materials

Article
Enhanced Optimization of Composite Laminates:
Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithms with Improved
Ply-Stacking Sequences
Ramesh Kumpati 1, * , Wojciech Skarka 1, * , Michał Skarka 2 and Miha Brojan 3

1 Department of Fundamentals of Machinery Design, Silesian University of Technology, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland
2 Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Kluyverweg 1, 2629 HS Delft,
The Netherlands; [email protected]
3 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (R.K.); [email protected] (W.S.); Tel.: +48-32-237-1491 (W.S.)

Abstract: This study introduces multi-objective genetic algorithms for optimizing the stacking
sequence of lightweight composite structures. Notably, significant emphasis is placed on adhering to
engineering design guidelines specific to stacking sequence design. These guidelines are effectively
integrated into the optimization problem formulation as either constraints or additional objectives. To
enhance the initialization process, a novel strategy is proposed based on mechanical considerations.
The method is then applied to optimize a composite laminate in terms of weight, inverse reserve
factor, and buckling load factor. Three laminates were considered, and the influence of the design and
the material composition on their mechanical properties were studied. This research demonstrated
that a new stacking sequence [906 /454 /06 ] resulted in improved optimum designs compared to the
traditional stacking sequence comprising plies at 0◦ , 45◦ , and 90◦ angles. These outcomes can be
deemed the optimum stacking sequence, making them valuable for future applications in unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAV) structures.

Keywords: stacking sequence; composite laminate; optimization; failure criteria; buckling

Citation: Kumpati, R.; Skarka, W.;

Skarka, M.; Brojan, M. Enhanced
Optimization of Composite 1. Introduction
Laminates: Multi-Objective Genetic Composite materials are advanced materials that are mainly used in the aerospace
Algorithms with Improved industry. The substances can be customized to meet specific needs, such as high strength
Ply-Stacking Sequences. Materials and lightness [1]. The construction of composite materials was an important advance
2024, 17, 887. https://doi.org/ in materials technologies. Although the initial composite material was invented at the
10.3390/ma17040887
beginning of the 20th century, composites were not widely adopted in industry until the
Received: 22 January 2024 1960s and 1970s [2]. Since then, there have been many developments in the manufacture
Revised: 12 February 2024 and utilization of composite materials. While there are numerous materials on the market
Accepted: 13 February 2024 today, composites have unique properties based on their intended use. As a result, the
Published: 15 February 2024 evolution and optimization of composite materials are critical.
Synthetic materials used for composites include glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP),
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP), and ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) [3]. On
the other hand, there are other popular fibers that are derived from naturally occurring
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
sources. These substances have been used for thousands of years for a variety of purposes,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
including transportation, shelter, and clothing. Natural fibers have gained popularity
This article is an open access article
in a variety of industries over the last decade, including the automotive, textile, and
distributed under the terms and
aerospace construction industries, due to their distinct properties and environmental
conditions of the Creative Commons
friendliness [4,5]. Mineral fibers, plant fibers, and animal fibers are the three types of
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
natural fibers. Linen, cotton, and jute are plant fibers popular in the textile industry
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
due to their breathability, durability, and softness. Silk and wool, for example, are well

Materials 2024, 17, 887. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17040887 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2024, 17, 887 2 of 23

known for their durability and are commonly recognized for their softness, warmth, and
natural moisture-wicking properties. Mineral fibers, including rock wool and asbestos,
are employed for fire resistance and insulation [6–8]. Our current research focuses on
the optimization of composite laminate parts, regardless of the type of fibers used. Ply-
stacking sequence design in composite laminates is typically a combinatorial problem, with
limited ply thicknesses and ply orientations available at specific ply angles. These local
design challenges are closely interconnected with the overall structure’s design. The global
optimization rank imposes constraints on individual panel designs, often specifying the
geometrical dimensions of the panel. The selected material, a set of design loads, and an
initial evaluation determine the required number of angles, such as 0◦ , ±45◦ , and 90◦ plies.
Numerous studies have been conducted and published on composite structure opti-
mization during the last few decades. Venkatraman et al. [9] conducted a detailed review of
the optimization of composite laminates and stiff-end panels. From these studies, genetic
algorithms (GAs) stand out as one of the most important and popular methods for investi-
gating optimization problems. These algorithms are well suited for permutation problems
and provide optimum designs for designers. Although the stacking sequence arrangement
may only have slight variations, it can significantly impact the overall performance of the
laminate configuration. Most studies have focused solely on single-objective optimization
methodologies. For example, some aimed to minimize the total number of plies in the
composite laminate [10], while others aimed to maximize the buckling load [11]. Only a
few studies have stared at the current optimization aspect, specifically the multi-objective
approach. These have tried to find the best balance between the stiffened panel’s mass and
total cost [12] or between its mass and how much it bends under a bending load [13]. Other
studies have also addressed the optimization method, such as investigating Pareto-based
GAs [14–20]. Industries in the aeronautics field are currently facing a significant workload
in the optimization process due to numerous load cases. The number of load cases can
exceed hundreds, resulting in an increase in objective functions and corresponding con-
straints. Still, the optimization of composite structures is rarely considered a solution to
this problem [21].
The optimization of the composite structure consists of five main stages. The input
module, such as, e.g., Ansys Composite Prep (ACP), usually consists of five parts: material
selection, geometric model, discretized model, laminate configuration, and parameter
selection. The laminate configuration part is connected to the second module, which is
static structural analysis. This module is further subdivided into four parts: model, model
setup, solution, and results. This static analysis is linked to the third stage, which is eigen
buckling analysis, utilizing, e.g., Ansys Composite Pre (POST) and the optimization results
include both direct optimization and response surface optimization. A general description
of the multi-objective evolutionary strategy which is the focus of this study is provided as
a block diagram in Figure 1. In our case, the analysis is then performed using the ANSYS
Workbench, while also addressing the direct optimization method using genetic algorithms.
Finally, the optimum design of a composite laminate under different load cases can
be obtained. The composite laminate is optimized for weight, the inverse reserve fac-
tor, and the buckling margin for each load case, following design rules and considering
material strength.
Materials 2024,
Materials 17, 887
2024, 17, 887 3 3of
of 24
23

Figure 1. Multi objective optimization layout.

Finally, the optimum design of a composite laminate under different load cases can
be obtained. The composite laminate is optimized for weight, the inverse reserve factor,
and the buckling margin for each load case, following design rules and considering mate-
Figure 1. Multi objective optimization layout.
rial strength.
Figure 1. Multi objective optimization layout.
Finally,Methods
2.2.Material
Material the optimum design of a composite laminate under different load cases can
Methods
be obtained. The composite laminate is optimized for weight, the inverse reserve factor,
In
Inthe
thefollowing
followingdescription,
description, aa rectangular
rectangular Cartesian
Cartesian coordinate
coordinate system
system (x,
(x, y,y,z)z)isis
and
used the buckling margin for eachand
loadstrains
case, following design rules andlaminated
considering mate-
used to distinguish the stresses and strains of an N-layer composite laminatedplate.
to distinguish the stresses of an N-layer composite plate.AA
rial strength.
layer-wise
layer-wisematerial
materialcoordinate
coordinatesystem
system(1, (1,2,2,3)
3)isisemployed
employedto toanalyze
analyze the
the laminate
laminate failure.
failure.
Axis
Axis 1 refers to the fiber direction, and axis 2 refers to the transverse in-planedirection,
1 refers to the fiber direction, and axis 2 refers to the transverse in-plane direction,as as
2. Material Methods
shown
shownininFigure
Figure2.2.
In the following description, a rectangular Cartesian coordinate system (x, y, z) is
used to distinguish the stresses and strains of an N-layer composite laminated plate. A
layer-wise material coordinate system (1, 2, 3) is employed to analyze the laminate failure.
Axis 1 refers to the fiber direction, and axis 2 refers to the transverse in-plane direction, as
shown in Figure 2.

Figure2.2.Material
Figure Materialcoordinate
coordinatesystem
system(1,
(1,2,2,3)3)and
andglobal
globalcoordinates
coordinates(x,(x,y,y,z)z)on
ona alaminated
laminatedcompos-
compo-
site plate.
ite plate.

