aerospace

Article
Application of an Efficient Gradient-Based
Optimization Strategy for Aircraft Wing Structures
Odeh Dababneh 1, *, Timoleon Kipouros 2,3 and James F. Whidborne 3 ID

1 School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT9 5AH,
Northern Ireland, UK
2 Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK;
tk291@eng.cam.ac.uk or t.kipouros@cranfield.ac.uk
3 School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing, Cranfield University, Cranfield Mk43 0AL, UK;
j.f.whidborne@cranfield.ac.uk
* Correspondence: o.dababneh@qub.ac.uk; Tel.: +44-777-658-7558

Received: 8 December 2017; Accepted: 2 January 2018; Published: 4 January 2018

Abstract: In this paper, a practical optimization framework and enhanced strategy within
an industrial setting are proposed for solving large-scale structural optimization problems in
aerospace. The goal is to eliminate the difficulties associated with optimization problems, which are
mostly nonlinear with numerous mixed continuous-discrete design variables. Particular emphasis
is placed on generating good initial starting points for the search process and in finding a feasible
optimum solution or improving the chances of finding a better optimum solution when traditional
techniques and methods have failed. The efficiency and reliability of the proposed strategy were
demonstrated through the weight optimization of different metallic and composite laminated
wingbox structures. The results show the effectiveness of the proposed procedures in finding
an optimized solution for high-dimensional search space cases with a given level of accuracy and
reasonable computational resources and user efforts. Conclusions are also inferred with regards to the
sensitivity of the optimization results obtained with respect to the choice of different starting values
for the design variables, as well as different optimization algorithms in the optimization process.

Keywords: structural optimization; gradient-based algorithms; minimum weight; optimum solution

1. Introduction
Optimization methods play a key role in aerospace structural design; their very purpose is to
find the most optimal way for an engineer to obtain the utmost benefit from the available resources.
Structural optimization methods evolved in the aerospace industry in the late 1950s, when the need
to design lightweight structures was critical [1–3]. Since then, the aerospace manufacturing industry
has shown increasing interest in the application of optimization methods for the optimum design
of minimum-weight aircraft structural components [4–6]. There is a large number of publications
on the structural optimization of aircraft. A few of these key studies are referenced in this section
to provide the reader with some background information on the field. In the 1960s, Brandt and
Wasiutynski [7] reviewed the present state of knowledge in the field of optimal design of structures.
In addition, survey papers by Schmit [8] and Vanderplaats [9] offered numerous and important
references on the theory and applications of structural optimization. The development of structural
optimization methods can be tracked to the early works of Maxwell [10] and Michell [11]. In the 1940s
and early 1950s, substantial analytical work was done on component optimization, of which the
work presented by Shanley [12] is a typical example. Dantzig [13] developed linear programming
techniques, and with the advent of computer technology, these techniques were applied to the
design of frame and beam structures, as explained by Heyman [14]. In his work, Schmit [15]

Aerospace 2018, 5, 3; doi:10.3390/aerospace5010003 www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace

Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 2 of 27

offered a comprehensive study on the application of mathematical programming techniques to solve

different types of nonlinear and inequality-constrained problems concerned with the design of elastic
structures under a variety of loading conditions. This was done by combining numerical optimization
with the finite element analysis methods available at the time. In addition, the discretized optimality
criteria methods presented by Venkayya [16], which were based on the early work of Prager and
Taylor [17], offered an efficient way of solving problems with large numbers of design variables,
but were limited to small numbers of design constraints. Schmit and Farshi [18] published the concept
of using approximation techniques for structural synthesis. These techniques resurrected the use of
mathematical programming for structural optimization. Starnes, Jr. and Haftka [19] overcame the
difficulties in using approximation techniques for some constraints, such as buckling, by introducing
the concept of conservative constraint approximations.
In the early 1960s, extensive research was done in the area of structural optimization, and as
a result gradient-based optimization methods were recognized as the most efficient strategies for
solving the optimization problem. However, the continually increasing number of design variables
and the increasing size of the finite element models, together with very slow and extremely expensive
computers, were the main difficulties facing structural optimization technology at the end of the
1960s, according to Gellatly et al. [20]. In the mid-1960s, Nastran, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) Structural Analysis System, was developed by NASA to provide a finite
element analysis capability for its aerospace development [21]. During the 1980s, force approximation
techniques for stress constraints with intermediate variables began to evolve. These methods would
improve the quality of approximate optimization techniques but were difficult to integrate into
existing analysis programs. A key development in making structural optimization a widespread
reality was the work performed in the field of design sensitivity analysis [22,23]. Meanwhile, Nastran
became a world-recognized standard in the field of structural analysis, offering the designer a large
variety of modeling tools and analysis disciplines such as structural analysis, elastic stability analysis,
and thermal and fatigue analysis. Among other capabilities, Nastran provides a multidisciplinary
design optimization solution for a wide range of engineering problems faced by the aerospace industry.
The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation (MSC) Nastran optimization module utilizes
gradient-based algorithms. One of the key advantages underlying the selection of gradient-based
methods is their effectiveness in solving optimization problems where the design space is significantly
large, and where the number of design variables is therefore considerably greater than the number
of objectives and constraints. Another advantage is their relative computational efficiency due to
rapid convergence rates with clear convergence criteria. However, one of the main drawbacks of
gradient-based methods is the presence of multiple local optima, resulting in solutions where global
optimality cannot be easily guaranteed. In gradient-based methods, global optimality is sought by
randomly searching the design space from different starting points. However, for large nonlinear
optimization problems that involve a combination of continuous and discrete design variables,
this becomes a slow and computationally inefficient method, especially when a single run of the
optimizer may not converge to an optimally feasible solution. Several review articles on methods
for the optimization of nonlinear problems with mixed variables can be found in [24–26]. In many
aerospace structural applications, optimization must be performed with different standard gauges
(from a range of manufacturers) that are available off the shelf, involving, for example, several types of
metallic sheet thicknesses and sizes, and different total thicknesses of the composite laminates and
percentages of each fiber oriented in the overall thickness.
Usually, many efforts are made to achieve sufficiently accurate results in a given amount of time.
However, with a large number of discrete design variables, the optimization problem becomes large,
and the selection of the alternative designs becomes difficult. In addition, how widely the allowable
design variable values are separated may govern the behavior of some of the optimization algorithms
as well as the final optimized optimum solution to the problem, and therefore substantially more
computational effort may be required as compared to the continuous variable optimization problems.
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 3 of 27

In practice, one normally seeks procedures through which the design search space is explored in
a cost-effective manner, aiming for a better optimal solution within an acceptable level of accuracy
depending on the size and nature of the optimization problem. The objective of this paper is to
propose, investigate, and demonstrate the efficiency of an industrially oriented practical optimization
approach in solving large-scale nonlinear structural optimization problems using gradient-based
algorithms. Particular emphasis is placed on generating good initial starting points for the search
process and improving the possibility of finding a better optimum solution. This paper is organized
as follows. Section 2 describes the realization of the MSC Nastran design optimization process.
In Section 3, the structural optimization problem is formulated. The gradient-based optimization
solution procedure is introduced is Section 4. The proposed practical optimization procedure is
evaluated by conducting two case studies, and the results obtained are discussed in detail in Section 5.
Finally, Section 6 presents our conclusions.

2. Realization of MSC Nastran Design Optimization Process

The model used for design optimization process in MSC Nastran can be logically divided into
two parts: the analysis model and design model. In the analysis model the grid is allocated across
the modeled structures, elements are configured and assigned with properties, information about
materials and loads are defined, and boundary conditions and load cases are applied. In the design
model, design variables and responses are described, objectives and constraints are applied to the
model, and links between element properties and variables are established. The initial design is the
starting point of the optimization process.
The MSC Nastran design optimization process is composed of finite element analysis, constraint
screening, sensitivity analysis, approximate and improved models, and the optimizer. The optimization
process is started with the finite element analysis of the initial design; subsequently, the analysis is
repeated multiple times during the process, with the repetition frequency defined by the design
sensitivity. Constraint screening is required to select constraints that may start the redesign process.
Designs constraints near the violation threshold or that are already violated are activated during
constraint screening. Design sensitivity analysis calculates the speed of change of the structural
response and constraint values with changes in design variables. When design optimization is
required, the sensitivity analysis function is called automatically. The finite element analysis
results are approximated and combined with the information obtained during sensitivity analysis
to form the approximate model. This approximation allows for minimizing the complex finite
element analyses. The approximate model is used during the optimization process to construct
the improved model. In MSC Nastran, gradient-based, sequential linear programming and
sequential quadratic programming optimization methods are available to improve the approximate
model. A soft convergence test is performed by comparison of approximate and improved models,
and convergence is achieved when the changes to the model are within required range. If the design
has not converged, another loop of the optimization process is initiated by finite element analysis of
the improved model. A hard convergence test is performed by comparison of current and previous
design cycle finite element analysis results. The design optimization loop may be interrupted when
either hard or soft convergence is achieved. The structural optimization process can be significantly
improved if certain approximation concepts are applied.
During the optimization process, numerous function evaluations and response derivations are
required to compute design responses and sensitivities, respectively. Figure 1 illustrates the traditional
approach to the structural optimization, where every request for function evaluation requires finite
element analysis of the model. Since the finite element analysis needs a significant amount of
computational power, the traditional approach can only be used to solve small-scale design problems.
To reduce the number of finite element analyses, approximation concepts have been developed
and implemented in MSC Nastran. These concepts that can be classified as design variable linking,
constraint screening and the approximate design model, are described below.
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 4 of 27
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 4 of 26

FigureFigure 1. Schematic
1. Schematic diagramofofthe
diagram the traditional
traditional approach
approachto structural optimization.
to structural optimization.

