fractal branch and bound method. Compos Part B: Eng 2008;39:842–50.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2007.10.003.
[38] Montemurro M, Catapano A, Doroszewski D. A multi-scale approach for the simulta-
neous shape and material optimisation of sandwich panels with cellular core. Com-
pos Part B: Eng 2016;91:458–72. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.01.030.
[39] Jiang H, Ren Y, Jin Q, Zhu G, Liu Z. Flexural performances of fiber face-
sheets/corrugated core sandwich composite structures reinforced by horizontal stiff-
eners. Int J Mech Sci 2020;168:105307. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.105307.
[40] Xiao B, Wan Y, Ohsawa I, Takahashi J. Effect of needle punching on flex-
ural behavior of carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic sandwich panel with
spring-backed core. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manufactur 2019;118:57–66.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2018.12.013.
[41] Ehsani A, Rezaeepazhand J. Stacking sequence optimization of laminated compos-
ite grid plates for maximum buckling load using genetic algorithm. Int J Mech Sci
2016;119:97–106. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2016.09.028.
[42] Viquerat A. A continuation-based method for finding laminated composite
stacking sequences. Compos Struct 2020;238:111872. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.
2020.111872.
[43] Chen C, Zhang C, Zhao Z, Wang Y, Wong SC, Li Y. Effect of fiber reinforcement and
fabrication process on the dynamic compressive behavior of PEEK composites. Int J
Mech Sci 2019;155:170–7. doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.02.034.
[44] Patel K, Potluri P, Yousaf Z, Wilkinson A. Multi-scale reinforcement of epoxy com-
posites - use of carbon fibre fabrics coated with an epoxy binder containing MWCNTs
for improved interlaminar fracture resistance. Compos Part B: Eng 2019;165:109–
19. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.11.100.
[45] Laux T, Gan KW, Dulieu-Barton JM, Thomsen OT. Ply thickness and fibre orien-
tation effects in multidirectional composite laminates subjected to combined ten-
sion/compression and shear. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manufactur 2020;133:105864.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2020.105864.
[46] Bazli M, Ashrafi H, Jafari A, Zhao X L, Gholipour H, Vatani Oskouei A. Effect of thick-
ness and reinforcement configuration on flexural and impact behaviour of GFRP lam-
inates after exposure to elevated temperatures. Compos Part B: Eng 2019;157:76–99.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.08.054.
[47] Luque M, Gonzalez-Gallardo S, Saborido R, Ruiz AB. Adaptive global WASF-
GA to handle many-objective optimization problems. Swarm Evol Comput
2020;54:100644. doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2020.100644.
[48] Zou J, Li Q, Yang S, Zheng J, Peng Z, Pei T. A dynamic multiobjective evolution-
ary algorithm based on a dynamic evolutionary environment model. Swarm Evol
Comput 2019;44:247–59. doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2018.03.010.
[49] Liang J, Xu W, Yue C, Yu K, Song H, Crisalle OD. Multimodal multiobjective
optimization with differential evolution. Swarm Evol Comput 2019;44:1028–59.
doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2018.10.016.
[50] Schlünz EB, Bokov PM, van Vuuren JH. Multiobjective in-core nuclear fuel manage-
ment optimisation by means of a hyperheuristic. Swarm Evol Comput 2018;42:58–
76. doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2018.02.019.
[51] Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm:
NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 2002;6(2):182–97. doi:10.1109/4235.996017.
[52] Gholami M, Akbari Alashti R, Fathi A. Optimal design of a honeycomb core com-
posite sandwich panel using evolutionary optimization algorithms. Compos Struct
2016;139(1):254–62. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.12.019.
[53] Reddy J. Mechanics of laminated composite plates and shells, theory and analysis.
2nd ed. Florida: CRC Press LLC; 2004.
[54] Jones RM. Mechanics of Composite Materials.. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis;
1999.
[55] G. Lloyd’s Register. Rules and regulations for the classification of special service
craft. https://www.lr.org/en/rules-and-regulations-for-the-classification-of-special-
service-craft/; 2109 [Accessed 19 August 2019].
[56] Zhang W, Huang X, Gao X Z, Yin H. A Constrained multi-objective particle swarm
optimization algorithm based on adaptive penalty and normalized non-dominated
sorting. Int J Innov Comput Inf Control 2015;11(6):1835–53.
[57] Wallenberger FT, Bingham PA. Fiberglass and glass technology. 1st ed. New York
City: Springer US; 2010.
M. Gholami, A. Fathi and A.M. Baghestani
[58] Types of carbon fiber. Toray Composite Materials America, Inc; 2019.
https://www.toraycma.com/ [Accessed 2 July 2019].
[59] Data sheets. Hexcel Corporation; 2019. https://www.hexcel.com/Resources/
DataSheets/ [Accessed 2 July 2019].
[60] PAN fiber. Mitsubishi Chemical Carbon Fiber and Composites, Inc; 2019.
http://mccfc.com/pan-fiber/ [Accessed 2 July 2019].
[61] DSM, "Dyneema® fiber, simply the world’s strongest fiber," DSM, 2 7 2019. [Online].
Available: https://www.dsm.com/dyneema/en_GB/our-products/dyneema-fiber.
html. [Accessed 2 7 2019].
[62] DuPontTM . Better, stronger and safer with Kevlar, https://www.dupont.
com/brands/kevlar.html; 2019 [Accessed 2 July 2019].
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 193 (2021) 106149
[63] Fibre glast developments corp. Our products, https://www.fibreglast.com; 2019
[Accessed 10 July 2019].
[64] Ashland inc. Resin, https://www.sherfab.com/resin; 2019 [Accessed 10 July 2019].
[65] Fiberlay inc. Fiberlay resin, https://www.fiberlay.com; 2019 [Accessed 10 July
2019].
[66] Gougeon brothers inc. Laminating epoxies, https://www.prosetepoxy.com/standard-
products/laminating-epoxies; 2019 [Accessed 10 July 2019].
[67] BALTEK®. Baltek SB cores, https://www.3accorematerials.com/en/products/baltek-
balsa/baltek-sb-balsa; 2019 [Accessed 12 July 2019].
[68] Diab group. Divinycell-H core, http://www.diabgroup.com/en-GB/Products-and-
services/Core-Material/Divinycell-H; 2019 [Accessed 10 July 2019].