2.1.Mechanical
2.1. MechanicalAnalysisAnalysisofofthetheGeneral
GeneralProblem
Problem
Followingthe
Following theideas
ideasof ofclassical
classicallamination
laminationtheory
theory[22–25],[22–25],the thecomposite
compositelaminate
laminate
Figure 2. Material coordinate system (1, 2, 3) and global coordinates (x, y, z) on a laminated compo-
analysisisisperformed
analysis performedassumingassumingaasymmetric
symmetricstiffness
stiffnessmatrixmatrixrelating
relatingforces
forcesperperunit
unitwidth
width
site plate.
(N)==(N
(N) (Nxxxx,, N
Nyyyy, Nxy
xy)) and
and the
the moment resultants per per unit
unit widthwidthof ofthe
thelaminate
laminate(M)(M)==(M (Mxxxx,,
MMyyyy,, M Mxyxy), as
as well
wellas asthethemid-surface
mid-surfacestrains
strains(ε)(ɛ) (ɛ◦xx,°,εyy
= xx
= (ε ɛyy◦°,
, γγxyxy◦°)) and
and curvatures
curvatures(k) (k)==(k(kxxxx◦°,,
2.1.◦ Mechanical
◦ ). As Analysis of the General Problem
kkyyyy°,, kxy
xy°). Assuch,
such,
Following the ideas of classical  lamination
 theory
 ◦  [22–25], the composite laminate
N A B ε
analysis is performed assuming a symmetric = stiffness matrix ◦ relating forces per unit width (1)
M B D k
(N) = (Nxx, Nyy, Nxy) and the moment resultants per unit width of the laminate (M) = (Mxx,
Myy, M The
xy),coefficients
as well as the submatrix A,
of amid-surface Aij, show
strains (ɛ) = (ɛhow
xx°, ɛyy stiff
°, γthe
xy°) andmatrix is when (k)
curvatures stretched
= (kxx°,
(where i and
kyy°, kxy°). As such, j range from 1 to 2 to 6 in the engineering notation, where 1 is the direction of
the reinforcement (fiber), 2 is the transverse in-plane direction, and 6 is the in-plane (shear).
 The coefficients of a submatrix A, Aij, show how stiff the matrix is when stretched
(where i and j range from 1 to 2 to 6 in the engineering notation, where 1 is the direction
of the reinforcement (fiber), 2 is the transverse in-plane direction, and 6 is the in-plane
Materials 2024, 17, 887
(shear). These values change depending on the orientation of the ply and the total thick-
4 of 23
ness. The coefficients Dij are the matrix bending stiffnesses, which depend on the ply ori-
entation, thickness of the ply, and stacking sequence. The coefficients Bij are the bending
extensional coupling stiffnesses. They are calculated as follows:
These values change depending on the orientation of the ply and the total thickness. The
stiffnesses, which( depend
𝐴 = ∑ (𝑧
coefficients Dij are the matrix bending
−𝑧 )𝑄 ) on the ply orientation,
thickness of the ply, and stacking sequence. The coefficients Bij are the bending extensional
coupling stiffnesses. They are calculated as follows:
1 ( )
𝐵 = A = ∑kN(𝑧 (zk−
− 𝑧zk−1 ))𝑄
Q(k)
2 =
N
1 (2)
B= 1
2 ∑ z2k − z2k−1 ) Q(k)
(2)
1 k =1
N
(k)( )
𝐷 = D = 13 (𝑧
∑ z3k−−𝑧z3k−1 ) Q
)𝑄
3 k =1
wherezkzkand
where andzkz−k-11 are the vertical positions of the
the upper-
upper- and
andlower-direction
lower-directionsurfaces
surfacesofof
thek-th
the k-thply
plyorientated
orientatedwithwithangle
angleθθk .k.The
Theoverall
overallnumerical
numericalcalculation
calculationstrategy
strategyisisshown
shown
ininFigure
Figure3.3.

Figure3.3.Numerical
Figure Numericalcalculation
calculationstrategy.
strategy.

Inthe
In thecomponent
componentmaterial
materialcoordinate
coordinatesystem
systemattached
attached to
to the
thek-th
k-thply,
ply,stresses
stressesand
and
strainsare
strains arerelated
relatedasas     
δ1 Q̄11 Q̄12 0 ε1
 δδ2
 = Q̄Ǭ Ǭ 0 0 ε2 ɛ
12 Q̄22 (3)
δ
τ12 = 0Ǭ 0Ǭ Q̄66 0 γ12 ɛ (3)
where 𝜏 0 0 Ǭ 𝛾
where E1 E2 ν12 E2
Q̄11 = , Q̄22 = , Q̄12 = and Q̄66 = G12 (4)
1 − ν12 ν21 1 − ν12 ν21 1 − ν12 ν21
Ǭ = , Ǭ = , Ǭ = and Ǭ = 𝐺
In Equation (4), E1 , E2 , ν12 , ν21 , and G12 are the material parameters of Young’s modu- (4)
lus, Poisson’s ratio, and shear modulus in the ply direction, such as a unidirectional ply.
In Equation
The composite(4), E1, E2, is
material ν12considered
, ν21, and G12 are the material
anisotropic. parameters
Since the of Young’s
stiffness matrix modu-
is symmet-
lus,the
ric, Poisson’s ratio,
laminate andbehavior
elastic shear modulus in the ply
can be written withdirection, suchstiffness
18 material as a unidirectional ply.
moduli (6 terms
per 3 × 3 matrix, A, B, and D). These matrix moduli are not independent because they
are active functions of the ply directions [θ k− 1 ,..., N]. However, the six following linear
relationships together reduce the number of moduli to be considered to 12 for any normal
composite laminate,
 
A66 = 12 ( A11 + A22 ) + h 12 Q̄ 11 + Q̄12 +Q̄16 ,

A12 = A66 + h Q̄12 + Q̄66 , B66= 21 ( B11 + B22

), B12
= B66 (5)
1 h3 1
D66 = 2 ( D11 + D22 ) + 12 2 Q̄ 11 + Q̄22 +Q̄16

h3
D12 = D66 + 12 Q̄ 12 − Q̄66
 𝐴 =𝐴 + ℎ(Ǭ + Ǭ ), 𝐵 = (𝐵 + 𝐵 ), 𝐵 =𝐵
(5)
1 ℎ 1
𝐷 = (𝐷 + 𝐷 ) + ( (Ǭ + Ǭ ) + Ǭ )
2 12 2
Materials 2024, 17, 887
ℎ 5 of 23
𝐷 = 𝐷 + (Ǭ − Ǭ )
12
Figure 4a shows a general loading case of a composite plate with l, w and h in length,
Figure 4a shows a general loading case of a composite plate with l, w and h in length,
width, and thickness, respectively, while Figure 4b presents the laminate stacking se-
width, and thickness, respectively, while Figure 4b presents the laminate stacking se-
quence layout.
quence layout.

4. (a)
Figure 4. (a)Composite
Compositelaminate general
laminate loading
general configuration.
loading (b) Laminate
configuration. stacking
(b) Laminate sequence
stacking layout.
sequence
layout.
The laminate will be modeled as orthotropic (D16 = D26 = 0), assuming that it can
buckle
Theinto m and nwill
laminate halfwaves in theasx-orthotropic
be modeled and y-directions
(D16 =when
D26 =the
0), load amplitude
assuming factor
that it can
reaches a value given by the following equation [26],
buckle into m andwbn halfwaves in the x- and y-directions when the load amplitude factor
λ
reaches a value λwb given by the following equation [26],
λwb D11 (m/l )4 + 2( D12 + 2D66 )(m/l )2 (n/w)2 + D22 (n/w)4
𝜆 π2 = 𝐷 (𝑚/𝑙) N+x (2(𝐷 m/l )2 ++N2𝐷 )(𝑚/𝑙)
2 (𝑛/𝑤) + 𝐷 (𝑛/𝑤)
y ( n/w ) + Nxy ( mn/lw )
(6)
= (6)
𝜋 𝑁 (𝑚/𝑙) + 𝑁 (𝑛/𝑤) + 𝑁 (𝑚𝑛/𝑙𝑤)
where λwb is the critical buckling amplitude factor, which depends on the (m, n), laminate
where λwb isand
dimensions the critical buckling
the loading case.amplitude factor,
The buckling at a which
certaindepends onb can
margin M the (m, n), laminate
be described by
dimensions
the following and the loading case. The buckling at a certain margin Mb can be described by
relationship,
the following relationship,
Mb = (λwcb − 1) × 100%, with λwcb = min(λwb ) (7)
𝑀 = (λ − 1) × 100%, 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ λ m,n= min(λ ) (7)
,
By employing a multi-criterion approach like the Hasin method [26], our method
By employing a multi-criterion approach like the Hasin method [26], our method in-
includes the updated failure criteria that allow for the differentiation of fiber failure (FF)
cludes the updated failure criteria that allow for the differentiation of fiber failure (FF) and
and laminate matrix failure (MF) in both tension and compression modes for each individ-
laminate matrix failure (MF) in both tension and compression modes for each individual
ual layer,
layer,   2
 f + = δ11

= 1, i f δ11 ≥ 0
1 x
Fiber f ailure( FF ) :  t 2 (8)
 f − = 11
 δ
= 1, i f δ11 < 0
1 xc
  2  2
 f + = δ22 +
 τ12
= 1, i f δ22 ≥ 0
2 Y S (1− pδ22
Matrix f ailure ( MF ) :  t 2  c 2 (9)
 f − = δ22 +
 τ12
= 1, i f δ22 < 0
2 Yc S (1− pδ
c 22

The p coefficient enables an accurate description of the reinforcement observed in

experimental scenarios, specifically concerning transverse compression and in-plane shear.
Here, Xt , Xc , Yt , Yc , and Sc represent the longitudinal tension and compression strengths, the
transverse tension and compression strengths, and the in-plane shear strength, respectively.
  