2.1. Design Variable Linking

2.1. Design Variable Linking
In general, the design task can be narrowed if the number of design variables is minimized. To
In improve
general,thethe designof task
efficiency design can be narrowed
optimization if thethenumber
and reduce amount of ofcomputation,
design variables is minimized.
proportionally
transformed
To improve design variables
the efficiency of designshould be combined
optimization andtogether,
reduceresulting
the amountin a significantly reduced
of computation, set of
proportionally
variables. Ideally, a small number of independent variables should be used during design
transformed design variables should be combined together, resulting in a significantly reduced set of
optimization. In MSC Nastran, design variable linking is manually performed by the user. Other
variables. Ideally, a small number of independent variables should be used during design optimization.
concepts, such as the screening of design variables, could be considered. Pre-screening for the
In MSCdimensional
Nastran, design variable
reduction linking
of designs and is
formanually performed
variable selection couldby theanuser.
play Otherrole
important concepts, such as the
in reducing
screening of design
the cost variables,
of the design could
task by be considered.
identifying Pre-screening
the most important for the dimensional
design variables; this would allowreduction
the of
designsuser
andtofor
deal with large-scale
variable design
selection optimization
could problems more
play an important role effectively.
in reducing the cost of the design task
by identifying the most important design variables; this would allow the user to deal with large-scale
2.2. Constraint Linking
design optimization problems more effectively.
Constraint screening is another concept that can be applied to the design optimization process
to reduceLinking
2.2. Constraint the required computational power. Only constraints that are near the violation threshold
or are already violated should be considered during optimization, while non-critical design
Constraint
constraintsscreening is another
can be deactivated. In concept thatonly
other words, can those
be applied to the
constraints design
that optimization
can trigger process to
the redesign
reduce process
the required
shouldcomputational power. Only
be visible to the optimizer. constraints
Constraint screeningthat are
will near
also the violation
simplify sensitivitythreshold
analysis or are
alreadyby reducingshould
violated the number of structuralduring
be considered responseoptimization,
derivatives required
whiletonon-critical
compute design sensitivities.
design constraints can
The reader may wish to refer to Appendix A.2 for some background information on the field.
be deactivated. In other words, only those constraints that can trigger the redesign process should be
visible 2.3.
to the optimizer.
Approximate Constraint
Design Model screening will also simplify sensitivity analysis by reducing the
number of structural response derivatives required to compute design sensitivities. The reader may
In order to establish how the active constraint set is affected by design modifications, parametric
wish toanalysis
refer toisAppendix A.2 for some background information on the field.
performed after the constraint screening. Response quantities, used in a parametric
analysis, are approximated or expanded in series in terms of design variables. Compared to implicit
2.3. Approximate Design Model
finite element analysis results, formal approximations are explicitly expressed in design variables.
In Explicit
order toformal approximations,
establish how the active computed usingset
constraint sensitivity
is affected analysis results,
by design are used by parametric
modifications, the
optimizer during gradient or function evaluations. Figure 2 shows how the approximate design
analysis is performed after the constraint screening. Response quantities, used in a parametric analysis,
model is created and evolves during the optimization process. The approximate model involves the
are approximated
construction of orhigh-quality
expandedapproximations
in series in terms of design
to the finite element variables.
results, so Compared
that the number to implicit
of full- finite
elementscale
analysis
finite element analyses can be kept to a minimum. The core of the approximate model is formed Explicit
results, formal approximations are explicitly expressed in design variables.
formal by
approximations,
formal approximationcomputed of theusing
finite sensitivity analysis
element analysis results,
results. are used
Constraint by theand
screening optimizer
design during
gradientvariable linking are
or function used to simplify
evaluations. the approximate
Figure 2 shows how model.theIt should be noted that
approximate in MSC
design Nastran,
model is created
formal approximation and constraint screening are automated [27].
and evolves during the optimization process. The approximate model involves the constructionThe approximation functions
used are based on Taylor series expansions of the objective function and constraints. Given a function
of high-quality approximations to the finite element results, so that the number of full-scale finite
( ), an infinite series about a known value ( ) in terms of the change in an independent variable
element∆ analyses can as
can be written be kept to a minimum. The core of the approximate model is formed by
formal approximation of the finite element analysis results. Constraint screening and design variable
∆ ∆
linking are used to simplify ( + ∆the ) =approximate
( )+ | model.
∙ ∆ + It should
| ∙ + | ∙ + ∙∙∙ (1)
2! be noted that 3! in MSC Nastran, formal
approximation and constraint screening are automated [27]. The approximation functions
In addition to the function value ( ), this series requires that all derivatives at be known
used are
based on Taylor
as well. series expansions
Determining of themay
these derivatives objective function and constraints. Given a function f (X),

present some difficulty, so the series is often truncated to
an infinite series
a given about
power in ∆a known
, yieldingvalue f X0 in terms
an approximate of the change
representation in an independent
of the original function. In the design ∆x can
variable
optimization
be written as process, where we are concerned with a vector of design variables , the
approximations for the objective function and the constraints become
df d2 f ∆x2 d3 f ∆x3
f (X0 + ∆x ) = f (X0 )( + + ∆|X)0=·∆x( +) + (∇F)
| X0 · ∙∆ + | X0· +... (2) (1)
dx dx2 2! dx3 3!

In addition to the function value f X0 , this series requires that all derivatives at X0 be known as

well. Determining these derivatives may present some difficulty, so the series is often truncated to
a given power in ∆x, yielding an approximate representation of the original function. In the design
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 5 of 27

optimization process, where we are concerned with a vector of design variables X, the approximations
for the objective function and the constraints become

F (X0 + ∆x ) = F (X0 ) + (∇F)X0 ·∆x (2)

Aerospace 2018, 5, 3   5 of 26
g j (X0 + ∆x ) = g j (X0 ) + ∇gj ·∆x (3)
X0
g ( +∆ )= g ( ) + (∇g ) ∙∆ (3)
where a gradient term replaces the first derivative term of Equation (1).
where a gradient term replaces the first derivative term of Equation (1).
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 5 of 26

g ( +∆ )= g ( ) + (∇g ) ∙∆ (3)
where a gradient term replaces the first derivative term of Equation (1).

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of design modification process performed using approximate design
Schematic
Figure 2. model diagram of design modification process performed using approximate design
and finite element analysis.
model and finite element analysis.
When the new configuration is generated by the optimizer, the proposed design is analyzed to
ensure that the design constraints are satisfied and the objective function has been improved.
WhenThistheFigure
new2. configuration
process Schematic
is illustrated by is
diagram of
thegenerated
design by the
modification
‘design optimizer,
process
improvement’ performed
arrow in the
usingproposed
Figure approximate design
design
2. If further designis analyzed
to ensure optimization
thatmodel
the and
design
is required, the finite element analysis is performed again to form the basis for the nextimproved.
finite constraints
element analysis. are satisfied and the objective function has been
generation
This process isWhen approximate
illustrated by themodel.
‘design Theimprovement’
sequence of design modifications,
arrow in Figure also2. If referred
furthertodesign
as design
optimization
the new configuration is generated by the optimizer, the proposed design is analyzed to
cycles, may be repeated a number of times. Design convergence is achieved when another design
is required,ensure that the design constraints are satisfied and the objective function has been improved.generation
the finite element analysis is performed again to form the basis for the next
cycle or the optimizer are unable to produce significant changes to the model. The detailed schematic
approximate Thismodel.
diagram
process The sequence
is illustrated
of MSC Nastran
by of
design
thedesign
‘designmodifications,
in Figurealso
improvement’ arrow
cycle is illustrated referred
in Figure to
3 [27]. Compared as to design
2. If further cycles, may be
design
the traditional
optimization
repeated adesign
number is required,
of times. the finite
Design element analysis
convergence is performed again to form the basis for the next
approach where the finite element model isisoptimized,
achievedMSC when another
Nastran design
operates cycle or the
with the
generation approximate model. The sequence of design modifications, also referred to as design
optimizer approximate
are unable model.
to When the
produce updated design
significant changes configuration
to the is generated,
model. The a finite element
detailed
cycles, may be repeated a number of times. Design convergence is achieved when another design
analysisdiagram of
schematic
creates new version of the finite element model based on the results produced by the optimizer.
MSC Nastran cycledesign cycle isare
or the optimizer illustrated in Figure
unable to produce 3 [27].changes
significant Compared to theThe
to the model. traditional design approach
detailed schematic
where thediagram
finite element modeldesign
of MSC Nastran is optimized, MSC Nastran
cycle is illustrated in Figure 3operates with the
[27]. Compared approximate
to the traditional model.
When the design
updated approach
designwhere the finite element
configuration model is aoptimized,
is generated, MSC Nastran
finite element analysis operates
creates with
newthe version of
approximate model. When the updated design configuration is generated, a finite element analysis
the finite element model based on the results produced by the optimizer.
creates new version of the finite element model based on the results produced by the optimizer.

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the structural optimization performed in MSC Nastran.

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the structural optimization performed in MSC Nastran.

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the structural optimization performed in MSC Nastran.
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 6 of 27

3. Formulation of the Structural Optimization Problem

Structural optimization problems are characterized by the nature of the objective and constraint
functions, which are generally nonlinear functions of the design variables. Usually, these functions are
non-convex, discontinuous, and implicit, as in many problems in engineering design. Furthermore,
due to manufacturing constraints, design variables are quite often restricted to taking discrete values
from a set of standard sizes, which gives rise to mixed integer nonlinear optimization. Mathematically,
the optimization problem can be described as minimizing or maximizing the objective function f(x)
with respect to the design variables x under the inequality constraint li (x) and the equality constraint
h j (x). The structural optimization problem can be formalized and written as follows:

Find x to minimize f(x)

subject to
li (x) ≤ 0; i = 1, 2, . . . , m
(4)
h j (x) = 0; j = 1, 2, . . . , y
xbL ≤ xb ≤ xU b ; b = 1, 2, . . . , q
xs ∈ Ds ; Ds = {d1 , d2 , . . . , dn }; s = 1, 2, . . . , r

Here, f(x) is the scalar objective function, x is the vector of n components, l is the vector of m
inequality constraints, h is the vector of y equality constraints, xbL and xU
b are the lower and upper
bounds on each of the design variables (design search space), respectively, xs is the vector of discrete
design variables, and Ds is the set of discrete values. The inequality and equality constraints l and
h demand a solution x to be achievable only if all the constraints are satisfied. The set of all feasible
solutions is named the feasible space. Typically, at least one solution x exists in the feasible space,
and if this solution corresponds to the minimum objective value it is called the optimum solution.

4. Gradient-Based Optimization Solution Procedure

Gradient-based algorithms use function gradient information to search for an optimal design.
The first step in the numerical search process is to calculate the gradients of the objective function and
the constraints for a given point in the design space. The gradients are calculated using a first-forward
finite difference approximation of the derivative (finite difference techniques). Appendix A.1 provides
the reader with more details. Once the gradient is computed, there are several options for finding
a minimum. For constrained problems, sequential quadratic methods and the Modified Method of
Feasible Directions (MMFD) can be used [28], whereas for unconstrained problems, quasi-Newton
methods are effectively used with a line search procedure [29]. As the search direction is determined,
the search process continues in that direction and can be repeated until an optimum solution has been
found. The choice of optimization method and solver is design-dependent, and generally the size of the
problem and the accuracy and precession of the solvers play an important role in making the decision.
In this study, the commercially available off-the-shelf MSC Nastran software is used. The design
optimization module is based on gradient-based solution techniques. It utilizes the MMFD of Design
Optimization Tool (DOT) and MSCADS, a modified version of the Automated Design Synthesis (ADS)
code for performing size optimization.

4.1. Generating Good Initial Points for the Design

Since gradient-based optimization methods do not guarantee global optimality, different
approaches are used to enhance the performance of the optimization design models by generating
good initial starting points for the design variables. In the first approach, two essential starting
points are assigned by the user as initial starting points. Typically, the upper and lower bounds of
the continuous or discrete design variable are used. A number of interior points in the bounded
design region are chosen by the user as additional initial starting points to cover more regions in the
design space. These interior points can be randomly selected in the design space or, more practically,
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 7 of 27

can be defined as a fraction of the upper bound value of the design variables, or by using the internal
halving method. Given a bounded design space Ωx , where the bounds on each of the design variables
are in the form xbL ≤ xb ≤ xU (1) (2) (3) (4)
b , a set of initial starting points S = {x , x , x , x , ..., x
(n) } is generated,
( 1 ) L ( n ) U ( 2 )
where x = xb , x = xb and R = {x , x , x , ..., x( 3 ) ( 4 ) ( n − 1 ) }. R is a set of additional interior points
which can be generated using one of the following methods:

• As a fraction of the upper bound value of the design variables:

 

 x(2) = a1 xU b


x(3) = a2 xU

 

 

 b 

x(4) = a3 xU

 

b

 

R = . (5)
 



 . 



.

 


 


 x ( n − 1 ) = an xU


b

where ai is a fraction value defined by the user between 0 < ai ≤ 1, with i = 1, 2, 3 . . . n.

• Internal Halving Method:
 L U 
 x (2) = xb +xb 

 2 


x ( 2 ) + x L 
( 3 )
 
b
x =

 


 2 

 x ( 2 ) + x U 
 x(4) =

 b



2
R = . (6)

 

.

 


 

.

