Targeting Composite Wing Performance Optimum Location of

Laminate Boundaries
Marc Funnell
Airbus UK
New Filton House, Bristol, BS99 7AR
marc.funnell@airbus.com

Abstract
This paper investigates the application of newly available optimization functionality available in OptiStruct [1] to
provide design guidance to generate innovative laminate composite solutions. Due to the flexibility of laminate
composites, it has great potential to exhibit displacement characteristics that could significantly increase the
aerodynamic performance. Free element sizing technology is used to determine concept lay-up solutions. These
solutions determine the laminate make-up (i.e. 0, 45, 90), thickness and the various laminate boundaries of
an aircraft wing covers under multiple loading conditions which meet the required displacement targets whilst
also minimising mass. These preliminary studies demonstrate that the technology can successfully achieve
displacement targets for multiple load cases. Each analysis study can be completed within minutes and
consequently can be utilised as a valuable concept design tool.
Keywords: Laminate Boundaries, OptiStruct, Free Element Sizing

1.0

Introduction

The aerospace industry provides many challenges which require the use of leading edge technologies to keep
up with increasing performance demands. In the field of composite design there are an almost unlimited number
of ways in which a laminate can be constructed. This is because for each composite patch it is potentially
possible to vary:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

Number of plies in a given orientation

Ply orientation angle
Ply stacking sequence
Patch position

Coupled with this, the final design is required to meet structural and manufacturability targets such as stiffness,
buckling, stress & strain limits and lay-up rules. For example, if a single composite patch has three ply
orientations (e.g. 0, 45 & 90) each containing 10 ply layers (30 layers in total), the total number of available
stacking sequences is over five thousand billion. Traditional optimisation methods cannot cope with problems of
this scale and it is not practical to attempt to optimise for all of the required targets in one step.
The development of Altairs optimization technique Free Element Sizing [2] (FES) has made it not only possible
to optimise complex composite structures but also complete the optimisation in a short time frame. Free
Element Sizing is a new optimisation technology implemented for the conceptual design of metallic or composite
shell structures. As opposed to topology optimization where the density is utilized as design variable, in free
sizing the element thickness for shells and ply-thickness for composite lay-ups are the design variables. This is
shown to be highly beneficial in determining the optimum locations for composite laminate boundaries but does
require some design interpretation.
This paper details the application of Free Element Sizing to generate an optimised composite wing skin lay up
for the concept phase of the development.
Altair Engineering 2007

5-1

2.0

Initial Free Element Sizing Study

2.1

Introduction

An existing model of the aircraft wing was analysed under a number of in flight and landing loading conditions.
The results of this baseline analysis were used to provide optimisation targets for the Altair OptiStruct [3]
optimisation. The targets extracted from the baseline model took the form of static displacements from the wing
tip. This will ensure that the optimisation produces a model which retains the same stiffness properties as the
existing model.
The objectives of the optimisation are to:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
2.2

Use Free Size Sizing optimisation at the concept design phase to lead the design of the plies used
in the upper and lower composite covers of an aircraft wing
Save significant model set-up & run time compared to other optimisation methods
Determine the size, position & orientation of the ply patches
Visualise which ply orientations are doing the most work
Estimate the required number of plies per patch
Mass prediction

Free Element Sizing Method & Super-Ply Concepts

Free element sizing allows the thickness of individual shell elements to be varied independently. In the case of
composite structures, the thicknesses of each ply in each element are varied independently. The method is
based upon similar principles to topology optimisation as opposed to having actual independent design
variables for each element thickness. This has the following advantages:
i.
ii.
iii.

Easy setup one line added to model file to vary all elements independently
Single design variable per component - independent thickness changes handled internally
Fast solution time converges in 10-20 iterations

The concept of super-ply is to group plies of the same orientation together such that the number of plies in the
model is significantly reduced. The thickness of each super-ply can then be varied which simulates adding or
removing laminate plies. Altair OptiStruct allows an element formulation to be used which smears the available
stiffness from the plies uniformly throughout the element thickness. This is similar to dividing each ply into a
number of infinitely thin plies and mixing them evenly, allowing the composite to be modelled as a super-ply but
simulated as if it were a uniformly shuffled stack.

