Optimization design of unitized panels with stiffeners in different formats using the evolutionary strategy with covariance matrix adaptation

Abstract

Curvilinear stiffener concept has been introduced to aircraft panel structures most recently for possible further weight reduction during optimization design. However, due to enlarged design space and high design complexity, more computational time is needed to optimize curvilinearly stiffened panels. Considering the requirement for both lighter structure and less design time, optimization designs of a unitized panel with stiffeners in three different formats, i.e. curvilinear, oblique, and evenly distributed straight, are conducted under various loading conditions to figure out which stiffener format should be selected in a real design environment. Four single loading cases with different compression-shear ratios and a set of multiple load cases are considered. Evolution strategy with covariance matrix adaption is combined with sequential quadratic programming to seek out the optimum structure with minimum mass taking into account buckling and strength constraints. Comparative analysis of the optimization results indicates that evenly distributed straight format is suitable for compression-dominant loading conditions whereas curvilinear format become superior in case that shear loading is considerable or multiple biaxial compression and shear loads are applied. Besides, curvilinear format adds more design flexibilities to the stiffeners, which enables them to play a more important role in the optimized structures. Furthermore, evolution strategy with covariance matrix adaption is found to be more efficient than particle swarm optimization for this optimization problem. This study can provide a useful guidance for future optimization design of aircraft structures.

Keywords

Optimization design unitized panel curvilinear stiffener evolutionary strategy covariance matrix adaptation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Renton

Olcott

Roeseler

. Future of flight vehicle structures (2000 to 2023). J Aircraft 2004; 41: 986–998.

Baker

AAB

Kelly

. Composite materials for aircraft structures, Reston, VA: AIAA, 2004.

Venter

Sobieszczanski-Sobieski

. Multidisciplinary optimization of a transport aircraft wing using particle swarm optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 2004; 26: 121–131.

Pettit

Wang

Toh

. Validated feasibility study of integrally stiffened metallic fuselage panels for reducing manufacturing costs, NASA Langley Research Center, 2000.

Chan K, Harter J, Grandt A, et al. Enhanced crack growth methodology and analyses for unitized structures. In: Ninth joint FAA/DoD/NASA conference on aging aircraft, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2006.

Meiners

Wissenbach

. Laser additive manufacturing of metallic components: Materials, processes and mechanisms. Int Mater Rev 2012; 57: 133–164.

Mishra

. Friction stir welding and processing. Mater Sci Eng R 2005; 50: 1–78.

Taminger KM and Hafley RA. Electron beam freeform fabrication: a rapid metal deposition process. In: 3rd annual automotive composites conference, Troy, MI, USA, 2003.

Murr

Gaytan

Ramirez

. Metal fabrication by additive manufacturing using laser and electron beam melting technologies. J Mater Sci Technol 2012; 28: 1–14.

10.

Bindolino

Ghiringhelli

Ricci

. Multilevel structural optimization for preliminary wing-box weight estimation. J Aircraft 2010; 47: 475–489.

11.

Wang

Guo

Yang

. Simultaneous partial topology and size optimization of a wing structure using ant colony and gradient based methods. Eng Optim 2011; 43: 433–446.

12.

Kenway

Martins

. Multipoint high-fidelity aerostructural optimization of a transport aircraft configuration. J Aircraft 2014; 51: 144–160.

13.

Yang

Yue

. Aircraft wing structural design optimization based on automated finite element modelling and ground structure approach. Eng Optim 2016; 48: 94–114.

14.

Hyer

Lee

. The use of curvilinear fiber format to improve buckling resistance of composite plates with central circular holes. Compos Struct 1991; 18: 239–261.

15.

Hyer

Charette

. Use of curvilinear fiber format in composite structure design. AIAA J 1991; 29: 1011–1015.

16.

Gürdal

Tatting

. Variable stiffness composite panels: effects of stiffness variation on the in-plane and buckling response. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf 2008; 39: 911–922.

17.

Lopes

Gürdal

Camanho

. Tailoring for strength of composite steered-fibre panels with cutouts. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf 2010; 41: 1760–1767.

18.

Nik

Fayazbakhsh

Pasini

. Surrogate-based multi-objective optimization of a composite laminate with curvilinear fibers. Compos Struct 2012; 94: 2306–2313.

19.

Kapania RK, Li J and Kapoor H. Optimal design of unitized panels with curvilinear stiffeners. In: AIAA 5th aviation, technology, integration, and operations conference, Arlington, VA, USA, 2005.

20.

Tamijani

Kapania

. Buckling and static analysis of curvilinearly stiffened plates using mesh-free method. AIAA J 2010; 48: 2739–2751.

21.

Dang

Kapania

Slemp

WCH

. Optimization and postbuckling analysis of curvilinear-stiffened panels under multiple-load cases. J Aircraft 2010; 47: 1656–1671.

22.

Mulani

Duggirala

Kapania

. Curvilinearly T-stiffened panel-optimization framework under multiple load cases using parallel processing. J Aircraft 2013; 50: 1540–1554.

23.

Mulani

Slemp

Kapania

. EBF3PanelOpt: An optimization framework for curvilinear blade-stiffened panels. Thin-Walled Struct 2013; 63: 13–26.

24.

Havens D, Shiyekar S, Norris A, et al. Design, optimization, and evaluation of integrally-stiffened al-2139 panel with curved stiffeners. NASA Langley Research Center, 2011.

25.

Locatelli

Mulani

Kapania

. Wing-box weight optimization using curvilinear spars and ribs (SpaRibs). J Aircraft 2011; 48: 1671–1684.

26.

Ning

Pellegrino

. Imperfection-insensitive axially loaded thin cylindrical shells. Int J Solids Struct 2015; 62: 39–51.

27.

Locatelli D. Optimization of supersonic aircraft wing-box using curvilinear SpaRibs. PhD Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA, 2012.

28.

Hansen

Müller

Koumoutsakos

. Reducing the time complexity of the derandomized evolution strategy with covariance matrix adaptation (CMA-ES). Evolut Comput 2003; 11: 1–18.

29.

Hansen N and Kern S. Evaluating the CMA evolution strategy on multimodal test functions. In: Parallel problem solving from nature-PPSN VIII. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2004, pp.282–291.

30.

Ahrari

Atai

. Fully stressed design evolution strategy for shape and size optimization of truss structures. Comput Struct 2013; 123: 58–67.

31.

Devert

Weise

Tang

. A study on scalable representations for evolutionary optimization of ground structures. Evolut Comput 2012; 20: 453–472.

32.

Kaveh

Kalateh-Ahani

Masoudi

. The CMA evolution strategy based size optimization of truss structures. Int J Optim Civil Eng 2011; 2: 233–256.

33.

Hansen N, Auger A, Ros R, et al. Comparing results of 31 algorithms from the black-box optimization benchmarking BBOB-2009. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual conference companion on genetic and evolutionary computation. Portland, OR: ACM, 2010, pp.1689–1696.

34.

Hansen

The CMA evolution strategy: A comparing review. In: JA

Lozano

Larrañaga

Iñaki

(eds). Towards a new evolutionary computation, New York: Springer, 2006, pp. 75–102.

35.

Venter

Sobieszczanski-Sobieski

. Particle swarm optimization. AIAA J 2003; 41: 1583–1589.

36.

Velicki A, Thrash P and Jegley D. Airframe development for the hybrid wing body aircraft. In: 47th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition, Orlando, FL, USA, 2009.