 


 

( n − 3 ) U
 

 ( n −1) x +xb 
x =

2

In both methods, the interior points selected must be reasonably separate from each other to
minimize the number of repeated visits to the same region of attraction in the search design space,
and to avoid the optimizer getting stuck in local optima where no improving neighbors are available.
In the second approach, the Fully Stressed Design (FSD) algorithm, which is widely applied in the
design of structures, is used to produce an initial design from a set of different starting points for the
design variables provided by the user at the start of the optimization process. Even within the limited
class of problems that can be addressed, and its capability of handling a design condition subjected
to strength limits only, the FSD algorithm can still provide an efficient way to begin a design task,
and the output can still serve as an excellent starting point for more general optimization tasks that
need to satisfy a variety of design criteria. The FSD provides a quantitative value for the best-case
estimate on the amount of material required to satisfy the applied design conditions. This technique is
particularly useful if the structural weight minimization of the designed aerospace construction is the
most important requirement. This method is basically useful for the design of aerospace structures
where the overriding requirement is that the structural weight be minimized. The basic concept of the
FSD algorithm is summarized in [27].

4.2. Practical Optimization Framework

Gradient-based algorithms are very efficient at operating local searches but not so good at global
searches, due to their tendency to get stuck in local optima and thus not make a thorough exploration of
the design search space. A practical optimization framework is presented in this study to enhance the
overall performance of the optimization gradient-based algorithms. The first step is to generate a set S
of initial starting points for the design variables. Then, we must decide on the number of starting points
to try and how to distribute them in the search design space. This decision is usually guided by intuition
and previous experience, since there is no clear methodology available as a guide. The applicability
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 8 of 27

of the FSD procedure is checked by the structural designer. If it is applicable, then a number of
FSD cycles, usually 5–10 cycles, are used to generate a solution based on the FSD concept that will
hopefully serve as an improved starting point for the optimization process, because optimization
can give very poor results if poor initial guesses for the design variables are used. More general
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 8 of 26
optimization algorithms are used in the later steps of the optimization process. The idea here is to use
two different
that will gradient-based
hopefully servealgorithms
as an improvedratherstarting
than just one.
point for The
the reason behind
optimization this approach
process, because is the
fact thatoptimization
the two different
can give algorithms williflikely
very poor results haveguesses
poor initial completely
for thedifferent searchare
design variables directions
used. Morebetween
general
the initial andoptimization
final points, algorithms
which are are output
used in the
as later steps of the The
the solutions. optimization
DOT and process.
MSCADS The idea here
optimization
is to use two different gradient-based algorithms rather
codes implemented in MSC Nastran with the MMFD are used to perform continuous and than just one. The reason behind thisdiscrete
approach is the fact that the two different algorithms will likely have completely different search
optimization. Discrete optimization in MSC Nastran is implemented as a post-processing step to
directions between the initial and final points, which are output as the solutions. The DOT and
a continuous
MSCADS solution or FSD;codes
optimization this means one additional
implemented finite with
in MSC Nastran element analysis
the MMFD arefollowed by the discrete
used to perform
optimization results. As a result, a set of solutions
continuous and discrete optimization. Discrete optimization called A is created. This set
i in MSC Nastran is implementedcontains allasoptimized
a
solutions obtained using
post-processing step the
to aset S of the solution
continuous initial starting
or FSD; points.
this means Eachonesolution
additional is finite
then checked
element to see
analysis
if it meets followed by the
the convergence discreteand
criteria optimization results. As
if it is a feasible a result,
design. If athis
set is
of the
solutions
case, called Ai is
the solution with
created. This set contains all optimized solutions obtained using the set S
the minimum optimized mass that satisfies all the design requirements is chosen as the best of allof the initial starting points.
Each solution is then checked to see if it meets the convergence criteria and if it is a feasible design. If
possible candidate solutions. On the other hand, if no feasible solution exists, the user can try to test
this is the case, the solution with the minimum optimized mass that satisfies all the design
differentrequirements
sets of initial starting
is chosen points,
as the best ofmaking sure
all possible that thesolutions.
candidate optimization
On theproblem
other hand, is if
a no
well-conditioned
feasible
one, that no errors have been made in specifying the model constraints, and
solution exists, the user can try to test different sets of initial starting points, making sure that no wrong
that thenumbers
optimization
in the data are used problem
in theisoptimization.
a well-conditioned This one, that nocan
process errors
be have been made
repeated untilinallspecifying
the initialthestarting
model constraints,
points defined by the user andare
thatexhausted
no wrong numbers
or wheninthe the computational
data are used in the optimization.
resources usedThis process
by the algorithms,
can be repeated until all the initial starting points defined by the user are exhausted or when the
such as the computation time and memory space, exceed pre-defined limits. Figure 4 shows a flowchart
computational resources used by the algorithms, such as the computation time and memory space,
of the proposed practical framework.
exceed pre-defined limits. Figure 4 shows a flowchart of the proposed practical framework.

Figure 4. Flowchart of the proposed practical optimization framework. FSD: Fully Stressed Design;
Figure 4. Flowchart of the proposed practical optimization framework. FSD: Fully Stressed Design;
DOT: Design Optimization Tool; MMFD: Modified Method of Feasible Directions.
DOT: Design Optimization Tool; MMFD: Modified Method of Feasible Directions.
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 9 of 27
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 9 of 26

4.3.
4.3. Improving
Improving the
the Search
Search for
for the
the Optimum
Optimum Solution
Solution
In
In practice,
practice, difficulties
difficulties can
can emerge
emerge when when trying
trying toto solve
solve aa structural
structural optimization
optimization problem,
problem,
especially when the design space is too large and contains design variables of different
especially when the design space is too large and contains design variables of different sensitivities, sensitivities,
or
or when
when the
the optimization
optimization problem
problem hashas highly
highly nonlinear
nonlinear objective
objective and
and constraint
constraint functions.
functions. Problems
Problems
also
also occur
occurwhen
whenthethedesign
designvariables
variablesare discrete,
are meaning
discrete, meaning that thethe
that search design
search space
design is discrete
space too.
is discrete
In such scenarios, it can be difficult to achieve a convergence solution, leading to a final
too. In such scenarios, it can be difficult to achieve a convergence solution, leading to a final designdesign that is
unfeasible [30]. In[30].
that is unfeasible this In
study,
this an improved
study, strategystrategy
an improved is proposed and used
is proposed andtoused
enhance the search
to enhance thefor the
search
optimum solution. Figure 5 shows a flowchart of this improved strategy.
for the optimum solution. Figure 5 shows a flowchart of this improved strategy.

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Flowchart
Flowchart of
of the
the improved
improved search
search for
for an
an optimum
optimum solution.
solution.

The strategy employed in the present work is to take the design solutions obtained using one
The strategy employed in the present work is to take the design solutions obtained using one
algorithm and use them as a starting point for the other one and vice versa. A continuous and discrete
algorithm and use them as a starting point for the other one and vice versa. A continuous and discrete
optimization solution is performed and a new set of solutions, Ai + 1, is obtained at the end of the
optimization solution is performed and a new set of solutions, Ai + 1 , is obtained at the end of the
process. Convergence and design feasibility checks are performed, as explained in the previous
process. Convergence and design feasibility checks are performed, as explained in the previous section,
section, and the solution with the minimum optimized mass that satisfies all design requirements is
and the solution with the minimum optimized mass that satisfies all design requirements is chosen as
chosen as the best of all possible candidate solutions. In the same manner, the proposed strategy can
the best of all possible candidate solutions. In the same manner, the proposed strategy can be used
be used to search for an improved optimum solution from the one obtained using the framework
to search for
described in an
theimproved optimum
previous section. solution
This from
process can the one obtained
be repeated untilusing the framework
an optimum described
feasible solution is
in the previous section. This process can be repeated until an optimum feasible
obtained, or an improvement in the values of the design objective is achieved. solution is obtained,
or an improvement in the values of the design objective is achieved.
5. Structural Design Optimization Case Studies
5. Structural Design Optimization Case Studies
The public domain NASA wing, commonly referred as Common Research Model (CRM), is used
The public domain NASA wing, commonly referred as Common Research Model (CRM), is used
as a design and optimization case study [31,32] to demonstrate the efficiency and reliability of the
as a design and optimization case study [31,32] to demonstrate the efficiency and reliability of the
proposed practical optimization framework and improved strategy. The relevant aircraft data are
proposed practical optimization framework and improved strategy. The relevant aircraft data are
presented in Table 1.
presented in Table 1.
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 10 of 27

Table
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 1. Relevant data with respect to Common Research Model (CRM) aircraft. 10 of 26

Description
Table 1. Relevant Value
data with respect to Common Research Model (CRM) aircraft.

Maximum take-off mass

Description 260,000 kg
Value
Maximum zero fuel mass 19,500 kg
Maximum take-off mass 260,000 kg
Main landing gear mass 9620 kg
Maximum zero fuel mass 19,500 kg
Engine mass (2×) 15,312 kg
Main landing
Maximum fuel massgear mass 9620 kg kg
131,456
Engine mass
Wing gross area (2×) 15,312 kg m2
383.7
Maximum
Wing span fuel mass 131,456 kg m
58.76
Wing
Aspect gross area
ratio 383.7 m9.02

Root chord
Wing span 58.7613.56
m m
Tip chord
Aspect ratio 9.02.73 m
TaperRoot
ratiochord 13.56 0.275
m
Leading edge
Tipsweep
chord 2.73 m35.0◦
Cruise speed 193.0 m/s EAS
Taper ratio 0.275
Dive speed 221.7 m/s EAS
Leading edge sweep 35.0°
Cruise altitude 10,668 m
Cruise speed 193.0 m/s EAS
Dive speed 221.7 m/s EAS
The CRM wing considered inCruise
the case studies is modified 10,668
altitude to have m airfoil sections with the same
twist angle along the semi-span of the wing. Therefore, the chord lines of the airfoils at the root and tip
The CRM
wing sections wing considered
are rotated in thedirection
in a spanwise case studies
withis modified
respect totothe
have airfoil
chord sections
line of thewith theat
airfoil same
the kink
twist angle along the semi-span of the wing. Therefore, the chord◦lines of the airfoils at the root and
wing section to produce a similar geometrical twist angle of 0.8 . The CRM primary wing structure
tip wing sections are rotated in a spanwise direction with respect to the chord line of the airfoil at the
is modeled to meet the minimum design requirements set forth by the Federal Aviation Regulations
kink wing section to produce a similar geometrical twist angle of 0.8°. The CRM primary wing
(FAR)structure
Part 25is[33] and/or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) CS-25 [34]. A traditional
modeled to meet the minimum design requirements set forth by the Federal Aviation
two-spar wingbox
Regulations (FAR)architecture
Part 25 [33]isand/or
used theas aEuropean
baselineAviation
design. Safety
The external geometry
Agency (EASA) CS-25 is [34].
defined
A by
CRM.65-BTE airfoil sections and the wingbox is derived from the wing surface
traditional two-spar wingbox architecture is used as a baseline design. The external geometry is model by defining
the front andbyrear
defined spar positions
CRM.65-BTE airfoil at 12% and
sections and71%, respectively,
the wingbox of the
is derived local
from the airfoil chord.model
wing surface The internal
by
layoutdefining the front
is defined and stiffener
by the rear spar positions
pitch, ribatpitch,
12% and and71%, respectively,
orientation of theon
based local
theairfoil
valueschord.
for aThetypical
largeinternal layout
transport is defined
aircraft wing. by thewingbox
The stiffener model
pitch, rib pitch, and
contains 1870orientation basedfor
design zones onthe
theupper
valuesandfor alower
skins,typical large transport
spar webs, ribs, sparaircraft
caps andwing. The wingbox
stiffeners, modelincontains
as given Figure 6.1870
Thedesign zones for
chordwise the upper
design zones are
and lower skins, spar webs, ribs, spar caps and stiffeners, as given in Figure 6. The chordwise design
prescribed by the stiffener pitch, while in the spanwise direction the design zones are limited by the
zones are prescribed by the stiffener pitch, while in the spanwise direction the design zones are
rib spacing. In the finite element model, each design field consists of a number of finite elements that
limited by the rib spacing. In the finite element model, each design field consists of a number of finite
all comprise the same thicknesses/cross-sectional areas and stiffness properties.
elements that all comprise the same thicknesses/cross-sectional areas and stiffness properties.