(k)
M f = 1/ min ( f mode − 1 × 100% (10)
k,mode

In our case, the plate will be simply supported on all edges and the applied membrane
load unidirectional, with Nxx = 250 N, as shown in Figure 5.
 strength, respectively.
( )
𝑀 = 1/ min ( 𝑓 ) − 1 × 100% (10)
,
Materials 2024, 17, 887 In our case, the plate will be simply supported on all edges and the applied 6mem-
of 23
brane load unidirectional, with Nxx = 250 N, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure5.5.Loading
Figure Loadingand
andboundary
boundaryconditions.
conditions.

2.2.
2.2.Design
DesignRecommendations
Recommendations
InInthis
this study,we
study, weaddress
addressthe
theoptimization
optimizationofofthe
thelaminate
laminatestacking
stackingsequence
sequence(LSS)
(LSS)
using
usingaamulti-objective method. Several
multi-objective method. Severalimportant
important guidelines
guidelines were
were considered
considered for for
the the
pre-
preliminary design of the LSS based on previous laboratory tests and analyses. Previous
liminary design of the LSS based on previous laboratory tests and analyses. Previous re-
research [27] has highlighted the importance of balancing the stacking sequence, such as
search [27] has highlighted the importance of balancing the stacking sequence, such as
having an equal number of +θ and −θ-plies and ensuring the symmetry of the laminate
having an equal number of +θ and −θ-plies and ensuring the symmetry of the laminate
about the midplane [28,29], which helps to avoid shear–extension coupling (A16 = A26 = 0)
about the midplane [28,29], which helps to avoid shear–extension coupling (A16 = A26 = 0)
and extension–bending coupling (Bij = 0). To minimize the propagation of the laminate
and extension–bending coupling (Bij = 0). To minimize the propagation of the laminate
matrix (contiguity constraint), it is necessary to avoid using plies with the same orientation
matrix (contiguity constraint), it is necessary to avoid using plies with the same orienta-
and thickness. Additionally, it is important to ensure that two consecutive ply directions do
tion and thickness. Additionally, it is important to ensure that two consecutive ply direc-
not differ by more than 45◦ to prevent edge delamination (disorientation constraint). For
tions do not differ by more than 45° to prevent edge delamination (disorientation con-
design aspects where material strength is critical, it is advisable to use a homogeneous LSS.
straint). For design aspects where material strength is critical, it is advisable to use a ho-
However, when employing plies with angles such as +θ and −θ-plies, it is recommended
mogeneous LSS. However, when employing plies with angles such as +θ and −θ-plies, it
to keep them close together. This type of design helps in reducing the effect of bending–
is recommended
twisting coupling, to keep them
specifically close
D16 andtogether.
D26 . TheThis typeLSS
detailed of design
can be helps
foundininreducing the
[30]. Based
effect of bending–twisting coupling, specifically D 16 and D26. The detailed LSS can be
on this fundamental overview of the discussed LSS design rules, the elastic characteristics
offound in [30]. Based
a symmetric on this fundamental
and balanced laminate can overview of the discussed
be characterized LSS design
by six stiffness rules,
modules, the
A11 ,
A22 , D22 , D66 , D26 , and D16 , which need to be minimized.

3. Optimization of Design Statement

To optimize the design of the LSS, various specimen boundary conditions need to
be considered, including compression and tensile load. The optimization problem can be
defined in the following manner:
a. Design variables: the ply orientation such as (θ k=1 ,. . ., N).
b. Objectives: minimizing the total number of plies (N); minimizing the total weight
of the laminate; minimizing the inverse reserve factor; and minimizing the total
deformation load multiplier.
c. Constraints: the inverse reserve factor is (IRF < 1) and total deformation load multi-
plier (DLM > 1).
d. Fixed parameters: the material, specimen dimensions, boundary conditions, and ply
angle discretization is 0◦ , 30◦ , 45◦ , 60◦ , and 90◦ .
The inverse reserve factor is a measure of the safety margin in a design, calculated
as the ratio of the applied load to the ultimate load capacity. It represents how much the
applied load exceeds the strength of the structure. If the inverse reserve factor value is
greater than 1, the laminate fails [31]. With the total DLM, designers can estimate the
overall deformation or strain in the composite laminate and ensure that it remains within
acceptable limits to avoid structural failure or performance issues.
Materials 2024, 17, 887 7 of 23

3.1. Optimization Methodology

Multi-objective genetic algorithms (MOGAs) are optimization techniques inspired
by the principles of Darwinian evolution. These methods are used to solve optimization
problems with multiple seemingly conflicting objectives. MOGAs mimic natural selection,
crossover, and mutation processes to generate a set of optimum solutions known as the
Pareto front, which represents the trade-offs between different objectives [32]. ANSYS
Workbench offers tools and interfaces to integrate MOGAs into the optimization process.
These tools enable users to define objective functions, constraints, and design variables.
MOGAs can then be employed to explore the design space and identify the Pareto front,
which represents the set of optimum trade-off solutions [33]. The advantages of the selected
optimization methodology (MOGAs in ANSYS Workbench) are that MOGAs can quickly
explore a wide range of design possibilities and identify the optimum trade-off solutions.
MOGAs enable engineers to consider multiple objectives simultaneously and find a set of
solutions that represent the trade-offs between these objectives. The Pareto front generated
by MOGAs provides engineers with a comprehensive understanding of the design trade-
offs, enabling them to make informed decisions.

3.2. Geometrical Model and Analysis

Geometrical models are mathematical representations of geometric shapes and struc-
tures used to study and analyze various aspects of geometry. The composite laminate
dimensions employed were length l = 140 mm, width w = 12 mm and thickness h = 0.15 mm,
as per the ASTM standards. The mechanical properties are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Mechanical properties of bidirectional fiber.

E1 (GPa) E2 (GPa) ν12 G12 (GPa)

45 10 0.3 5
X t (MPa) X c (MPa) Y t (MPa) Y c (MPa) Sc (MPa)
780 480 31 10 60

As already mentioned, the plate was simply supported on all edges and the applied
load was unidirectional, with Nxx = 250 N. For the analysis, the shell elements were chosen,
and the number of nodes and elements was calculated based on the sweep mesh. Since
the bidirectional fabric was very thin, 0.15 mm, the total laminate was 2 mm thick. The
contiguity constraint in this context refers to a minimum of two adjacent layers having
the same orientation. The problem was defined as minimizing the total number of plies,
minimizing the total weight of the laminate, minimizing the inverse reserve factor (IRF < 1),
and minimizing the total deformation load multiplier. The LSS used as the reference design
comprised 16 plies, [45/−45/902 /03 /902 /03 /902 /−45/45].