Ply Level Stack

Super-Ply Stack

Smear Formulation
(layers uniformly mixed)

Figure 1: Super-Ply Methodology

Since the element thicknesses are varied independently, the solution has the benefit of highlighting the optimum
location for laminate patches as well as their thickness. The required number of plies can then be determined
from the optimised thickness.

Altair Engineering 2007

Targeting Composite Wing Performance Optimum Location of

Laminate Boundaries

5-2

2.3

Initial Model & Free Element Sizing Study

The wing was modelled in isolation from the remainder of the aircraft by applying constraints at the wing /
fuselage interface. The model is constructed from a total of 12,000 elements (8,000 shells and 4,000 beams)
using approximately 8,000 nodes. The study included ten loading cases which simulate the main loads
encountered during operation. The top and bottom skins of the wing were modelled using standard shell
element properties with orthotropic materials (i.e. the baseline model is not modelled using composites). The
orthotropic material zero direction was aligned with the wing length.

90
45

0
-45
Figure 2: Initial Wing Model
The baseline model uses macro mechanical properties for every element which have been determined from a
standard Airbus laminate sequence. Each element has been assigned different properties to produce a
representation of the composite and the initial thickness variation of the top cover is shown below:

Figure 3: Initial Top Cover Thickness (shell model)

The magnitude of the displacement at the wing tip was measured under each loading condition for use as an
optimisation metric. This will ensure that the wing stiffness is maintained throughout the optimisation. The
deformed shape of the baseline wing model under the first loading condition is presented in Figure 4.

Altair Engineering 2007

Targeting Composite Wing Performance Optimum Location of

Laminate Boundaries

5-3

Figure 4: Baseline Displaced Shape Under Loadcase 1

The deformed shape of the wing is similar under all the loading conditions. The baseline wing tip displacement
values which will be used as design constraints by the optimisation are given in the table below:
Load Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Baseline Wing Tip Displacement

Normalised by Load Case 1 Value
1.00
0.83
0.45
0.90
0.03
0.33
0.24
0.07
0.14
0.10

Table 1: Baseline Normalised Wing Tip Displacements

The strain in the skin is another important metric with regard to composite optimisation. The baseline upper skin
strain for the first loading condition is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Baseline Normal Strains Under Loadcase 1

The peak normal x and normal y strains for the original model top cover are shown below. Note that these are
element values as the original model did not contain composite ply properties.
Altair Engineering 2007

Targeting Composite Wing Performance Optimum Location of

Laminate Boundaries

5-4

Normal x skin strain (

)
Load
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Normal y skin strain (

)

Max

Min

Max

Min

0.09
0.08
1.00
-0.02
0.38
0.10
0.13
0.65
0.69
0.71

1.00
0.96
0.03
0.92
0.27
0.55
0.59
0.06
0.08
0.06

0.51
0.44
0.58
0.46
0.37
0.44
0.54
0.06
0.21
1.00

0.17
0.29
0.04
0.25
0.26
0.79
0.09
0.48
1.00
0.74

Table 2: Baseline Normal Strain Results (Normalised)

The optimisation will determine the composite lay up which uses the minimum mass whilst meeting the design
constraints. Measurements were also taken for an additional optimisation study which required that the
optimised composite lay up gave that the same rotations of the ribs as the baseline model for all ten loading
conditions. This required that the change in angle at each of the 26 ribs was calculated for the baseline model.
The change in angle at the wing tip rib from the undeformed shape under each load case is shown in the table
below:
Normalised
Load Case
Change in angle
1
0.38
2
0.40
3
0.51
4
0.53
5
0.21
6
0.60
7
1.00
8
0.21
9
0.15
10
0.11
Table 3: Baseline Angle Change (Normalised)
This provided sufficient data in order to be able to use the Altair OptiStruct to optimise the composite ply lay-up
using Free Element Sizing.

3.0

Free Element Sizing Design Tool Studies

3.1

Introduction

The elements in the upper and lower skin were arranged into a new component group which was assigned a
super-ply composite property. The composite is made up of four super-ply layers (0, 45, -45 & 90 degrees) each
of which has an orthotropic material definition. The super-ply uses the SMEAR option to simulate an evenly
shuffled laminate stack. This property was used by the free element size optimisation to determine the optimum
thicknesses of each element in each of the four plies. This gives the optimisation a large amount of flexibility in
producing an optimum design as it has the potential to vary 11282 thickness vales, equivalent to the number of
elements in Free Size component multiplied by the number of independent composite layers. The composite
stack is simulated as symmetric, which is implied by the SMEAR formulation. The composite region which is to
be optimised is coloured yellow in Figure 6.