Figure 6. Design optimization zones of the CRM wingbox.

Figure 6. Design optimization zones of the CRM wingbox.
In the current study, the thin-walled structures of the CRM wingbox configurations (skins, webs
In
andthe current
ribs) were study,
modeledtheusing
thin-walled structuresquadrilateral
two-dimensional of the CRM andwingbox
triangularconfigurations
shell elements (skins,
webs(CQUAD4,
and ribs) CTRAI3) with in-plane
were modeled usingmembranes and bending
two-dimensional stiffness. On
quadrilateral andthetriangular
other hand,shell
stiffeners
elements
and spar
(CQUAD4, caps were
CTRAI3) withmodeled
in-planeusing one-dimensional
membranes and bendingrod stiffness.
elements On (CROD) withhand,
the other axial stiffeners
stiffness. and
spar The
capsCRM
wereaircraft
modeledwingbox
using is optimized subjected
one-dimensional to aerodynamic
rod elements (CROD) loads,
withliftaxial
force, and pitching
stiffness. The CRM
moment, with inertial relief loading due to the engine, fuel, and undercarriage masses as well as the
aircraft wingbox is optimized subjected to aerodynamic loads, lift force, and pitching moment,
mass of the wingbox itself and the secondary structure masses, as shown in Figure 7.
with inertial relief loading due to the engine, fuel, and undercarriage masses as well as the mass
of the wingbox itself and the secondary structure masses, as shown in Figure 7.
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 11 of 27
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 11 of 26

Figure 7. The CRM wingbox model used in the optimization study.

Figure 7. The CRM wingbox model used in the optimization study.

The 2.5 g symmetric pull-up maneuver load is considered as critical for the design, analysis, and
sizingThe 2.5 g symmetric
optimization of the CRM pull-up maneuver
wingbox. In theload is considered
current study, theas critical for the
aerodynamic loadsdesign, analysis,
are calculated
and sizing optimization of the CRM wingbox. In the current study,
with two different programs in order to ensure the versatility and accuracy of the tool. Two existing the aerodynamic loads are
calculated with
aerodynamic codes twoaredifferent
used forprograms
this work,inincluding
order to the ensure
ESDU the95010
versatility
computer andprogram
accuracy[35] of the
andtool.
the
Two existing aerodynamic codes are used for this work, including
Tornado VLM code [36] implemented in MATLAB. Aerodynamic loading is discretely distributed the ESDU 95010 computer
program
along the [35]
wing and by the Tornado the
computing VLM code [36]lift
equivalent implemented in MATLAB.
force and pitching moment Aerodynamic
componentsloading at rib
is discretely
boundary distributed
locations at 25%along the local
of the wing chord
by computing
length. The the equivalent
aerodynamic liftloads
force are
andintroduced
pitching moment to the
components
wingbox at rib boundary
structure by means locations at 25%constraint
of multipoint of the local chordnon-stiffening
(MPC) length. The aerodynamic loads are
rigid body elements
introduced to the wingbox structure by means of multipoint constraint
(RBE3) in the rib’s perimeter nodes. The engine mass is modeled as a concentrated lumped mass (MPC) non-stiffening rigid
body elements
using point elements(RBE3)atinthe thecentre
rib’s perimeter
of gravitynodes.of the The engine
engine. Formass is modeled
the engine pylon, as aa simple
concentrated
beam
lumped mass using point elements at the centre of gravity of the engine.
structure was created to realize a distributed engine pylon-to-wingbox connection. Rod elements For the engine pylon, a simple
beam structure
(CROD), mounted wason created
front to andrealize a distributed
aft fittings, modeled engine pylon-to-wingbox
using a combination of connection. Rod elements
non-stiffening (RBE3),
and stiffening (RBE2) rigid body load carrying elements, are used to model the engine and(RBE3),
(CROD), mounted on front and aft fittings, modeled using a combination of non-stiffening pylon
and stiffening (RBE2) rigid body load carrying elements, are used
structural components. Due to the high complexity level of the geometrical and structural modeling to model the engine and pylon
structural
of the main components.
landing gear, Due itstocomponent
the high complexity
masses are level of the as
modeled geometrical
a concentratedand structural
lumped modeling
mass using of
the main landing gear, its component masses are modeled as a concentrated
point elements, and it is introduced to the wingbox structure rear spar at its centre of gravity position lumped mass using point
elements,
using RBE3 and it is introduced
elements. to the wingbox
The component massesstructure rear spar
of the leading andattrailing
its centre
edgeof devices
gravity position using
are estimated
RBE3 elements.
based The component
on the corresponding massesarea
surface of the leading
using the and trailing edgeand
semi-empirical devices are estimated
analytical equations basedof
on the corresponding surface area using the semi-empirical and analytical
Torenbeek [37]. The inertial load impacts of these masses are modeled as lumped masses using point equations of Torenbeek [37].
The inertial
elements load
at the impacts
centre of areaof these
of themasses
leadingare and modeled
trailing asedgelumped
devices,masses using
and are point to
attached elements
the front at
the centre of area of the leading and trailing edge devices, and
and rear spars of the wingbox along the span via RBE3 interpolation elements. The inertial loadare attached to the front and rear
spars ofofthethe
impact wingbox
wingbox along the span via
self-structural RBE3
mass is interpolation
derived by adding elements. The inertialgravitational
a downward load impact
of the wingbox
acceleration (g = self-structural
9.81 m/s2) to the mass is derived
finite element by modeladding
of thea downward
wingbox. Spring gravitational
elementsacceleration
(CEALS1)
(g = 9.81 m/s 2 ) to the finite element model of the wingbox. Spring elements (CEALS1) combined with
combined with RBE2 elements are used to create realistic boundary conditions at the wingbox root
RBE2
at elements
the aircraft are used The
centerline. to create realisticand
translational boundary
rotationalconditions
stiffnessatproperties
the wingbox wereroot at thetoaircraft
selected result
centerline. The translational and rotational stiffness
in end boundary conditions sufficiently close to the clamped case. properties were selected to result in end boundary
conditions sufficiently close to the clamped case.
5.1. Definition of the CRM Wingbox Optimization Problem
5.1. Definition of the CRM Wingbox Optimization Problem
The CRM wingbox structural optimization that is presented in this study purposely deals with
The CRM wingbox structural optimization that is presented in this study purposely deals with
property optimization. Therefore, the locations of the ribs, stiffeners, and spars are considered
property optimization. Therefore, the locations of the ribs, stiffeners, and spars are considered
invariable and shape optimization is not performed in this study. The aim of the study is to minimize
invariable and shape optimization is not performed in this study. The aim of the study is to minimize
the masses of the metallic and composite configurations of the CRM wingbox when subjected to static
the masses of the metallic and composite configurations of the CRM wingbox when subjected to
strength/stiffness constraints and side constraints (manufacturing requirements) on the design
static strength/stiffness constraints and side constraints (manufacturing requirements) on the design
variables. The optimization problem is mathematically formulated in this section as previously
variables. The optimization problem is mathematically formulated in this section as previously
described in Section 3. The objective function, static strength/stiffness constraints, side constraints,
described in Section 3. The objective function, static strength/stiffness constraints, side constraints,
and the types of design variables involved in the optimization problem are identified.
and the types of design variables involved in the optimization problem are identified.
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 12 of 27

5.1.1. Objective Function

The objective function is the structural mass of the CRM wingbox excluding any non-structural
masses, like fuel mass, landing gear mass, and engine mass. The objective function can be represented by:

N element
minimize M(x) = ∑ ρl Vl (x) (7)
l=1

5.1.2. Design Variables

For the optimization problem, considering the wingbox construction material to be a metallic
material, one design variable per design field is defined. The design variables include the thicknesses
of the wingbox skins, spar webs, and ribs, as well as the cross-sectional areas of the wingbox spar
caps and stiffeners. A minimum gauge thickness of 2 mm and a cross-sectional area of 144 mm2 are
specified for the design variables. The limits on the design variables are defined as follows:

2.0 ≤ tmetallic ≤ 13.5 (8)

144.0 ≤ ametallic ≤ 972.0 (9)

On the other hand, considering the wingbox construction material to be a composite material,
the corresponding design variables for the wingbox skins, spar webs, and ribs are the thicknesses of
each ply or lamina in the composite laminate associated with each design field. The cross-sectional
areas of the composite spar caps and stiffeners are also treated as individual design variables for
each design zone. For modeling the wingbox using a composite material, a symmetric and balanced
laminate with ply orientation angles of [45/0/–45/90]s is created to obtain an orthotropic material.
The minimum ply thickness is taken to be 0.127 mm, while a 3 mm minimum gauge laminate thickness
is recommended to maintain an adequate level of laminate damage tolerance. The laminate ply
thicknesses are treated as individual design variables and a count is made of the required number of
plies in each ply orientation angle. The limits on the number of plies in each ply orientation angle are
given as
3 ≤ n ply ≤ 60 (10)

Minimum cross-sectional areas of 216 mm2 for the composite spar caps and stiffeners are specified
and the limits on the design variables are defined as

216.0 ≤ acomposite ≤ 972.0 (11)

5.1.3. Static Strength Constraints

The failure mode of the wingbox structural components depends on their allowable stress/strain
state based on the load case under consideration and the construction material. Thus, for the metallic
CRM wingbox structural elements (skins, spar webs, ribs, and spar caps/stiffeners), the strength
constraints imposed in each design zone can be described as follows. For metallic skin panels,
spar webs, and ribs, the von Mises stress is checked against the material allowable stress as defined in
the following equation:
σvon Mises ≤ σallowable (12)

The allowable limit value is obtained by dividing the ultimate stress by a factor of 1.5. The von
Mises stress criterion is useful since it is a single equation and is accurate for ductile materials such as
aluminum alloys, which are widely used in the construction of aircraft structures. The metallic spar
caps and the longitudinal stiffeners are designed to carry axial stress only. Therefore, they are designed
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 13 of 27

according to their stress state (tension or compression) against the allowable stress of the material as
defined in the following equation:
σaxial ≤ σallowable (13)

For composite skin panels, spar webs and ribs, the Tsai–Wu criterion [38–40] is used to predict the
strength of the composite laminate in terms of the failure index (FI). For orthotropic plate analysis,
under the plane stress state, the Tsai–Wu strength theory predicts that a lamina will undergo failure
when the following inequality is satisfied:

FI = F1 σ1 + F2 σ2 + F11 σ12 + 2F12 σ1 σ2 + F22 σ22 + F66 σ62 ≥ 1 (14)

The coefficients F1 –F66 , with the exception of F12 , are described in terms of strengths in the
principal material directions. F12 accounts for the interaction between normal stresses, σ1 and σ2 .
The principal strains in each ply are also checked against the material allowable strain to ensure
the integrity of the plies and failure-free laminates. Thus, the following constraint is placed on the
strain value used for sizing the structure:

ε principal ≤ ε allowable (15)

The ultimate strain value to be used is suggested in [41] to be 0.5%, and the allowable limit value is
obtained by dividing the ultimate strain by a factor of 1.5. The allowable strain value of 0.35% (3500 µε)
includes the margins due to fatigue and damage tolerance, assuming that the allowable strains are
identical in terms of tension and compression. The composite spar caps and longitudinal stiffeners are
designed to carry axial stress only. Due to the orientation of the fibers in the longitudinal direction of
the composite rods, the longitudinal strength of the composite rods is considered to be much higher
than the transverse strength. Longitudinal properties are dominated by the fibers, while the transverse
properties are dominated by the matrix. Therefore, the composite rods are designed according to their
stress state (tension or compression) against the allowable stress of the longitudinal fibers. Generally,
to obtain the properties of the composite rod, rod samples are tested for compression and tension.
However, in this study, the assumed allowable stress value has been obtained by dividing the stress of
the longitudinal fibers by a factor of 2. The use of a factor of safety greater than 1.5 is recommended
for composite rod analysis, to account for the possible uncertainty and variability of the values of the
rod properties. The axial stress constraint can be written as

σaxial ≤ σallowable (16)

5.1.4. Static Stiffness Constraints

In aircraft wing design, a major requirement for stiffness arises from diverse considerations such
as aeroelasticity, wing flexibility and redistribution of aerodynamic loads and these effects may be
included in the optimization process. Torsional stiffness is necessary to counteract the twisting of
the wing under aerodynamic loads and thus prevent flutter. The flexibility of the wing can cause
undesirable effects on its aerodynamic performance. Lift loss due to wing deformation is one of these
effects that must be taken into account in the aerodynamic load calculation. The change in wing twist
distribution and bending under aerodynamic loads can have a significant effect on the wing incidence
angle and consequently the aerodynamic loads acting on the wing. The redistribution of aerodynamic
loads results in the redistribution of stresses/strains in the wing structures, and as a result failure can
occur. Therefore, the flexural stiffness of the wingbox is controlled by limiting the vertical displacement
of the wingtip leading edge, and the torsional stiffness is controlled by constraining the twist angle at
the tip chord of the wing.
In general, structural stiffness information is not publicly available for commercial aircraft.
However, some estimation can be made on the structural stiffness of the wingbox, providing the
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 14 of 27

wing deflection is known. In this study, the wingtip deflection for the CRM wing at a 2.5 g pull-up
maneuver is assumed to be 15% of the wing semi-span b. This is based on the relative deformations that
can be expected in the wing of a transport-category aircraft as a function of the load factor, as presented
in the open scientific literature [19,42]. This value also ensures that the aircraft wingtip does not strike
the ground during a taxi bump load or landing operation. The current maximum allowable deflection
constraint placed on a single component of the displacement at a prescribed node is defined as follows:

δtip(Z) ≤ 15%·b (17)

The angular deformation at the wingtip chord is constrained by limiting it to a value of 6◦ to

ensure sufficient torsional stiffness and thus an adequate aeroelastic response [43]. The twist angle
constraint is defined using the vertical displacements at the wingtip chord ends. Equation (18) shows
−
that the twist angle at the wingtip should not exceed 6◦ . (δ)+
max and ( δ )max are the maximum vertical
displacements in positive and negative directions of the z-coordinate, respectively. Here, C is the wing
chord length at the required location:

−
!
◦ (δ)+
max − ( δ )max
Θtip ≤ 6 , where Θ = arctan (18)
C

5.1.5. Static Stiffness Constraints

Practical design rules and manufacturing constraints are considered during the design and
optimization process of the CRM wingbox. A minimum gauge thickness of 2 mm is considered for the
design of the metallic wingbox thin panel structures. This is because the value of 2 mm is considered
an acceptable sheet metal thickness if rivets are to be used as mechanical fasteners to join the sheet
metal parts of the aircraft together. For ease of manufacturing, the thin panel thicknesses of the
wingbox are chosen from a set of discrete values defined between the lower bound and the upper
bound and incremented by 0.1 as

tmetallic ∈ {2.0, 2.1, . . . , 20} (19)

Generally, the calculation of the cross-sectional areas of the spar caps and stiffeners depends on the
shape and dimensions of the cross-section of a given profile. In this study, the metallic and composite
spar caps and stiffeners are modeled using rod elements, and therefore for ease of manufacturing the
rods are sized using a discrete set of values from which any flange shape, such as L, T, and Z shapes,
can be produced. The discrete sets of cross-sectional areas for the metallic and composite rod elements
are defined as
ametallic ∈ {144, 158, . . . , 972} (20)

acomposite ∈ {216, 223, . . . , 972} (21)

For ease of manufacturing, the limits on the number of plies in each ply orientation angle are
selected from a set of discrete integer values defined between the lower bound and the upper bound
and incremented by 1 as
n ply ∈ {3, 4, . . . , 60} (22)

Practical design criteria are applied to the design and optimization process of the composite
laminate wingbox structures. The ply orientation percentages within a laminate are bounded by lower
and upper bound values of 10% and 60%, respectively. This aims to avoid matrix-dominated behaviors.
An optimization constraint is applied to link the +45◦ and −45◦ layers, ensuring that their thicknesses
are identical. This is done to ensure that the laminate is balanced and to minimize the possibility
of introducing manufacturing stresses such as torsion. A maximum property drop-off rate criterion
is applied. It aims on the one hand at avoiding delamination and, on the other hand, at obtaining
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 15 of 27

ply layouts that can actually be manufactured. The property drop-off rate between neighboring
elements/panels is evaluated according to the following equation [44]:

prop1 − prop2
Property drop − o f f rate = ≤ 20% (23)
distance(d)

where propi is the element/panel property value of the parent (1) or adjacent (2) element/panel,
and the distance d is computed along the element/panel surfaces between adjacent centroids.

5.2. CRM Wingbox Case Studies

The CRM wingbox considered in this case study is optimized to meet static strength and stiffness
requirements and manufacturing constraints. Five different initial starting point values are used
for the design variables during the optimization process. MSC Nastran Sol 200 is used for the
sizing optimization of the wingbox model. A number of fully stressed design cycles are performed
at the beginning of the optimization process, followed by a number of continuous and discrete
optimization cycles. Both optimization algorithms, DOT and MSCADS, are individually used to solve
the optimization problem. Then the estimated solution is updated on an iteration-by-iteration basis
with the aim of improving the optimum value of the mass of the CRM wingbox model.

5.2.1. Metallic Wingbox Model

In this case study, the wingbox of the CRM aircraft is designed by considering metallic materials
with a total number of 1870 design variables. High-strength aluminum 7050-T7451 alloy [45] is used
for the design of the upper skins, upper stiffeners and spar caps, and 2024-T351 alloy [46] is used
for the design of the lower skins, lower stiffeners and the ribs, since it is better suited for structures
stressed by cyclic tension loads and therefore prone to fatigue damage. The physical and mechanical
material properties are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Material properties of aluminium alloys.

Material Properties 2024-T351 7050-T7451

Modulus of elasticity 73.1 GPa 71.7 GPa
Shear modulus 28 GPa 26.9 GPa
Shear strength 283 MPa 303 MPa
Ultimate tensile strength 469 MPa 524 MPa
Yield tensile strength 324 MPa 469 MPa
Density 2780 kg/m3 2830 kg/m3
Poisson’s ratio 0.33 0.33

Table 3 shows the optimized masses of the metallic CRM wingbox using different starting values
for the design variables defined as fraction of the upper bound value of the design variables along
with different optimization algorithms. In all solutions, convergence is achieved along with feasible
discrete designs. The bold value denotes the local minimum solution obtained.

Table 3. Optimized masses of the metallic CRM wingbox with different optimization algorithms.

Optimized Mass (kg)

Solution Type
Min 25% Max 50% Max 75% Max Max
MSCADS-MMFD-1 13,518 13,337 13,560 13,188 13,407
DOT-MMFD-1 13,265 13,523 13,401 13,486 13,441
MSCADS-MMFD-2 13,078 13,156 13,186 13,171 13,170
DOT-MMFD-2 13,240 13,174 13,353 13,228 13,247
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 16 of 27

Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the results of the first and second optimization iterations obtained using
the DOT and MSCADS algorithms for the metallic CRM wingbox model.
From the results presented in Table 2 and illustrated in Figures 8 and 9, the following observations
can be made. In the gradient-based optimization problem, using different starting values for the
design variables can lead to local optimum designs, since the optimized wingbox configurations do
not have exactly the same mass. Similarly, different gradient-based algorithms used to perform the
same optimization problem terminate at different local optima, and thus return different solutions
even for the same initial starting values for the design variables. It is also observed that optimum
solutions are not restricted to extreme or corner points of the research design space. Furthermore,
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 16 of 26
itAerospace
can be2018,
seen5,that
3 the minimum optimized mass of the metallic CRM wingbox is obtained using the
16 of 26
MSCADS-MMFD-2
obtained using the iterative solution withiterative
MSCADS-MMFD-2 a value solution
of 13,078with
kg. Comparing this value
a value of 13,078 kg. with the related
Comparing this
obtained using
optimized value the MSCADS-MMFD-2
(13,265 kg) obtained iterative
earlier in solution
the first with a value
iterative of 13,078
solution, and kg. Comparing
with the minimum this
value with the related optimized value (13,265 kg) obtained earlier in the first iterative solution, and
value withvalue
optimized the related optimized
(13,188 valueusing
kg) obtained (13,265 kg) obtained earlier can
MSCADS-MMFD-1, in the
befirst
seeniterative
that theitsolution, and
with the minimum optimized value (13,188 kg) obtained using it MSCADS-MMFD-1, value
can beofseen
the
with the
objective minimum
function optimized
against value
the initial (13,188
optimized kg) obtained using MSCADS-MMFD-1, it can be seen
that the value of the objective function against value has improved.
the initial optimized value has improved.
that the value of the objective function against the initial optimized value has improved.

Figure 8. Mass
Mass of the
the optimized metallic
metallic CRMwingbox
wingbox usingthe
the firstiterative
iterative procedure.
Figure 8. Mass of
Figure 8. of the optimized
optimized metallic CRM
CRM wingboxusing
using thefirst
first iterativeprocedure.
procedure.