3.3. Manufacturing of Composite Laminate

In the current study, based on the optimum LSS results, a laminate was fabricated with
various configurations using commercially available bidirectional woven E-glass fiber with
a thread count of 16 × 15 (i.e., 16 and 15 yarns in the warp and weft directions, respectively,
per centimeter, -GF-22-100-100) and LB2 epoxy bio-resin (EP-LB_10) as reinforcement. The
E-glass fiber had an area density of 100 g in a 2 × 2 twill woven pattern and a material
thickness of 0.15 mm. The resin and hardener were mixed in a ratio of 100:27. The
optimization strategy is shown in Figure 6.
 with various configurations using commercially available bidirectional woven E-glass fi-
ber with a thread count of 16 × 15 (i.e., 16 and 15 yarns in the warp and weft directions,
respectively, per centimeter, -GF-22-100-100) and LB2 epoxy bio-resin (EP-LB_10) as rein-
forcement. The E-glass fiber had an area density of 100 g in a 2 × 2 twill woven pattern and
Materials 2024, 17, 887 a material thickness of 0.15 mm. The resin and hardener were mixed in a ratio of 100:27.
8 of 23
The optimization strategy is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Optimization
Optimization strategy
strategy (a) Laminate 1, (b) Laminate 2, (c) Laminate 3.

laminates were
E-glass epoxy laminates were manufactured
manufactured using
using the hand-layup technique with a
vacuum bagging
baggingprocess,
process,incorporating
incorporatingvarious ply ply
various orientations in theinLSS.
orientations the The
LSS.LSS design
The LSS
is categorized as follows: the Ansys analysis yielded stacking sequence results comprising
24 plies with the sequence [907 /458 /08 ], 25 plies with the sequence [453 /−459 /453 /010 ],
and 27 plies with the sequence [04 /903 /4510 /010 ]. After the Ansys results, we systemati-
cally reduced the number of plies to attain the specified thickness for mechanical testing,
adhering to ASTM testing recommendations. The design methodology employed for
Laminate 1 involved transitioning from [90]7 to [90]6 , [45]8 to [45]4 , and [0]8 to [0]6 . This
identical methodology was consistently applied to Laminate 2 and Laminate 3. Conse-
quently, the final optimized stacking sequences are as follows: Laminate 1 ([906 /454 /06 ]),
Laminate 2 ([452 /−454 /452 /08 ]), Laminate 3 ([0/902 /457 /06 ]), and the reference laminate
(Laminate 4) ([45/−45/902 /03/902 /03/902 /−45/45]). The optimized LSS results were cor-
related with the reference stacking sequences, which were used for the initial optimization
of the research work.
After successfully fabricating the laminates from 1 to 4, they were left to cure for 48 h.
Once cured, the laminates were trimmed to the desired dimensions according to ASTM D
3410, using a Proxxon- PRN27070, 7000 rpm, 220/240V AC, working table 300 × 300 mm
table saw. The specimens’ dimensions were a length of 110 mm, a width ranging from
12.10 mm to 12.30 mm, and a thickness range from 2.85 mm to 4.30 mm. The universal
 After successfully fabricating the laminates from 1 to 4, they were left to cure for 48 h.
Once cured, the laminates were trimmed to the desired dimensions according to ASTM D
3410, using a Proxxon- PRN27070, 7000 rpm, 220/240V AC, working Table 300 × 300 mm
table saw. The specimens’ dimensions were a length of 110 mm, a width ranging from
Materials 2024, 17, 887 9 of 23
12.10 mm to 12.30 mm, and a thickness range from 2.85 mm to 4.30 mm. The universal
testing machine (Zwick/Z050, Zwick Roell, Ljubljana, Slovenia, guided by Test Xpert
V.12.0) with a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min. This machine has the capability to perform
testing machine
traction, (Zwick/Z050,
compression, Zwicktests
and bending Roell,effortlessly,
Ljubljana, Slovenia,
allowing guided
for easybyassembly
Test Xpert
andV.12.0)
dis-
with a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min. This machine has the capability to perform traction,
assembly of jaws. Additionally, it features a load cell with a capacity of 5 KN and offers a
compression, and bending tests effortlessly, allowing for easy assembly and disassembly
range of loading speeds from 1 to 400 mm/min, which are automatically regulated. The
of jaws. Additionally, it features a load cell with a capacity of 5 KN and offers a range of
mechanical characterization setup is shown in Figure 7a. In total, 20 samples were fabri-
loading speeds from 1 to 400 mm/min, which are automatically regulated. The mechanical
cated and tested following ASTM standard (ASTM D3410). A virgin sample from Lami-
characterization setup is shown in Figure 7a. In total, 20 samples were fabricated and tested
nate 1 and the result of mechanical loading which leads to damage of the middle area are
following ASTM standard (ASTM D3410). A virgin sample from Laminate 1 and the result
shown in Figure 7b.
of mechanical loading which leads to damage of the middle area are shown in Figure 7b.

Figure
Figure 7. (a) Experimental
7. (a) Experimental setup,
setup, (b)
(b) virgin
virgin and
and damaged
damaged samples.
samples.
3.4. Fracture Analysis of Bidirectional Laminate 2 and 3 ([0–90/±45/0–90], [+45/−45/0])
3.4. Fracture Analysis of Bidirectional Laminate 2 and 3([0–90/±45/0–90], [+45/−45/0])
In order to assess the adhesion between the fiber matrix and the composites, E-glass
fibersInwere
orderinvestigated
to assess theusing
adhesion between
a Thermo the fiber
Scientific matrix and
scanning the composites,
electron microscopeE-glass
(SEM,
Thermo Fisher scientific, Ljubljana, Slovenia), Quattro S with ULTIM MAX. The SEM(SEM,
fibers were investigated using a Thermo Scientific scanning electron microscope sam-
Thermo
ples wereFisher
coatedscientific, Ljubljana,
with carbon using aSlovenia), Quattro
sputter coating S with ULTIM
technique. MAX. The
The technical SEM sam-
specifications
plescarbon
for were coated with included
evaporation carbon using a sputter
the use coating carbon
of high-purity technique.
fiberThe technical
thread, grade specifica-
CT4. The
tions forthread
carbon carbon hadevaporation
a diameterincluded
of 0.8 mm theand
useweighed
of high-purity
0.4 g/m. carbon fiber thread,
Additionally, grade
Laminate
2CT4.
andThe carbon thread
3 specimens had a diameter
were analyzed, and theof fracture
0.8 mm surfaces
and weighedof the0.4 g/m. Additionally,
composites resulting
Laminate
from 2 and 3 specimens
compression tests werewere
also analyzed,
examined and usingtheSEM.
fracture surfaces
Figure of thethe
8 presents composites
fracture
resulting from compression tests were also examined using SEM. Figure
surfaces of the E-glass fiber composite Laminates 2 and 3. The fiber was debonded from the 8 presents the
Materials 2024, 17, 887 fracture surfaces of the E-glass fiber composite Laminates ◦ 2 and 3. The fiber
matrix, and the fibers were split and pulled toward ±45 . The SEM results are presented in was 10 of
debonded 24
from the
Figure matrix, and the fibers were split and pulled toward ±45°. The SEM results are
8a,b.
presented in Figure 8a,b.

Figure 8.
Figure 8. SEM
SEM images
images of
of E-glass
E-glass fibers
fibers (a)
(a) fracture
fracture surface
surface of
of E-glass
E-glass fiber
fiber and
and (b)
(b) fracture
fracture surface
surface of
of
E-glass fibres.
E-glass fibres.

shows the
Figure 9 shows the standard
standard fracture
fracture surface,
surface, illustrating
illustrating the
the compression
compression loads
loads onon
Laminates 22and
Laminates and3.3.Their
Theirfailure
failure was
was distinguished
distinguished by by
thethe shearing
shearing of matrix
of the the matrix
fibersfibers
and
andsplitting
the the splitting
of theoffibers.
the fibers. Additionally,
Additionally, there there
were were instances
instances of pullout
of fiber fiber pullout
in the in
±45 ◦
the
±45° direction. The presence of significant matrix cracks, resulting from the shearing effect,
is a distinct criterion for failure in E-glass bio-epoxy composite laminates under compres-
sion load. These cracks are highlighted by the rectangles in Figure 9a,b.
 Figure 8. SEM images of E-glass fibers (a) fracture surface of E-glass fiber and (b) fracture surface of
E-glass fibres.

Materials 2024, 17, 887 Figure 9 shows the standard fracture surface, illustrating the compression loads 10 ofon
23
Laminates 2 and 3. Their failure was distinguished by the shearing of the matrix fibers
and the splitting of the fibers. Additionally, there were instances of fiber pullout in the
±45° direction.
direction. The The presence
presence of significant
of significant matrix
matrix cracks,
cracks, resulting
resulting fromfrom
the the shearing
shearing effect,
effect, is a
isdistinct
a distinct criterion
criterion for for failure
failure in E-glass
in E-glass bio-epoxy
bio-epoxy composite
composite laminates
laminates under
under compres-
compression
sion
load.load.
TheseThese cracks
cracks are highlighted
are highlighted byrectangles
by the the rectangles in Figure
in Figure 9a,b.9a,b.

Figure
Figure9.9.Fiber
Fiberand
andmatrix
matrixfailure under
failure compression
under load
compression (a)(a)
load fibers splitting
fibers andand
splitting (b) (b)
fibres shearing
fibres shear-
pullout.
ing pullout.

The
Thespherulitic
spheruliticfailure illustration
failure is shown
illustration in Figure
is shown 10. The 10.
in Figure spherulitic MF in Figure
The spherulitic MF10ain
indicates theindicates
Figure 10a occurrence
theofoccurrence
compressive force around force
of compressive the fiber, as highlighted
around byhighlighted
the fiber, as the arrow.
This compressive
by the arrow. Thiszone is more prone
compressive to brittleness
zone compared
is more prone to the surrounding
to brittleness comparedmatrix.
to theFig-
sur-
Materials 2024, 17, 887 11 of 24
ure 10b demonstrates
rounding matrix. Figurethe 10b
tendency for matrix
demonstrates thecracking
tendencyandforFF undercracking
matrix compressive load,
and FF as
under
indicated by the arrow.
compressive load, as indicated by the arrow.