Altair Engineering 2007

Targeting Composite Wing Performance Optimum Location of

Laminate Boundaries

5-5

The bottom cover was also included in the optimisation. For illustrative purposes only the top cover results are
shown throughout this report, although similar results were obtained for the bottom cover simultaneously. All
remaining data with regard to the wing structure and loading conditions was left unchanged from the baseline
model.

Figure 6: Optimisation Model

The design requires that the number and positioning of the 45 and the -45 layers must be the same. This is
done to make sure the laminate remains symmetrical and to minimise the likelihood of introducing
manufacturing stresses, such as torsion. An optimisation constraint was applied to all the studies to link the 45
and -45 layers, ensuring that they are identical.
The optimisation study is therefore set up as follows:
Design variables:
Thickness of each element in the four layers in the upper and lower composite wing covers
Objective:

Minimise the mass of the composite skins

Design constraints:
Achieve the same stiffness as the baseline model for all of the loading conditions, defined by the
wing tip displacement
Optimised 45 and -45 layers must be identical
3.2

Baseline Free Size Optimisation

An initial Free Size optimisation (Model 1) was set up which was required to calculate the thicknesses for each
of the four super-ply orientations (i.e. 0, 45, 90) which give the minimum mass whilst achieving the same
wing tip displacement as the baseline analysis. The +45 and -45 degree layers were automatically linked such
that their resulting thicknesses are identical. The optimised thicknesses for each of the ply layers are shown
below:

Figure 7: Results of Free Size Optimisation, Model 1

Element Thickness Contour for 0 Ply (top left), 45 Ply (top right),
-45 Ply (bottom left) & 90 Ply (bottom right)
Altair Engineering 2007

Targeting Composite Wing Performance Optimum Location of

Laminate Boundaries

5-6

The optimization took approximately six minutes on a laptop PC and converged in around ten iterations. The
set-up time for the optimisation study is also minimal, around half an hour.
The initial free element sizing results show that the 0 ply requires the highest number of layers. This is because
the 0 ply is doing the most work as it is orientated in the direction of the load path. The 45 & -45 layers are
identical, meeting the manufacturing requirement, and show that a number of 45 /-45 layers are required in the
centre of the top cover.
The 90 ply, being orientated out of plane to the loading, is not being worked and consequently requires very
few layers. The mass of the optimised composite skin wing assembly using the above thickness was determined
and the predicted masses for all additional studies will be shown as a percentage of the Model 1 mass.
The Free Size optimisation for this model took five minutes to run on a standard laptop, requiring only 250Mb of
memory.
3.2

Material Angle Orientation Study

In order to investigate the sensitivity of the optimised design to the material orientation, two analysis models
were generated using the optimised ply thicknesses from Model 1 but with adjusted ply angles:

Model1a: Ply thicknesses from Model 1 with ply angle +10

Model1b: Ply thicknesses from Model 1 with ply angle -10

This will not affect the mass of the design; the mass of these two analysis models is the same as that of the
Model 1. The reorientation is shown in the figure below.

9
0

4
5

9
0

4
5
0

-10

+10
Model 1a

Model 1b
Figure 8: Ply Orientation Study Models

This resulted in the following percentage changes in the wing tip displacement:
Load
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Model 1a: +10,

Displacement Change %
1.0
1.5
2.1
1.4
6.5
4.8
7.3
4.3
1.2
0.9

Model 1b: -10,

Displacement Change (%)
1.3
1.5
2.1
1.8
6.5
4.8
8.3
4.8
1.4
1.5

Table 4: Percentage Change in Displacements from Baseline for

Ply Orientation Studies
Altair Engineering 2007

Targeting Composite Wing Performance Optimum Location of

Laminate Boundaries

5-7

It can be seen from the above results that changing the ply orientation has a negative effect upon the stiffness of
the wing. A change in the ply orientation of 10 affects the wing stiffness by up to 8.3%.
The composite material is orthotropic and has a longitudinal/transverse stiffness ratio of 2.4 (=E1 / E2). This
means that the material is 2.4 times stiffer in the 0 direction than it is in the 90 direction. Hence, the change in
stiffness due to the ply orientation change was expected.
In order to investigate the effect of ply orientation upon the optimisation results, two additional Free Size
optimisations were carried out using 10 ply offsets. A comparison of the initial optimisation results to the 10
degree offset optimisation results are shown below:

Model 2a, +10 Orientation Offset

Model 1, Original Orientation

Model 2b, -10 Orientation Offset

Figure 9: Element Thickness Contour Comparison for 0 (top), 90 (middle) and

45 Plies (bottom)
The wing tip displacements from these optimisation studies are compared to the baseline study in the table
below:
Load
Model 2a: +10,
Model 2b: -10,
Case
Displacement Change %
Displacement Change (%)
1
0.9
0.9
2
0.0
0.0
3
0.0
0.7
4
0.8
1.2
5
0.0
1.1
6
0.3
-0.7
7
3.0
2.3
8
0.0
-0.4
9
0.7
1.2
10
0.0
0.3
Table 5: Percentage Change in Displacements from Baseline for
Ply Orientation Optimisations
Altair Engineering 2007

Targeting Composite Wing Performance Optimum Location of

Laminate Boundaries

5-8

Comparing the mass of the individual plies makes it easier to determine where the material has been
redistributed.
The table below shows that the +10 change in ply orientation causes:

An increase in the thickness of the 45 layers

A reduction in the thickness of the 0 & 90 layers
An overall increase in the optimised mass of 1.4% in order to achieve the stiffness targets

The -10 change in ply orientation causes:

An increase in the thickness of the 45 layers

A small increase the thickness of the 90 layer
A small reduction in the thickness of the 0 layer
An overall increase in the optimised mass of 0.8%
Ply
0
+45/-45
90
Total

Model 2a +10, Optimised

Mass Change (%)
-3.6
17.3
-8.0
4.2

Model 2b -10, Optimised

Mass Change (%)
-0.2
6.1
2.7
2.3

Table 6: Percentage Change in Ply Masses for

Ply Orientation Optimisations
Note that the non-designable mass is not included in the above table which accounts for the difference in the
total percentage change from the numbers previously reported. It is suspected that the overall mass is
increased because the material longitudinal direction, which is the major contributor to the stiffness, is less well
aligned to the main load path.
To achieve maximum stiffness, the ideal material longitudinal direction was estimated by taking measurements
from the overall thickness contour plot as shown in the figure below.

Figure 10: Ideal material longitudinal direction estimation

It was therefore suspected that improvements would be made by adjusting the ply orientations by -5. This was
verified by an additional study using a -5 offset which gave a small decrease in the mass of 0.2% whilst
meeting the displacement constraints.

Altair Engineering 2007

Targeting Composite Wing Performance Optimum Location of

Laminate Boundaries

5-9

3.3

Targeting Torsion and Bending Stiffness

In order to achieve the aerodynamic characteristics of the wing it is very important not only to maintain the
structural stiffness but also to be able to tune the deformation to a required shape. An additional study, Model 3,
was carried out to investigate the effectiveness of tuning the composite ply lay-up to obtain a design which
meets specific displacement and twist angle targets.
The change in angle of the baseline wing model under each loading condition was calculated at specific
locations along the wing length. The measured angles were used as optimisation constraints to ensure that the
optimised design had the same behavior under the applied loading as the original model. A small deviation
(0.05) in the allowable angle was introduced to prevent over-constraining. The optimisation target for torsional
stiffness is given by the following equation:
(Model 0 - 0.05) Model 3 (Model 0 + 0.05) for all load cases

Model 0

Model 3

Baseline Model
Model 3, Composite optimisation model
Figure 11: Torsional Stiffness Calculation
In addition to the angle constraints, the displacement of the wing tip was constrained using the same target as in
the baseline free element size study for each load case.