Figure 9. Mass of the optimized metallic CRM wingbox using the second iterative procedure.
Figure 9. Mass of the optimized metallic CRM wingbox using the second iterative procedure.
Figure 9. Mass of the optimized metallic CRM wingbox using the second iterative procedure.
Figure 10 shows the history of the objective function as a function of the design cycles for the
Figure 10 shows the history of the objective function as a function of the design cycles for the
metallic CRM
Figure 10 wingbox
shows themodel.
history Asofcan
thebe seen from
objective Figureas
function 10,ahard convergence
function to an cycles
of the design optimumfor and
the
metallic CRM wingbox model. As can be seen from Figure 10, hard convergence to an optimum and
feasible discrete solution is achieved in 17 design cycles for the metallic CRM
metallic CRM wingbox model. As can be seen from Figure 10, hard convergence to an optimum and wingbox using the
feasible discrete solution is achieved in 17 design cycles for the metallic CRM wingbox using the
DOT-MMFD-1
feasible discretesolution
solutionand an improved
is achieved in 17solution
design is founded
cycles using
for the the MSCADS-MMFD-2
metallic CRM wingbox using solution
the
DOT-MMFD-1 solution and an improved solution is founded using the MSCADS-MMFD-2 solution
in 13 design cycles.
DOT-MMFD-1 Theand
solution 0th an
design cycle corresponds
improved to the initial
solution is founded using mass of the wingbox model,
the MSCADS-MMFD-2 which
solution in
in 13 design cycles. The 0th design cycle corresponds to the initial mass of the wingbox model, which
is design
13 based on the The
cycles. starting valuescycle
0th design of the design variables.
corresponds Continuous
to the initial mass of optimization for thewhich
the wingbox model, metallic is
is based on the starting values of the design variables. Continuous optimization for the metallic
wingbox
based model
on the is achieved
starting values ofin the
16 design
designiterations
variables.using the DOT-MMFD-1
Continuous optimizationand
forin 12metallic
the design iterations
wingbox
wingbox model is achieved in 16 design iterations using the DOT-MMFD-1 and in 12 design iterations
using is
model the MSCADS-MMFD-2
achieved solution.using
in 16 design iterations The the
17thDOT-MMFD-1
and 30th design cycles,
and in as shown
12 design in Figure
iterations 10,
using the
using the MSCADS-MMFD-2 solution. The 17th and 30th design cycles, as shown in Figure 10,
correspond to the rounded-up
MSCADS-MMFD-2 solution. Thediscrete
17th andsolution. In the
30th design round-up
cycles, as shownmethod, the 10,
in Figure standard size list
correspond for
to the
correspond to the rounded-up discrete solution. In the round-up method, the standard size list for
the design variables is used as a metric to round up continuous solutions for the design variables.
the design variables is used as a metric to round up continuous solutions for the design variables.
Consequently, the increase of objective function value over the last design cycle in Figure 10
Consequently, the increase of objective function value over the last design cycle in Figure 10
corresponds to the discrete feasible solution, founded by using the round-up method.
corresponds to the discrete feasible solution, founded by using the round-up method.
Figures 11 and 12 (zoomed region) show the history of the maximum constraint value as a
Figures 11 and 12 (zoomed region) show the history of the maximum constraint value as a
function of the design cycles for the metallic CRM wingbox model. As can be seen from Figure 11,
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 17 of 27

rounded-up discrete solution. In the round-up method, the standard size list for the design variables is
used as a metric to round up continuous solutions for the design variables. Consequently, the increase
of objective function value over the last design cycle in Figure 10 corresponds to the discrete feasible
solution, founded by using the round-up method.
Figures 11 and 12 (zoomed region) show the history of the maximum constraint value as a function
of the design cycles for the metallic CRM wingbox model. As can be seen from Figure 11, the initial
constraints are violated because the maximum constraint value is far greater than the allowable value
of 0.005. The 0th design cycle corresponds to the initial mass of the wingbox, which is calculated
using the lower bound of the design variables. In this case, the search direction has been chosen to
reduce the constraint violation. Thus, the objective function value will increase, since the first priority
is to overcome the constraint violations. If it is not possible to overcome the constraint violations in
this direction, they may at least be reduced. By using a number of fully stressed design cycles at the
beginning of2018,
Aerospace the5,optimization
3 process, the large value of the maximum constraint violation 17 is ofreduced
26
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3
to a smaller value during the 12th design cycle, as can be seen from Figure 11. After this happens, 17 of 26
violation is reduced to a smaller value during the 12th design cycle, as can be seen from Figure 11.
the value of the objective function starts to increase, allowing additional reduction in the allowable
violation
After this is reducedthe
happens, to value
a smaller
of thevalue during
objective the 12th
function design
starts cycle, as
to increase, can be seen
allowing from Figure
additional reduction11.
constraint value as can be seen from Figures 10 and 11.
After
in thethis happens,
allowable the value
constraint of the
value asobjective function
can be seen from starts to 10
Figures increase,
and 11.allowing additional reduction
in the allowable constraint value as can be seen from Figures 10 and 11.

Figure 10. Variation of the metallic CRM wingbox mass versus the design cycle—configuration #1.
Figure 10. Variation of the metallic CRM wingbox mass versus the design cycle—configuration #1.
Figure 10. Variation of the metallic CRM wingbox mass versus the design cycle—configuration #1.

Figure 11. Maximum constraint value versus design cycle for the metallic CRM wingbox—
configuration #1.
Figure 11. Maximum constraint value versus design cycle for the metallic CRM wingbox—
Figure 11. Maximum constraint value versus design cycle for the metallic CRM wingbox—configuration #1.
configuration #1.

Figure 12. Zoomed region of the maximum constraint value for the metallic CRM wingbox—
configuration #1.
Figure 12. Zoomed region of the maximum constraint value for the metallic CRM wingbox—
Figure 12. Zoomed region of the maximum constraint value for the metallic CRM
configuration #1.
wingbox—configuration
5.2.2. Composite Wingbox #1.Model
5.2.2. Composite Wingbox Model
In this case study, composite materials made up of T300 carbon fibres and N5208 epoxy resin
In this
(widely usedcase study,
in the composite
aircraft materials
industry), made
are used up of T300
as a second carbon
material fibres
choice forand
the N5208
design epoxy resin
of the CRM
(widely used
wingbox in the aircraft
structure with a industry), are used
total number as a second
of 2500 design material choice
variables. for4the
Table designthe
defines of the CRM
material
wingbox structure
properties with [47].
of T300/N5208 a total number of 2500 design variables. Table 4 defines the material
properties of T300/N5208
For modeling the wingbox[47]. using a composite material, a symmetric and balanced laminate with
For modeling the wingbox using a was
ply orientation angles of [45/0/–45/90]s composite
createdmaterial,
in orderato
symmetric and balanced
get an orthotropic laminate
material. Thewith
aim
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 18 of 27

5.2.2. Composite Wingbox Model

In this case study, composite materials made up of T300 carbon fibres and N5208 epoxy resin
(widely used in the aircraft industry), are used as a second material choice for the design of the CRM
wingbox structure with a total number of 2500 design variables. Table 4 defines the material properties
of T300/N5208 [47].
For modeling the wingbox using a composite material, a symmetric and balanced laminate with
ply orientation angles of [45/0/–45/90]s was created in order to get an orthotropic material. The aim
of this design procedure is to avoid shear extension and membrane bending coupled behaviors.
The schematic of the composite laminate is given in Figure 13. The stacking sequence is symmetric
about the mid-plane and is balanced with the same number of +45◦ and −45◦ plies. No 0◦ ply
was placed on the lower or upper surface of the laminate. The minimum ply thickness is taken to
be 0.127 mm; while a 3 mm minimum gauge laminate thickness is recommended to maintain
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 18 of 26
an
adequate level of laminate damage tolerance. The mechanical properties of the composite laminate
werelaminate
evaluated using tolerance.
damage the MSC The
Patran Laminate
mechanical Modelerof[48].
properties the composite laminate were evaluated
using the MSC Patran Laminate Modeler [48].
Table 4. T300/N5208 composite material properties.
Table 4. T300/N5208 composite material properties.
Material Properties T300/N5208
Material Properties T300/N5208
Longitudinal modulus modulus
Longitudinal E11 E11 181
181 GPa
GPa
Transverse modulus E
Transverse modulus
22 E22 10.3
10.3 GPa
GPa
In-plane shear modulus
In-plane G12
shear modulus G12 7.17
7.17 GPa
GPa
Longitudinal tensile strength F1t 1500 MPa
Longitudinal tensile strength F1t 1500 MPa
Longitudinal compressive strength F1c 1500 MPa
Longitudinal compressive strength F1c 1500 MPa
Transverse tensile strength F2t 40 MPa
Transverse tensile
Transverse compressive strength
strength F2c F2t 40 MPa
246 MPa
Transverse compressive
In-plane shear strength F6 strength F2c 246 MPa
68 MPa
In-plane shear strength F6
Density 68 kg/m
1600 MPa 3
Density
Major Poisson’s ratio ν12 1600 kg/m3
0.28
Major Poisson’s ratio ν12 0.28

Table 5 shows the optimized masses of the composite CRM wingbox, using different starting
Table 5 shows the optimized masses of the composite CRM wingbox, using different starting
values for the
values for design variables
the design along
variables alongwith
withdifferent optimizationalgorithms.
different optimization algorithms.
TheThe
boldbold values
values refer refer
to to
the discrete feasible solutions that have been obtained for the composite CRM wingbox.
the discrete feasible solutions that have been obtained for the composite CRM wingbox.

Figure 13. Schematic of the symmetric and balanced composite laminate.

Figure 13. Schematic of the symmetric and balanced composite laminate.
Table 5. Optimized masses of the composite CRM wingbox with different optimization algorithms.
Table 5. Optimized masses of the composite CRM wingbox with different optimization algorithms.
Optimized Mass (kg)
Solution Type
Min 25% Max 50% Max
Optimized 75% Max
Mass (kg) Max
Solution Type
MSCADS-MMFD-1 8816 8824 8591 8704 13,486
Min 25% Max 50% Max 75% Max Max
DOT-MMFD-1 10,837 10,954 11,289 11,465 11,665
MSCADS-MMFD-1 8816 8824 8591 8704 13,486
MSCADS-MMFD-2 8389 8480 8788 8564 8415
DOT-MMFD-1 10,837 10,954 11,289 11,465 11,665
DOT-MMFD-2 8798 8806 8550 8750 10,630
MSCADS-MMFD-2 8389 8480 8788 8564 8415
DOT-MMFD-2 8798 8806 8550 8750 10,630
Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the results of the first and second optimization iterations obtained
using the DOT and MSCADS algorithms for the composite CRM wingbox model.
From the results presented in Table 5 and illustrated in Figures 14 and 15, the same observations
hold as we already mentioned in Table 3 and Figures 8 and 9. However, the results in Table 5 show
that the value of the objective function of the composite CRM wingbox is case-sensitive to both the
choice of the optimization algorithm and the starting values for the design variables. For instance,
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 19 of 27

Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the results of the first and second optimization iterations obtained
using the DOT and MSCADS algorithms for the composite CRM wingbox model.
From the results presented in Table 5 and illustrated in Figures 14 and 15, the same observations
hold as we already mentioned in Table 3 and Figures 8 and 9. However, the results in Table 5 show
that the value of the objective function of the composite CRM wingbox is case-sensitive to both the
choice of the optimization algorithm and the starting values for the design variables. For instance,
using the MSCADS algorithm in the first run of the optimization obtained infeasible discrete solutions.
On the other hand, by using the DOT algorithm in the first run, a feasible discrete design was obtained.
Not only have the chances of finding feasible discrete solutions increased in the second run, but the
value of the objective function against the initial optimized value has also improved. The minimum
optimized mass of the composite CRM wingbox is obtained using the DOT-MMFD-2 iterative solution
with aAerospace
value 2018,
of 8550
5, 3 kg, compared to the initial optimized mass of 10,954 kg. 19 of 26
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 19 of 26

Figure 14. Mass of the optimized composite CRM wingbox using the first iterative procedure.
Figure 14. Mass
Figure of the
14. Mass optimized
of the optimizedcomposite
compositeCRM wingboxusing
CRM wingbox usingthe
the first
first iterative
iterative procedure.
procedure.