Figure 10. Spherulitic

Figure 10. Spheruliticfailure
failureunder
under compression
compression loadload (a) fibers
(a) fibers spherulitic
spherulitic failurefailure
and (b)and (b)failure.
fibres fibres
failure.
4. Results and Discussion
4. Results and Discussion
The MOGAs method is a variant of the popular NSGA-II (Non-dominated Sorted
Genetic Algorithm-II)
The MOGAs method basedisona controlled
variant of elitism concepts.
the popular It supports
NSGA-II multiple objectives
(Non-dominated Sorted
and constraints
Genetic and aims
Algorithm-II) at finding
based the global
on controlled optimum,
elitism concepts.generating
It supports 200 samples
multiple initially,
objectives
50 samples
and per and
constraints iteration,
aims atand finding
finding thethree
globalcandidates.
optimum, These results
generating can
200 be further
samples pro-
initially,
cessed
50 to present
samples the designer
per iteration, and with
findinga sorted
three collection
candidates. of These
solutions. Optimum
results can be solutions
further pro-are
sorted in
cessed to terms of the
present minimum
designerbuckling
with amargins, such as inverse
sorted collection reserveOptimum
of solutions. factor, maximizing
solutions
the sorted
are total weight
in termsofof
the laminate,buckling
minimum and minimizing the buckling
margins, such as inverseload factor.
reserve Themaxim-
factor, results
displayed in Tables 2 and 3 were chosen from the set of optimum solutions
izing the total weight of the laminate, and minimizing the buckling load factor. The results generated
by the optimization
displayed in Tables 2algorithm
and 3 were after a single
chosen from run
thecomprising 200 evaluations
set of optimum for different
solutions generated by
combinations
the optimization of plies and ply
algorithm angle
after constraints.
a single The ply-stacking
run comprising sequencesfor
200 evaluations considered
different
were 0◦ , ±30◦ ,of
combinations ±45 ◦ , ±60◦ , and 90◦ . The highest inverse reserve factor led to the failure of
plies and ply angle constraints. The ply-stacking sequences considered
were 0°, ±30°, ±45°, ±60°, and 90°. The highest inverse reserve factor led to the failure of
the laminate. In Table 3, the results address the homogeneity constraints, and these types
of solutions can avoid bending and twisting.

Table 2. Optimum ply-stacking sequence results at various configurations (0°/±45°/90°).

Materials 2024, 17, 887 11 of 23

the laminate. In Table 3, the results address the homogeneity constraints, and these types
of solutions can avoid bending and twisting.

Table 2. Optimum ply-stacking sequence results at various configurations (0◦ /±45◦ /90◦ ).

Buckling
Plies Inverse Reserve Weight of the
Ply-Stacking Sequence Factor/Load
Quantity Factor (IRF) Laminate
Multiplier
24 [907 /458 /08 ] 0.1044 2.3960 5.73 × 10−6
stacking sequenc
25 [453 /−459 /453 /010 ] 0.1115 2.5453 5.73 × 10−6
{0◦ , ±45◦ , 90◦ }
27 [04 /903 /4510 /010 ] 0.04075 4.6152 5.75 × 10−6
30 [−458 /90/45/−456 /4511 /03 ] 0.0901 5.5743 5.88 × 10−6
Stacking sequence
34 [02 /−455 /902 /−458 /4514 /03 ] 0.0582 6.4597 5.91 × 10−6
{0◦ , ±45◦ , 0◦ }
45 [06 /459 /−459 /4515 /06 ] 0.0305 15.5221 5.83 × 10−6
45 [45/902 /011 /458 /04 /9019 ] 0.0818 10.4888 6.64 × 10−6
stacking sequence
57 [−459 /4532 /06 /9010 ] 0.0719 14.7583 6.61 × 10−6
{±45◦ , 0◦ , 90◦ }
47 [903 /4518 /−4510 /06 /9010 ] 0.1236 10.0268 6.73 × 10−6

Table 3. Optimum ply-stacking sequence results at various configurations (90◦ /±45◦ /0◦ and
(0◦ /±30◦ /±60◦ /90◦ ).

Ply-Stacking Sequence with

Buckling
Plies Symmetric and Unbalanced Inverse Reserve Weight of the
Factor/Load
Quantity Constraints and Factor (IRF) Laminate
Multiplier
Homogeneity Constraints
52 [011 /−4511 /03 /−4516 /4511 ] 0.0479 17.7556 6.12 × 10−6
Stacking sequence
45 [−455 /06 /−45/04 /9010 /−4514 /455 ] 0.0698 12.1819 6.17 × 10−6
{90◦ , ±45◦ , 0◦ }
36 [907 /457 /902 /03 /−4512 /455 ] 0.0783 7.9316 6.17 × 10−6
26 [−608 /−305 /307 /06 ] 0.1009 2.5155 5.73 × 10−6
Stacking sequence
25 [−202 /609 /307 /07 ] 0.0889 2.6258 5.70 × 10−6
{0◦ , ±30◦ ± 60◦ , 90◦ }
27 [304 /904 /−307 /3012 ] 0.0639 3.579 5.75 × 10−6
26 [06 /3014 /06 ] s 0.0333 4.6113 5.67 × 10−6
Stacking sequence
25 [302 /609 /307 /07 ] 0.0889 2.6258 5.73 × 10−6
{0◦ , ±30◦ ± 60◦ }
37 [602 /05 /607 /07 /−307 /307 /02 ] 0.0607 7.1319 5.78 × 10−6

The results presented in Tables 2 and 3 were achieved by enforcing the balance and
symmetric constraints. For Tables 2 and 3, the optimization process involved utilizing ply
orientations {0◦ , ±45◦ , 90◦ }, {0, ±45◦ , 0◦ }, {90◦ , ±45◦ , 0◦ }, {±45◦ , 0◦ , 90◦ } and {0◦ , ±30◦ ,
±45◦ , ±60◦ , 90◦ } as a set of choices. However, in Table 2, the different ply orientations were
extended to {0◦ , ±30◦ ± 60◦ , and 90◦ } and a number of plies were noted, such as 24, 25, 27,
30, 34, 45, 45, 57, and 47. To minimize the LSS, which is one of the current constraints of the
design guidelines, the results obtained in Table 2 were the lowest among all the obtained
results. The maximum inverse reserve factor value is 0.090; however, the number of plies
decreased compared to Table 3, specifically down to 24 plies. Simultaneously, the total
weight of the laminate also slightly increased. The buckling load factor also has an impact
on the laminate structure. In Table 3, a lower load factor of 2.3960 was observed. The total
weight of the laminate Table 3 was recorded, with a value of 6.17 × 10−6 kg/m3 at 36 and
45 plies. Careful attention was paid to the number of plies, weight, and the IRF value. The
number of plies remained the same (25 and 26) in both tables. However, in Table 3, the
weight of the laminates slightly increased due to the additional plies (25 to 52). Notably,
the load factor also increased from 2.515 to 17.755.
The contrast between Tables 2 and 3, along with various other tables, underscores the
potential advantages that arise from incorporating new ply orientations in comparison to
the traditional {0◦ , ±45◦ , 90◦ } arrangement. This phenomenon becomes more apparent
Materials 2024, 17, 887 12 of 23

with the inclusion of disorientation and homogeneity constraints, as these rules impose
greater restrictions on {0◦ , ±45◦ , 90◦ } laminates compared to {0◦ , ±30◦ , ±60◦ , 90◦ } lami-
nates. Additionally, the mechanical properties of four different composite laminates with
different ply orientations (Laminate 1, Laminate 2, Laminate 3, and a reference Laminate 4)
were investigated. The obtained mechanical compression test results are shown in Table 4.
The properties analyzed include the maximum force (Fmax ), displacement at Fmax (dL),
thickness, width, cross-sectional area (Area), and ultimate compressive strength (σc). Lami-
nate 1 exhibited an Fmax of 8370.988 N with a corresponding displacement of 1.528346 mm.
The laminate had a thickness of 4.2 mm, a width of 12.16 mm, and an area of 51.072 mm2 .
The ultimate compressive strength was 163.9056 MPa. Similarly, Laminate 2 displayed
an Fmax of 5777.181 N and a displacement of 1.457818 mm. It had a smaller thickness
of 3.2 mm, a width of 12.1 mm, and an area of 38.72 mm2 . The ultimate compressive
strength for Laminate 2 was 149.204 MPa. Laminate 3 demonstrated a Fmax of 5167.207 N
and a displacement of 1.311693 mm. It had a thickness of 3.55 mm, a width of 12.25 mm,
and an area of 43.4875 mm2 . The ultimate compressive strength was determined to be
118.8205 MPa. The reference Laminate 4 had an Fmax of 7868.818 N and a displacement of
1.75447 mm.