Model 1, Optimised for displacements only

Model 3, Optimised for twist angle & displacements
Figure 12: Element Thickness Contour Comparison for 0 (top),
90 (middle) and 45 Plies (bottom)
Altair Engineering 2007

Targeting Composite Wing Performance Optimum Location of

Laminate Boundaries

5-10

Model 1, Optimised for displacements only

Model 3, Optimised for twist angle & displacements

Figure 13: Total Thickness Contour

This study gave an increase in the optimised mass of 3.2% when compared to Model 1. The ideal amount of 0
ply has been reduced from the baseline optimisation but the 45 and 90 plies are heavier. The percentage
change in each ply mass is tabulated below.
Ply
0
+45/-45
90
Total

Model 3, Optimised
Mass Change (%)
-5.6
17.3
134.7
9.6

Table 7: Percentage Change in Ply Masses from Model 1

It can be seen from Figure 12 that the addition of angle targets into the optimisation has caused a significant
shift in the required location of the composite patches. The thickest region, requiring more ply layers, has moved
from the centreline of the wing to the outer edges. This shift in the structural reinforcement to the leading and
trailing edges is necessary to provide the required torsional stiffness where in the previous study it was only
necessary to prevent bending.
The table below shows how close the optimised design is to the targets for Model 3:
Load Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Optimised Angle
(% difference from target)
-1.2
0.0
0.0
-0.9
-4.3
0.0
0.0
-5.3
-4.5
-7.7

Optimised Displacement (%
difference from target)
-0.9
-0.3
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-0.1
-1.5
0.0
-0.5
0.0

Table 8: Percentage Optimised Model Results are from Targets

This shows that the optimised design meets the angle and displacement targets that were applied for all of the
ten load cases. It is also apparent that the optimisation has managed to find a solution which is not driven by a
single load case and has reached the precise target values for four of the angle constraints and two of the
displacement constraints, as well as being very close on the majority of the remaining constraints.
Altair Engineering 2007

Targeting Composite Wing Performance Optimum Location of

Laminate Boundaries

5-11

The design targets also specify that the Normal X direction strain in the skin must be less than 6,000. As well
as providing the optimum ply lay-up, OptiStruct also produces stress, strain and failure index results for each
ply. A comparison of the strain contour from Model 3 to Model 1 for the top cover 0 ply under the highest
loading is shown below.

Figure 14: Strain Contour

The Normal X strains measured at the centre of the load path (as shown above) in the top cover are listed
below:
Model 3, Normal X Strain (
)
Load
Ply 0
Ply 45
Ply -45
Ply 90
1
-3633
-941
-2076
963
2
-3246
-777
-2020
794
3
1669
131
1198
-521
4
-3257
-885
-2096
611
5
578
280
226
-107
6
-1071
-432
-638
94
7
-1112
-583
-208
402
8
411
-75
-17
-520
9
600
37
391
-248
10
451
30
306
-174
Table 9: Model 3 Normal X Strains in the Top Cover
High strains (>6,000) were found in the region where the wing is attached to the fuselage. This region may
require localised reinforcement to reduce the strains which could be accounted for by size optimisation.
Throughout the majority of the cover the Normal X strain are within the allowable limit of 6,000.
3.5

Results Interpretation

In order to take the design further it is necessary to interpret the optimisation results into a number of discrete
composite patches. This involves a conversion from theoretical optimum laminate boundaries with continuous
thicknesses into manufacturable laminate patches with discrete numbers of layers.
This conversion process was carried out using an automatic interpretation procedure. This process involves
rounding the optimised thicknesses by a user defined tolerance and grouping them together into new composite
patches. This has the following benefits:
i.
ii.

iii.
iv.

Allows visualisation of ply boundaries, making it a much simpler task to design the composite
patches in the best locations
Generates a new model which could be used for size optimisation. This would then allow the
number of plies in each patch to be adjusted accounting for lay-up rules and stress, strain,
stiffness & failure index targets
Ply percentage lay-up visualisation
Estimates the required number of layers of each ply orientation per patch

Altair Engineering 2007

Targeting Composite Wing Performance Optimum Location of

Laminate Boundaries

5-12

The Free Element Size interpretation procedure was carried out on Model 1 and Model 3 using a coarse
grouping range. This resulted in the following models:

Model 1, Optimised for displacements only

Model 3, Optimised for twist angle & displacements
Figure 15: Approximated Composite Patches, Showing normalised number of plies
The elements with similar composite properties across all layers are grouped, resulting in a few large composite
patches. This process can significantly simplify the interpretation of the composite patch boundaries. In addition,
grouping the elements in this way has produced an estimation of the required number of layers of each ply per
patch. Note that the results have been normalised for this report.
The patch grouping procedure also allows for the elements to be grouped into ply percentage regions. This
shows the percentage of each ply as opposed to the number of plies in each patch. The approximated
percentages regions of each for Model 1 and Model 3 are shown below:

0%/
45%/90%
40/50/10
50/40/10
80/10/10
70/20/10
40/40/20
20/60/20

Model 1, Optimised for displacements only

Model 3, Optimised for twist angle & displacements
Figure 16: Approximated Ply Percentages Regions
Ply percentages are of interest due to composite lay-up rules. These rules specify upper and lower bounds on
the allowable percentages of each ply throughout the composite stack. Although these can be visualised for the
optimised models, they are likely to be adjusted in the next phase of the development.
Interpreting the optimisation results into a new design will change the stiffness as well as the mass. At this point
in the design, it is now possible to create a new model with detailed patch regions. This could be used to tune
the number of plies per orientation in each composite patch, meeting design targets but also obtaining a
manufacturable design.

Altair Engineering 2007

Targeting Composite Wing Performance Optimum Location of

Laminate Boundaries

5-13

3.6

Discussion of Results

The optimisation studies have shown that the composite skin lay-up has a direct effect upon the global wing
stiffness and torsional stiffness. The stiffness was found to be sensitive to the accuracy of orientation of the
material longitudinal direction. In order to produce a robust design, it may be necessary to asses the
manufacturing tolerances on the ply orientation and investigate their effect on the design using stochastic
analysis methods. It was found that the stiffness could be improved by aligning the material longitudinal direction
with the main load path.
It is possible to use Free Size optimisation to perform aero-flexibility tailoring, tuning the composite lay-up
design to achieve a specific deformed shape. The effect of adding additional design constraints to the
optimisation is an increase in the required amount of material needed to meet those targets. This is shown by
the increase in mass from the baseline optimisation when the angular constraints were added.
The main objective of the optimisation was to determine the optimum composite patch locations. This has
proved to be successful. In addition to this, the optimised design met the strain targets and estimated the
required number of plies though the results interpretation process.
After the ply patches have been designed using the above results as a guide, a second optimisation study is
recommended to establish the exact number of plies that are required in each patch and the stacking sequence
required to meet Stress / Strain targets, Failure index targets, Ply lay-up rules, Buckling targets and Ply
percentage rules.

4.0

Conclusion

The outer skin composite lay-up has a direct effect upon the wing bending and torsional stiffness. It was found
that the composite lay-up can be tailored for aero-elastic tailoring to meet specific deformation and twist angle
targets. This is possible due to the orthotropic material in the plies, allowing the longitudinal and transverse
stiffness of the composite to be tuned almost independently. This also means that the stiffness is sensitive to the
accuracy of orientation of the material longitudinal direction.
The Free Size optimisation shows where in the model each ply orientation is needed to obtain the required
deformation profile. The optimum locations of the ply patches are typically along the load paths although this
was shown to change significantly when required to resist torsional deformation as well as bending. This shows
that the optimum location for the plies cannot be determined from the loading conditions alone; an optimum
design is dependent upon a combination of the applied loads and the design constraints.
The stresses, strains and failure indices in the plies can be assessed for the optimised design. The strains in the
new design were found to be within the required limits.
An automatic interpretation procedure was used to determine the optimum ply patch locations and also
estimated the required number of orientation in each patch. This will allow the ply patches to be designed in the
best possible locations. The orientation percentages in each patch can also be assessed.
A minimum feasible mass value for the composite design was determined, although this is likely to increase
after applying constraints to meet additional targets for lay-up rules, strains and failure indices.
The design can now be finalised through size optimization to meet additional criteria such as detailed structural
constraints (i.e. stress, failure index, buckling), manufacturing constraints and ply lay-up rules. The Free Size
optimisation has allowed for the development to be taken forward in a very short time frame.

5.0

References

[1]

Altair OptiStruct Version 8.1 Feb 2007, Altair Engineering Inc.

Altair Engineering 2007

Targeting Composite Wing Performance Optimum Location of

Laminate Boundaries

5-14

[2]

Optimization Driven design of shell structures under stiffness, strength and stability
requirements P Cervellera, M Zhou, U Schramm 6th World Congresses of Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization Rio de Janerio 30 May - 03 June 2005 Brazil

Altair Engineering 2007

Targeting Composite Wing Performance Optimum Location of

Laminate Boundaries

5-15