Figure 15. Mass of the optimized composite CRM wingbox using the second iterative procedure.
Figure 15. Mass of the optimized composite CRM wingbox using the second iterative procedure.
Figure 15. Mass of the optimized composite CRM wingbox using the second iterative procedure.
Figure 16 shows the history of the objective function as a function of the design cycles for the
Figure 16 shows the history of the objective function as a function of the design cycles for the
composite CRM wingbox model. As can be seen from Figure 16, while hard convergence to an
Figure
composite16 shows the history
CRM wingbox model.of the objective
As can be seen function as a function
from Figure 16, while of theconvergence
hard design cycles for the
to an
optimum and feasible discrete solution is not achieved in 29 design cycles for the composite CRM
composite
optimumCRM andwingbox
feasiblemodel.
discreteAs can beisseen
solution not from Figure
achieved 16,design
in 29 while cycles
hard convergence to an CRM
for the composite optimum
wingbox using the MSCADS-MMFD-1 solution, a hard converged solution is founded using the
wingboxdiscrete
and feasible using the MSCADS-MMFD-1
solution solution,
is not achieved in 29a design
hard converged
cycles for solution is foundedCRM
the composite usingwingbox
the
DOT-MMFD-2 solution in three design cycles. The 0th design cycle corresponds to the initial mass of
DOT-MMFD-2
usingthe
the wingbox
MSCADS-MMFD-1solution in three design
solution, cycles. The 0th design cycle corresponds to the initial mass of
model, which is baseda hard
on theconverged solution
starting values is founded
of the using theContinuous
design variables. DOT-MMFD-2
the
solution wingbox model,
in three design which is
cycles. The based on the
0th design starting values of the design variables. Continuous
optimization for the composite wingbox modelcycle corresponds
is achieved to theiterations
in 28 design initial mass
usingofMSCADS-
the wingbox
optimization for the composite wingbox model is achieved in 28 design iterations using MSCADS-
model, which and
MMFD-1 is based
in twoon the starting
design iterationsvalues
using theof the design variables.
DOT-MMFD-2 solution.Continuous
The 29th andoptimization
32nd design for
MMFD-1 and in two design iterations using the DOT-MMFD-2 solution. The 29th and 32nd design
cycles, as shown
the composite wingbox in Figure
model 16,iscorrespond
achieved to
in the
28 rounded-up
design discreteusing
iterations solution.
MSCADS-MMFD-1 and in
cycles, as shown in Figure 16, correspond to the rounded-up discrete solution.
two design Figures 17
iterations and 18
using (zoomed region)
the DOT-MMFD-2 show the
solution. history
The of of the
29th maximum constraint value with
Figures 17 and 18 (zoomed region) show the history theand 32nd design
maximum cycles,
constraint as shown
value with in
Figurerespect to the design
16, correspond cycles
to cycles for the composite
the rounded-up discrete CRM wingbox model. As can be seen from Figure 17,
solution.
respect to the design for the composite CRM wingbox model. As can be seen from Figure 17,
the initial constraints are violated because the maximum constraint value is greater than the allowable
Figures 17constraints
the initial and 18 (zoomed region)
are violated show
because thethe history of
maximum the maximum
constraint value is constraint
greater thanvalue with respect
the allowable
value of 0.005. The 0th design cycle corresponds to the initial mass of the wingbox, which is calculated
to thevalue
design cyclesThe
of 0.005. for0th
thedesign
composite CRM wingbox
cycle corresponds to themodel. As can
initial mass bewingbox,
of the seen from Figure
which 17, the initial
is calculated
using half of the upper bound value of the design variables. In this case, the search direction has been
using half of the upper bound value of the design variables. In this case, the search direction has been
chosen to reduce the constraint violation. Thus, the objective function value will increase, since the
chosen to reduce the constraint violation. Thus, the objective function value will increase, since the
first priority is to overcome the constraint violations. By using a number of fully stressed design
first priority is to overcome the constraint violations. By using a number of fully stressed design
cycles at the beginning of the optimization process, the large value of the maximum constraint
cycles at the beginning of the optimization process, the large value of the maximum constraint
violation is reduced to a smaller value during the 12th design cycle, as can be seen from Figure 17.
violation is reduced to a smaller value during the 12th design cycle, as can be seen from Figure 17.
After this happens, the value of the objective function starts to increase, allowing additional reduction
After this happens, the value of the objective function starts to increase, allowing additional reduction
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 20 of 27

constraints are violated because the maximum constraint value is greater than the allowable value
of 0.005. The 0th design cycle corresponds to the initial mass of the wingbox, which is calculated
using half of the upper bound value of the design variables. In this case, the search direction has been
chosen to reduce the constraint violation. Thus, the objective function value will increase, since the
first priority is to overcome the constraint violations. By using a number of fully stressed design cycles
at the beginning of the optimization process, the large value of the maximum constraint violation is
reduced to a smaller value during the 12th design cycle, as can be seen from Figure 17. After this
happens, the value of the objective function starts to increase, allowing additional reduction in the
maximum constraint violation value (see Figures 17 and 18, design cycles 13 and 14) before it starts to
decrease again allowing additional reduction in the wingbox optimized mass while trying to overcome
the constraint
Aerospace violations
Aerospace2018,
2018,5,
5,33 in this direction. 20of
20 of26
26

Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 20 of 26

Figure 16.
Figure 16. Variation
Variation of
of the
the composite
composite CRM
CRM wingbox
wingbox mass
mass versus
versus the
the design
design cycle— configuration
cycle—configuration
#3. Variation of the composite CRM wingbox mass versus the design cycle—configuration #3.
Figure 16.
Figure 16. Variation of the composite CRM wingbox mass versus the design cycle—configuration
#3.
#3.

Figure 17.
Figure 17. Maximum
Maximum constraint
constraint value
value versus
versus design
design cycle
cycle for
for the
the composite
composite CRM
CRM wingbox—
wingbox—
Maximum
Figure configuration
17. #3. constraint value versus design cycle for the composite CRM
Figure 17. Maximum
configuration #3. constraint value versus design cycle for the composite CRM wingbox—
wingbox—configuration #3.
configuration #3.

Figure 18.
Figure 18. Zoomed
Zoomed region
region of
of maximum
maximum constraint
constraint value
value for
for the composite
the composite CRM
CRM wingbox—
wingbox—
configuration
configuration #3.
#3.
Figure 18. Zoomed region of maximum constraint value for the composite CRM wingbox—
Zoomed
Figure configuration
18. #3. region of maximum constraint value for the composite CRM
6. Conclusions
Conclusions
wingbox—configuration
6. #3.
6. Conclusions
A practical
practical optimization
optimization procedure
procedure in in an
an industrial
industrial context
context was
was developed
developed as as part
part of
of the
the sizing
sizing
A
optimization
A practical
optimization process,
process, with
optimization enhanced
procedure
with enhanced features in solving
in aninindustrial
features large-scale
context was
solving large-scale nonlinear
developed
nonlinear structural optimization
as partoptimization
structural of the sizing
problems, incorporating
optimization
problems, incorporating
process, with anenhanced
an effectivefeatures
effective initial design
initial design variable
in solving value nonlinear
large-scale
variable value generationstructural
generation scheme based
scheme based on the
optimization
on the
concept
problems,
concept of the fully
of incorporating stressed
the fully stressed design.
an effective The
design. The results
initial design
results of the foregoing
variable
of the case
valuecase
foregoing studies
generation demonstrate
studies scheme that
basedthat
demonstrate the
on the
application
concept of the
application of the
of fully practical optimization
stressed design.
the practical procedure
The results
optimization increased
of the increased
procedure foregoing casethe efficacy of the
studies demonstrate
the efficacy local
of the localthat search
the
search
algorithmsof
application
algorithms ofofMSC
MSC Nastran
theNastran
practicalSoloptimization
Sol 200in
200 inobtaining
obtaining discrete,increased
procedure
discrete, feasible,and
feasible, and optimal
theoptimal
efficacy wingbox mass
of themass
wingbox designs.
localdesigns.
search
Its performance
Its performance
algorithms of MSC is illustrated
is illustrated
Nastran through
Solthrough the application
application
200 in obtaining
the discrete,offeasible,
of two case
two case studies
and optimal
studies in which
in which the
wingbox themass
metallic and
designs.
metallic and
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 21 of 27

6. Conclusions
A practical optimization procedure in an industrial context was developed as part of the sizing
optimization process, with enhanced features in solving large-scale nonlinear structural optimization
problems, incorporating an effective initial design variable value generation scheme based on the
concept of the fully stressed design. The results of the foregoing case studies demonstrate that
the application of the practical optimization procedure increased the efficacy of the local search
algorithms of MSC Nastran Sol 200 in obtaining discrete, feasible, and optimal wingbox mass
designs. Its performance is illustrated through the application of two case studies in which the
metallic and composite wingbox models are optimized for a design of minimum mass. The results
of the metallic CRM wing optimization study showed that the optimized masses obtained using
MSCADS-MMFD-2 and DOT-MMFD-2 were very close to each other, with only slight favorable
overall mass on behalf of the masses obtained using MSCADS-MMFD-2. On the other hand,
the results of the composite CRM wing optimization study showed that when DOT-MMFD-1 is used,
optimized wingbox configurations had significant mass penalties compared to the results obtained
using MSCADS-MMFD-1. However, MSCADS-MMFD-1 solutions converged to infeasible discrete
solutions. By using DOT-MMFD-2 and MSCADS-MMFD-2 iterative procedures, feasible discrete
solutions were obtained and the mass penalties were decreased. Therefore, it can be revealed that
the change in the optimized mass value—as a consequence of using different starting values for the
design variables, as well as switching between different gradient-based algorithms in deriving the
local optimum at each iteration step—is more appreciable in the case of the composite construct than
in the case of the metallic construct. It is anticipated, therefore, that each optimization algorithm will
have completely different search routes from the initial to final points, with the output as the solution.
Moreover, using composite construction materials will dramatically alter the size of the design space,
thereby increasing the number of solutions available to the designer, with the aim of improving the
overall structural performance of the wing components.

Author Contributions: Odeh Dababneh performed all simulations and wrote the manuscript. Timoleon Kipouros
and James F. Whidborne provided guidance and feedback on the results presented in the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
This appendix presents an overview of the basic mathematical programming as applied to
optimization tasks. In Appendix A.1 the numerical searching process for an optimum solution using
function gradients is described. Appendix A.2 provides description of the concept of active and
violated constraints.

Appendix A.1 Numerically Searching for an Optimum and Gradients Calculation

The optimization algorithms in MSC Nastran belong to a family of methods generally referred to
as ‘gradient-based’, since they use function gradients in addition to function values in order to assist
in the numerical search for an optimum. The numerical search process can be summarized as follows:
for a given point in the design space, we determine the gradients of the objective function and its
constraints, and use this information to determine a search direction. We then proceed in this direction
as far as possible, after which we investigate to see if we are at an optimum point. If we are not,
we repeat the process until we can make no further improvement in our objective without violating
any of the constraints.
The first step in a numerical search procedure is determining the direction in which to search.
The situation may be somewhat complicated if the current design is infeasible (with one or more
violated constraints) or if one or more constraints are critical. For an infeasible design, we are outside
of one of the fences, to use a hill analogy. In the case of a critical design, we are standing immediately
adjacent to a fence. In general, we need to know at least the gradient of our objective function and
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 22 of 27

perhaps some of the constraint functions as well. The process of taking small steps in each of the
design variable directions (supposing we are not restricted by the fences for this step) corresponds
exactly to the mathematical concept of a first-forward finite difference approximation of a derivative.
For a single independent variable, the first-forward difference is given by

d f ( x ) ∼ f ( x + ∆x ) − f ( x )
= , (A1)
dy ∆x

where the quantity ∆x represents the small step taken in the direction x. For the most practical design
tasks, we are usually concerned with a vector of design variables. The resultant vector of partial
derivatives, or gradient, of the function can be written as

F (X+∆x1 )− F (X)
   
∂F
∆x1
 


 ∂x1 










 . 