Table 4. Compression test result.

Fmax dL (Fmax ) Tickness Width Area σc

N mm mm mm mm2 MPa
SP 1 8370.988 1.528346 4.2 12.16 51.072 163.9056
SP 2 8074.094 1.665818 4.1 12.1 49.61 162.7513
Laminate 1 SP 3 6448.679 1.296282 4.15 12.12 50.298 128.2094
SP 4 8430.247 1.685427 4.2 12.1 50.82 165.8844
SP 5 8500.917 1.414758 4.3 12.12 52.116 163.1153
SP 6 5777.181 1.457818 3.2 12.1 38.72 149.204
SP 7 7716.452 1.647232 2.85 12.2 34.77 221.9284
Laminate 2 SP 8 8095.023 1.660723 3.15 12.5 39.375 205.5879
SP 9 6228.349 1.396224 3.38 12.32 41.6416 149.5704
SP 10 6576.884 1.312205 3.3 12.27 40.491 162.4283
SP 11 5167.207 1.311693 3.55 12.25 43.4875 118.8205
SP 12 8106.793 1.792589 4.35 11.93 51.8955 156.2138
Laminate 3 SP 13 7709.107 1.501875 4.42 11.88 52.5096 146.8133
SP 14 7708.057 1.421926 4.33 12.28 53.1724 144.9635
SP 15 5532.686 1.176934 4.33 12.29 53.2157 103.9672
SP 16 7868.818 1.75447 4.15 12.21 50.6715 155.2908
SP 17 7907.699 2.141184 4.14 12.12 50.1768 157.5967
Laminate 4
SP 18 6915.887 1.883853 4.31 12.19 52.5389 131.6337
(Reference laminate)
SP 19 7360.653 2.130509 3.94 12.18 47.9892 153.3814
SP 20 4275.142 1.881446 3.87 12.08 46.7496 91.44767

The buckling of the composite plates is a very complicated subject, and more details
can be seen in references [34–39]. The buckling analysis was successfully carried out; the
analysis results are shown in Figures 11–14, respectively. The presented data represent
the buckling mode shapes of a composite laminate with various stacking sequences. The
analysis includes mode shapes at different angles, each characterized by a specific ampli-
tude. Understanding these mode shapes is crucial for assessing the laminate’s behavior
under various loading conditions, particularly in relation to buckling phenomena. The
buckling mode shapes and corresponding amplitudes provide valuable insights into the
critical buckling behavior of the composite laminate under different orientations.
 Materials
Materials 2024,
2024, 17, 17, 887
887 13 of 14
23 of 24

Figure 11. The buckling analysis results, mode shapes from (a–h) for Laminate 1.
Figure 11. The buckling analysis results, mode shapes from (a–h) for Laminate 1.
Materials 2024,
Materials 2024, 17,
17, 887
887 15
14 of 24
of 23

Figure 12.
Figure 12. The
The buckling
buckling analysis
analysis results,
results, mode
mode shapes
shapes from
from (a–h)
(a–h) for
for Laminate
Laminate2.
2.
Materials 2024,
Materials 17, 887
2024, 17, 887 1615ofof 24
23

Figure 13. The buckling analysis results, mode shapes from (a–h) for Laminate 3.
Figure 13. The buckling analysis results, mode shapes from (a–h) for Laminate 3.
Materials 2024, 17, 887 1716of
of 24
23

(h) BLF = 59.534

Figure 14. The buckling analysis results, mode shapes from (a–h) for Laminate 4.
Figure 14. The buckling analysis results, mode shapes from (a–h) for Laminate 4.

The buckling load

The buckling load factor
factor vs.
vs. laminating
laminating angle
angle data
data are
are provided
provided inin Figure
Figure 15, which
15, which
shows valuableinsights
shows valuable insightsinto
intothe
the buckling
buckling behavior
behavior of the
of the composite
composite laminate.
laminate. Under-
Understand-
standing how
ing how the the buckling
buckling load factor
load factor variesvaries with
with the the laminating
laminating angle
angle is is crucial
crucial for de-
for designing
signing laminates with improved stability and resistance to buckling
laminates with improved stability and resistance to buckling failure. failure.
Materials 2024,
Materials 2024,17,
17,887
887 18
17 of 24
of 23

Figure 15. Buckling analysis results, buckling load factor vs. laminating angle plots at various stack-
ing sequences, (a) Laminate 1, (b) Laminate 2, (c) Laminate 3 and (d) Laminate 4 (reference lami-
nate). Figure 15.Buckling
Figure15. Bucklinganalysis
analysisresults,
results,buckling
bucklingload
loadfactor vs.vs.
factor laminating angle
laminating plots
angle at various
plots stacking
at various stack-
sequences, (a) Laminate
ing sequences, 1, (b)1,Laminate
(a) Laminate 2, (c) Laminate
(b) Laminate 3 and 3(d)
2, (c) Laminate Laminate
and 4 (reference
(d) Laminate laminate).
4 (reference lami-
It possessed anate).
thickness of 4.15 mm, a width of 12.21 mm, and an area of 50.6715 mm2.
It possessed 2
The force and displacement plotsaof
thickness of 4.15
Laminates mm,
1 to a width
4 are of 12.21in
presented mm, and an
Figure 16.area of 50.6715 mm .
The force and displacement
It possessed a thicknessplots of mm,
of 4.15 Laminates 1 to
a width of 412.21
are presented in area
mm, and an Figure 16.
of 50.6715 mm2.
The force and displacement plots of Laminates 1 to 4 are presented in Figure 16.

Figure 16. Compression test results, force vs. displacement plots at various stacking sequence, (a)
Figure 16. Compression test results, force vs. displacement plots at various stacking sequence,
Laminate
Figure 16. Compression test 1, (b) Laminate
results, 2, (c)displacement
force vs. Laminate 3 and (d) Laminate
plots 4 (reference
at various stackinglaminate).
sequence, (a)
(a) Laminate 1, (b) Laminate 2, (c) Laminate 3 and (d) Laminate 4 (reference laminate).
Laminate 1, (b) Laminate 2, (c) Laminate 3 and (d) Laminate 4 (reference laminate).
Materials 2024, 17, 887 18 of 23

The information gathered is displayed in Table 5, and composite laminates are an-
alyzed using Ansys and Classic Laminate Theory (CLT), followed by ply orientation
optimization to improve structural performance. Inverse reserve factor (IRF), ply-stacking
sequence, buckling load factor (BLF), laminate weight, and critical buckling load (Ncr )
are among the criteria that were considered. According to the findings of both theo-
ries, the Ansys data show variations in the IRF, critical buckling load (Ncr ), and BLF in
comparison to CLT for a variety of stacking sequences, including [(90)8 /(45)8 /(0)8 ] and
[(45)3 /(−45)9 /(45)3 /(0)10 ]. Differences between Ansys and CLT results emphasize how
crucial it is to use more advanced numerical techniques to accurately represent the complex-
ities of composite behavior in the real world. Furthermore, the safety margin against failure
is indicated by the IRF values derived from Ansys simulations. As seen by Laminates 1 and
3, lower IRF values imply a closer proximity to failure. The stability of the laminate under
applied loads is shown by the BLF. In comparison to other configurations, Laminate 2 shows
greater BLF-Ansys values, indicating improved resistance to buckling. This highlights
how important it is to have optimal ply orientations to improve the structural integrity of
composite laminates. A crucial measure that indicates the load at which buckling becomes
critical is the critical buckling load (Ncr ), which is another important component. Laminate
3 exhibits a higher Ncr -Ansys, indicating superior resistance to buckling under the stated
conditions. Its ply-stacking sequence is [(0)1 /(90)2 /(45)7 /(0)6 ]. To strike a compromise
between structural performance and weight, the optimization efforts in ply orientation ulti-
mately determine the weight of the laminate. Different ply-stacking sequences are shown
in the optimal composite laminates (Laminate 1 through Laminate 4), which causes changes
in laminate weight. For example, Laminate 3 strikes a good compromise between struc-
tural performance and weight. The shortcomings of oversimplified theories in precisely
forecasting the behavior of composite laminates are demonstrated by the comparison of
Ansys and CLT results. Ply orientations that have been tuned demonstrate how customized
designs can improve structural performance.

Table 5. Optimization results at various ply orientations.

Inverse Reserve Factor Laminate

Plies Ply-Stacking Sequence Buckling Load Factor Critical Buckling Load Weight
(IRF- IRF Error BLF BLF Error Ncr Ncr
CLT Ansys CLT Ansys CLT Error
Ansys)
24 [(90)8 /(45)8 /(0)8 ] 0.104 0.185 0.081 2.396 2.68 0.284 592 672 80 5.73 × 10−6
results
Ansys

25 [(45)3 /(−45)9 /(45)3 /(0)10 ] 0.111 0.300 0.189 2.545 2.73 0.185 636 684 48 5.73 × 10−6
27 [(0)4 /(90)3 /(45)10/ (0)10 ] 0.040 0.084 0.044 4.615 2.73 1.885 1153 684 469 5.75 × 10−6
Plie-orientation results

Laminate
1 16 [(90)6 /(45)4 /(0)6 ] 0.176 0.165 0.011 4.772 2.73 2.042 1193 684 509 1.243 × 10−5
Laminate 16 [(45)2 /(−45)4 /(45)2 /(0)8 ] 0.159 0.479 0.320 6.072 2.75 3.322 1518 689 829 1.243 × 10−5
Optimized

2
Laminate
3 16 [(0)1 /(90)2 /(45)7 /(0)6 ] 0.106 0.107 0.011 6.369 2.85 3.519 1592 712 880 1.243 × 10−5
Laminate
4 [(45)1 /(−45)1 /(90)2 /(0)3 /(90)2 0.180
(Random 16
/(0)3 /(90)2 /(45)1 /(−45)1 ]
0.086 0.094 4.540 2.69 1.85 1135 673 462 1.243 × 10−5
orientation)

5. Reliability of Current Work

In this discussion, the algorithm’s effectiveness is examined by considering the average
number of evaluations needed to achieve a specific level of reliability for discovering a
laminate that demonstrates optimum performance [40–42]. The reliability is determined
by conducting 200 optimization runs consisting of 200 samples initially, 50 samples per
iteration, and finding three candidates. A solution was deemed optimum when it effectively
minimized the buckling factor. Figure 17 illustrates the comparison between the predicted
and observed values of the maximum inverse reserve factor and buckling load factor across
different design points.
 a laminate that demonstrates optimum performance [40–42]. The reliability is determined
by conducting 200 optimization runs consisting of 200 samples initially, 50 samples per
iteration, and finding three candidates. A solution was deemed optimum when it effec-
tively minimized the buckling factor. Figure 17 illustrates the comparison between the
Materials 2024, 17, 887 19 of 23
predicted and observed values of the maximum inverse reserve factor and buckling load
factor across different design points.

Figure 17. Response surface optimization predicted vs. observed values.

Figure 17. Response surface optimization predicted vs. observed values.

Thesummarized
The summarizedresults
resultsobtained
obtainedfrom
fromthe
theresponse
responsesurface
surfaceoptimization
optimizationvalues
valuesare
are
presented in Table 6.
presented in Table 6.

Table6.6.Response
Table Responsesurface
surfaceoptimization
optimizationresults.
results.

Inverse Reserve Buckling Load

. Inverse Reserve Factor Buckling Load Factor
Factor Factor
Coefficient of Determination (Best Value = 1)
Coefficient of Determination (Best Value = 1)
Learning Points Learning Points 1 1 0.999 0.999
Cross-Validation on Learning Points 0.892 0.994
Cross-Validation on Learning Points
Root Mean Square Error (Best Value = 0)
0.892 0.994
Learning Points Root Mean Square Error (Best Value
4.551 × 10−=8 0) 0.00048274
Verification Points 3.6194 × 10−7
Learning Points 4.551 × 100.00039631
−8 0.00048274
Cross-Validation on Learning Points Verification Points0.033006 3.6194 × 10 0.0014322
−7 0.00039631
Relative Maximum Absolute Error (Best Value = 0%)
Cross-Validation on Learning Points 0.033006 0.0014322
Learning Points 0 12.822
Relative
Verification Points Maximum Absolute Error (Best 0 Value = 0%) 2.0451
Cross-Validation on Learning Points Learning Points 242.51 0 55.837 12.822
Relative Average Absolute Error (Best Value = 0%)
Verification Points 0 2.0451
Learning Points 0
Cross-Validation on Learning Points 242.51 1.1931 55.837
Verification Points 0 2.0451
Relative Average Absolute Error (Best
Cross-Validation on Learning Points
Value = 0%)
13.993 4.3063
Learning Points 0 1.1931
Verification Points 0 2.0451
As anticipated, considering the computational
Cross-Validation on Learning Points cost associated with
13.993 the constraints,
4.3063 the
highest achievable reliability was attained after 200 evaluations. The experiment followed
a central composite design, which was automatically chosen. This approach yielded the
optimum results for the optimization.
Figure 18 shows that Matrix failure is a recurring subject in Laminate 1, Laminate 3,
and Laminate 4, indicating potential material or production concerns. Tai-Wu failure is
detected in Laminates 1, 3, and 4, indicating a persistent issue with stress distribution or
design issues. Laminate 2 exhibits in-plane shear failure, which may imply unique bonding
or load distribution issues specific to this laminate arrangement.
 the optimum results for the optimization.
Figure 18 shows that Matrix failure is a recurring subject in Laminate 1, Laminate 3,
and Laminate 4, indicating potential material or production concerns. Tai-Wu failure is
detected in Laminates 1, 3, and 4, indicating a persistent issue with stress distribution or
Materials 2024, 17, 887
design issues. Laminate 2 exhibits in-plane shear failure, which may imply unique 20 of 23
bond-
ing or load distribution issues specific to this laminate arrangement.

Figure 18.
Figure 18. Composite
Composite laminates
laminates configuration
configuration and
and Identified
Identified failure
failure criteria,
criteria, (a)
(a) Plies
Plies construction,
construction,
(b) Ansys setup, (c) Laminate 1, (d) Laminate 2, (e) Laminate 3 and (f) Laminate 4 (reference lami-
(b) Ansys setup, (c) Laminate 1, (d) Laminate 2, (e) Laminate 3 and (f) Laminate 4 (reference laminate).
nate).
6. Conclusions and Future Work
A novel optimization approach was devised specifically for laminates with composite
stacking sequences. This strategy effectively addresses two key industrial demands. Firstly,
it enables the handling of many load factor cases, thereby increasing the number of objective
functions and constraints involved. Secondly, it addresses the diverse and intricate concepts
and rules governing stacking sequences. Utilizing the MOGAs approach as a foundation,
the evolutionary algorithm created in this study demonstrated a high level of efficiency
in managing numerous objective functions and constraints, reaching several hundred in
number. In regard to the conception rules, they were integrated within the evolution
and reproduction operators of the genetic algorithm. Consequently, only permissible
Materials 2024, 17, 887 21 of 23

solutions that adhered to these rules were considered during the process. This proposed
strategy is well suited for post-processing tasks, facilitating sorting and further design
reduction efforts.
The post-processing phase encompassed three criteria: minimizing the inverse reserve
factor, minimizing the load factor, and ultimately minimizing the number of plies. When
compared to conventional design methods, the proposed strategy yielded notable en-
hancements across these abovementioned criteria. The findings underscored the potential
advantages associated with introducing new ply orientations as opposed to the classical
{0◦ , ±45◦ , 90◦ } arrangement. Within this study, the optimum results are presented in Table 2,
where the minimum number of plies is 24, the IRF value is 0.1044, the weight of the laminate
is 5.73 × 10−6 kg/m3 , and the buckling load factor is 2.3960. The ultimate compressive
strength for the reference laminate was 155.2908 MPa. Comparing the results, Laminate 1
exhibited the highest Fmax and ultimate compressive strength, while Laminate 3 had the
lowest values in both parameters. Laminate 2 had the smallest thickness and area, resulting
in lower Fmax and ultimate compressive strength compared to the other laminates. Surface
fracture analysis was also carried out and identified fiber and matrix cracks. Engineers and
designers can utilize this information to optimize the stacking sequence and orientation
of plies to enhance the laminate’s resistance to buckling and improve overall structural
performance in real-world applications.
In summary, the analysis emphasizes the importance of advanced numerical simula-
tions and optimization techniques in tailoring composite laminates for specific performance
criteria, paving the way for improved structural efficiency in various engineering applica-
tions. These findings suggest that the material composition and design of the laminates
significantly influence their mechanical properties. These outcomes can be deemed the
optimum stacking sequence, making them valuable for future applications in UAV and
automobile structures.

Author Contributions: The basic conceptualization, R.K.; methodology, W.S. and M.B. software, M.S.
and R.K.; writing, R.K. and M.S.; review and editing, W.S. and M.B. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the university, under
the excellence of project grants provided by the University (BKM_10/060/BK23). Department of
Fundamentals of Machinery Design, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Silesian University of
Technology, Gliwice, Poland.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Jonas Trojer from the University of Ljubljana for
the help with the experiments.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declared no conflict of interest.

References
1. Gibson, R.F. Principles of Composite Material Mechanics, 4th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016. [CrossRef]
2. Jones, R.M. Mechanics of Composite Materials; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1999.
3. Baker, A.A. Composite Materials for Aircraft Structures; AIAA Ed.: Reston, VA, USA, 2008.
4. Bismarck, A.; Mishra, S.; Lampke, T. Plant fibers as reinforcement for green composites. In Natural Fibers, Biopolymers, and
Biocomposites; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005; Volume 1, pp. 37–108. [CrossRef]
5. Mohanty, A.K.; Misra, M.; Hinrichsen, G. Biofibres, biodegradable polymers and bio composites: An overview. Macromol. Mater.
Eng. 2000, 276–277, 1–24. [CrossRef]
6. Faruk, O.; Bledzki, A.K.; Fink, H.P. Bio composites reinforced with natural fibers. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2012, 37, 1552–1596. [CrossRef]
7. Thakur, V.K.; Thakur, M.K.; Raghavan, P.; Kessler, M.R. Progress in green polymer composites from lignin for multifunctional
applications: A review. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2014, 2, 1072–1092. [CrossRef]
Materials 2024, 17, 887 22 of 23

8. Reddy, N.; Yang, Y. Biofibers from agricultural byproducts for industrial applications. Trends Biotechnol. 2009, 27, 479–488.
[CrossRef]
9. Venkataraman, S.; Haftka, R.T. Structural optimization: What has Moore’s Law done for us? In Proceedings of the 43rd
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 22–25 April 2002.
10. Michalewicz, Z.; Dasgupta, D.; Le Riche, R.G.; Schoenauer, M. Evolutionary Algorithms for Constrained Engineering Problems.
Comput. Ind. Eng. 1996, 30, 851–870. [CrossRef]
11. Liu, B.; Haftka, R.T.; Akgün, M.A.; Todoroki, A. Permutation genetic algorithm for stacking sequence design of composite
laminates. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2000, 186, 357–372. [CrossRef]
12. Grosset, L.; Venkataraman, S.; Haftka, R.T. Genetic Optimization of Two-Material Composite Laminates. In Proceedings of the
16th ASC Technical Meeting, Blacksburg, Virginia, 9 September 2001.
13. Walker, M.; Smith, R.E. A technique for the multiobjective optimisation of laminated composite structures using genetic algorithms
and finite element analysis. Compos. Struct. 2003, 62, 123–128. [CrossRef]
14. Lanzi, L.; Giavotto, V. Post-buckling optimization of composite stiffened panels: Computations and experiments. Compos. Struct.
2006, 73, 208–220. [CrossRef]
15. Pelletier, J.L.; Vel, S.S. Multiobjective optimization of fiber reinforced composite laminates for strength, stiffness and minimal
mass. Comput. Struc. 2006, 84, 2065–2080. [CrossRef]
16. Cutolo, A.; Carotenuto, A.R.; Palumbo, S. Stacking sequences in composite laminates through design optimization. Meccanica
2021, 56, 1555–1574. [CrossRef]
17. Ogunleye, R.O.; Rusnakova, S.; Zaludek, M.; Emebu, S. The Influence of Ply Stacking Sequence on Mechanical Properties of
Carbon/Epoxy Composite Laminates. Polymers 2022, 14, 5566. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Thanh, N.; Huynh, J.L. Optimal thickness distribution design for blending composite laminates using buckling factor prediction.
Compos. Struct. 2024, 327, 117693. [CrossRef]
19. Viquerat, A.D. A continuation-based method for finding laminated composite stacking sequences. Compos. Struct. 2020, 238,
111872. [CrossRef]
20. Peng, X.; Wang, M.; Yi, B.; Li, J.; Wu, H.; Jiang, S. Optimization design of stacking sequence and material distribution for variable
thickness hybrid composite structure based on improved stacking sequence table. Compos. Struct. 2023, 307, 116641. [CrossRef]
21. Faria, A.R. Buckling optimization and anti-optimization of composite plates: Uncertain loading combinations. Int. J. Numer. Meth.
Eng. 2002, 53, 719–732. [CrossRef]
22. Jones, R.M. Mechanics of Composite Materials; CRC Press Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2015; ISBN 9781560327127.
23. Adams; Daniel, F.; Ronald, A.A. Understanding Mechanics of Composite Materials; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013.
24. Barbero, E.J. Introduction to Composite Materials Design, 3rd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017. [CrossRef]
25. Rama, A.; Mohan, R.; Arvind, N. A scatter search algorithm for stacking sequence optimization of laminated composites. Compos.
Struct. 2005, 70, 383–402. [CrossRef]
26. Laurin, F.; Carrere, N.; Maire, J.F. A multi-scale progressive failure approach for composite laminates based on thermodynamic
viscoelastic and damage models. Compos. Part A 2007, 38, 198–209. [CrossRef]
27. Ramesh, K.; Wojciech, S.; Michał, S. Article Ansys-Based Evaluation of Natural Fiber and Hybrid Fiber-Reinforced Composites.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992. [CrossRef]
28. Xie, Y.J.; Yan, H.G.; Liu, Z.M. Buckling optimization of hybrid-fiber multilayer sandwich cylindrical shells under external lateral
pressure. Compos. Sci. Technol. 1996, 56, 1349–1353. [CrossRef]
29. Prasanth, K.C. Optimal design of composite cylindrical shells subject to compression buckling strength. Multidiscip. Model. Mater.
Struct. 2023, 19/5, 829–847. [CrossRef]
30. Tennyson, R.C.; Hansen, J.S. Optimum design for buckling of laminated cylinders, collapse. In The Buckling of Structures in Theory
and Practice; Thompson, J.M.T., Hunt, G.W., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1983.
31. Chapter 5—Design and Analysis. In Military-Handbook-17-3F; AREA CMPS: Glendale, CA, USA, 2017; pp. 68–71.
32. Basem, E.; Tawfik, H.L.; Ahmed, E.; Tarek, E. Weight reduction and strengthening of marine hatch covers by using composite
materials. Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. 2017, 9, 185–198. [CrossRef]
33. Deb, K. Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2001.
34. Coello, C.; Carlos, A. Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. In Genetic and Evolutionary Computation;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007.
35. Lairedj, A.; Bouazza, M.; Amara, K.; Chabani, A. Behaviors of simply supported cross-ply rectangular symmetric laminates plates
with consideration of prebuckling in-plane deformation. Acta Mech. Slovaca 2015, 19, 6–12. [CrossRef]
36. Gopalan, V.; Suthenthiraveerappa, V.; David, J.S.; Subramanian, J.; Annamalai, A.R.; Jen, C.-P. Experimental and Numerical
Analyses on the Buckling Characteristics of Woven Flax/Epoxy Laminated Composite Plate under Axial Compression. Polymers
2021, 13, 995. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Dash, P.; Singh, B.N. Buckling and post-buckling of laminated composite plates. Mech. Res. Commun. 2012, 46, 1–7. [CrossRef]
38. Jančo, R. Numerical and exact solution of buckling load for beam on elastic foundation. In Sborník Vědeckých Prací Vysoké Školy
Báňské-Technické Univerzity Ostrava; Technical University West Bohemia: Plzeň, Czech Republic, 2013; pp. 21–26.
39. Shufrin, I.; Rabinovitch, O.; Eisenberger, M. Buckling of laminated plates with general boundary conditions under combined
compression, tension, and shear—A semi-analytical solution. Thin-Walled Struct. 2008, 46, 925–938. [CrossRef]
Materials 2024, 17, 887 23 of 23

40. Park, C.H.; Lee, W.; Han, W.S.; Vautrin, A. Improved genetic algorithm for multidisciplinary optimization of composite laminates.
Comput. Struct. 2008, 86, 1894–1903. [CrossRef]
41. Mohammadimehr, M.; Salemi, M.; Navi, B.R. Bending, buckling, and free vibration analysis of MSGT micro composite Reddy
plate reinforced by FG-SWCNTs with temperature-dependent material properties under hydro-thermo-mechanical loadings
using DQM. Compos. Struct. 2016, 138, 361–380. [CrossRef]
42. François-Xavier, I.; David, H.B.; Nicolas, C.; Jean-François, M. Multiobjective stacking sequence optimization for laminated
composite structures. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2009, 69, 983–990.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.