 . 


∇ F (X) = . ∼
= . (A2)
   


 . 




 . 


F (X+∆xn )− F (X)
   
 ∂F  
 

∂xn ∆xn

where each partial derivative is a single component of the dimensional vector.

Physically, the gradient vector points uphill, or in the direction of increasing objective function.
If we want to minimize the objective function, we will actually move in a direction opposite to that of
the gradient. The steepest descent algorithm searches in the direction defined by the negative of the
objective function gradient, or
SD = −∇ F, (A3)

Proceeding in this direction reduces the function value most rapidly. SD is referred to as the
search vector.
MSC Nastran uses the steepest descent direction only when none of the constraints are critical
or violated; even then, it is only used as the starting point for other, more efficient search algorithms.
The difficulty in practice stems from the fact that, although the direction of steepest descent is usually
an appropriate starting direction, subsequent search directions often fail to improve the objective
function significantly. In MSC Nastran, more efficient methods, which can be generalized for the cases
of active and/or violated constraints, are usually used.
Once a search direction has been determined, we proceeded ‘downhill’ until we collided with
a fence, or until we reached the lowest point along our current path. It is important to note that
this requires us to take a number of steps in this given direction, which is equivalent to a number
of function evaluations in numerical optimization. For a search direction SD and a vector of design
variables X, the new design at the conclusion of our search in this direction can be written as

X1 = X0 + α∗ S1D , (24)

where X0 is the initial vector of design variables, S1D is the search vector, and α∗ is the value of the search
parameter α that yields the optimal design in the direction defined by SD . Equation (A4), represents
a one-dimensional search since the update on X1 depends only on the single scalar parameter α.
This relation allows us to update a potentially huge number of design variables by varying the single
parameter α. When we can no longer proceed in this search direction, we have the value of α which
represents the move required to reach the best design possible for this particular direction. This value
is defined as α∗ . The new objective and constraints can now be expressed as

F1 = F (X0 + α∗ S1D ), (25)

g1j = g j (X0 + α∗ S1D ), J = 1, 2, . . . , n g (26)

Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 23 of 27

From this new point in the design space, we can again compute the gradients and establish
another search direction based on this information. Again, we will proceed in this new direction until
no further improvement can be made, repeating the process if necessary. At a certain point, we will
not be able to establish a search direction that can yield an improved design. We may be at the bottom
of the hill, or we may have proceeded as far as possible without crossing over a fence. In the numerical
search algorithm, it is necessary to have some formal definition of an optimum. Any trial design
can then be measured against this criterion to see if it is met, and if an optimum has been found.
This required definition is provided by the Kuhn–Tucker conditions.
Figure A1 shows a two design variable space with constraints g1 (X) and g2 (X) and the objectives
function F (X). The constraint boundaries are those curves for which the constraint values are both
zero. A few contours of constant objective are shown as well; these can be thought of as contour lines
drawn along constant elevations of the hill. The optimum point in this example is the point which lies
at theAerospace
intersection ∗
2018, 5, 3of the two constraints. This location is shown as X . 23 of 26

Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 23 of 26

Figure A1. Kuhn–Tucker condition at a constrained optimum.

Figure A1. Kuhn–Tucker condition at a constrained optimum.
If we compute the gradients
Figure of the objective
A1. Kuhn–Tucker and the
condition two active constraints
at a constrained optimum. at the optimum, we
see
If wethat they allthe
compute point off roughly
gradients of theinobjective
differentand
directions
the two (itactive
shouldconstraints
be remembered at the that function
optimum, we see
gradients
that they Ifallwe point
point in the
off roughly
compute direction of
in different
the gradients increasing function
directions
of the objective and(itthe values).
should For this
be remembered
two active situation—a
constraints at that constrained
thefunction
optimum,gradients
we
optimum—the
pointseein that they allKuhn–Tucker
the direction point conditions
off roughly
of increasing state
in different
function that theFor
directions
values). vector
(it sum
should
this of
bethe objective
remembered
situation—a and
that all
constrained active
function
optimum—
constraintspoint
gradients mustinbetheequal to zeroofgiven
direction an appropriate choice
increasing of For
multiplying factors. These factors
the Kuhn–Tucker conditions state that the vectorfunction
sum of values).
the objective this
andsituation—a constrained
all active constraints must
are called
optimum—the the Lagrange
Kuhn–Tuckermultipliers. Constraints
conditions state ofwhich
that are not
the vector sum active at the proposed
of theThese
objective optimum
and are are
all active
be equal to zero given an appropriate choice multiplying factors. factors called the
not included
constraints in the
must bevector
equal summation.
to zero given an appropriate choice of multiplying factors. These factors
LagrangeFiguremultipliers.
A2 Constraints
shows this to be thewhich
case, are notλactive
where and at λ the
are proposed optimum are not included in
are called the Lagrange multipliers. Constraints which are notthe values
active of
at the the Lagrange
proposed multipliers
optimum are
the vector summation.
thatincluded
enable the
not in zero vectorsummation.
the vector sum condition to be met. It is likely that we could convince ourselves that
Figure A2 shows
this condition
Figure A2could
showsthis
not to
betobe
this bethe
met forcase,
the where
any other
case, where point and
λλ1 and
in the arethe
are thevalues
λλ2neighboring valuesof of
design the Lagrange
thespace.
Lagrange multipliers
multipliers
that enable the zero
that enable vector
the zero vectorsumsum condition
conditionto tobe
be met.
met. ItItisislikely
likelythat
thatwewe could
could convince
convince ourselves
ourselves that that
this condition could
this condition notnot
could be bemetmetforforany
anyother
otherpoint in the
point in theneighboring
neighboring design
design space.
space.

Figure A2. Graphical interpretation of Kuhn–Tucker conditions.

The Kuhn–Tucker conditions

Figure A2. are useful
Graphical even if there
interpretation of are no active constraints at the optimum.
Figure A2. Graphical interpretation ofKuhn–Tucker
Kuhn–Tucker conditions.
conditions.
In this case, only the objective function gradient is considered, and this is identically equal to zero;
any finite move in any conditions
The Kuhn–Tucker direction will
are not decrease
useful even ifthe objective
there are nofunction. A zero objective
active constraints function
at the optimum.
gradient indicates a stationary condition. Not only are the Kuhn–Tucker conditions
In this case, only the objective function gradient is considered, and this is identically equal to zero;useful in
determining whether we have achieved an optimal design, but they are also physically
any finite move in any direction will not decrease the objective function. A zero objective functionintuitive. The
optimizerindicates
gradient tests the aKuhn–Tucker conditionsNot
stationary condition. in connection
only are the withKuhn–Tucker
the search direction determination
conditions useful in
algorithm.
determining whether we have achieved an optimal design, but they are also physically intuitive. The
optimizer tests the Kuhn–Tucker conditions in connection with the search direction determination
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 24 of 27

The Kuhn–Tucker conditions are useful even if there are no active constraints at the optimum.
In this case, only the objective function gradient is considered, and this is identically equal to
zero; any finite move in any direction will not decrease the objective function. A zero objective
function gradient indicates a stationary condition. Not only are the Kuhn–Tucker conditions
useful in determining whether we have achieved an optimal design, but they are also physically
intuitive. The optimizer tests the Kuhn–Tucker conditions in connection with the search direction
determination algorithm.

Appendix A.2 Numerically Identifying the Active and Violated Constraints

The optimization algorithm determines which of the retained constraints are violated and which
are active. The constraints that are neither active nor violated can be ignored in the gradient evaluation.
This reduces the amount of computations and computer memory required, as well as the size of the
mathematical
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3programming task. Figure A3 illustrates the concept of active and violated constraints
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3
24 of 26
24 of 26
for a single inequality constraint in a simple two-design variable space. Figure A4 presents the same
presents
informationthe in
same information
a plot in a plot
of a constraint of a constraint
value value as a function of a single design variable
presents the same information in a plot of as a functionvalue
a constraint of a single design variable
as a function or search
of a single designdirection.
variable
or constraint
A search direction.
is A constraint
considered active is its
if considered
numerical active
value ifexceeds
its numerical
CT. Thevalue exceeds
default value CT.
for Theisdefault
CT −0.03,
or search direction. A constraint is considered active if its numerical value exceeds CT. The default
value for
but this CT is −0.03, but this can be changed by the user. Once a constraint is active, its gradient is
value forcan
CTbeis changed
−0.03, butby thecan
this user.
be Once a constraint
changed is active,
by the user. Once its gradient isisincluded
a constraint active, itsingradient
the searchis
included in the search
directionincomputation. direction computation.
An active An
constraintAn active
may constraint
subsequently may subsequently
become become
inactive become inactive
if its value falls
included the search direction computation. active constraint may subsequently inactive
if its value
below CT. falls below CT.
if its value falls below CT.

Figure A3.
Figure A3. Active and
Active and
A3. Active violated
and violated constraints.
violated constraints.
constraints.
Figure

Figure A4. CT and CTMIN.

Figure
Figure A4.
A4. CT
CT and
and CTMIN.
CTMIN.
The optimizer designates a constraint as violated if its value is greater than CTMIN. The CTMIN
The optimizer designates a constraint as violated if its value is greater than CTMIN. The CTMIN
Theisoptimizer
default designates
0.003, as seen a constraint
in Figure A4. Thus,asa violated if its value
small constraint is greater
violation than CTMIN.
(three-tenths The percent,
of one CTMIN
default is 0.003, as seen in Figure A4. Thus, a small constraint violation (three-tenths of one percent,
default is 0.003, as seen
by default) is tolerated. in Figure A4. Thus, a small constraint violation (three-tenths of one percent,
by default) is tolerated.
by default) is tolerated.
References
References
1. Brennan, J. Integrating Optimization into the Design Process. In Proceedings of the Altair HyperWorks
1. Brennan, J. Integrating Optimization into the Design Process. In Proceedings of the Altair HyperWorks
Technology Showcase, London, UK, 1999.
Technology Showcase, London, UK, 1999.
2. Cervellera, P. Optimization Driven Design Process: Practical Experience on Structural Components. In
2. Cervellera, P. Optimization Driven Design Process: Practical Experience on Structural Components. In
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 25 of 27

References
1. Brennan, J. Integrating Optimization into the Design Process. In Proceedings of the Altair HyperWorks
Technology Showcase, London, UK, 1999.
2. Cervellera, P. Optimization Driven Design Process: Practical Experience on Structural Components.
In Proceedings of the 14th Convegno Nazionae ADM, Bari, Italy, 31 August–2 September 2004.
3. Gartmeier, O.; Dunne, W.L. Structural Optimization in Vehicle Design Development. In Proceedings of the
MSC Worldwide Automotive Conference, Munich, Germany, 20–22 September 1999.
4. Krog, L.; Tucker, A.; Rollema, G. Application of Topology, Sizing and Shape Optimization Methods to
Optimal Design of Aircraft Components. In Proceedings of the 3rd Altair UK HyperWorks Users Conference,
London, UK, 2002; Available online: http://www.soton.ac.uk/~jps7/Aircraft%20Design%20Resources/
manufacturing/airbus%20wing%20rib%20design.pdf (accessed on 4 January 2018).
5. Krog, L.; Tucker, A.; Kempt, M.; Boyd, R. Topology Optimization of Aircraft Wing Box Ribs, AIAA-2004-4481.
In Proceedings of the 10th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization,
Albany, NY, USA, 30 August–1 September 2004.
6. Schumacher, G.; Stettner, M.; Zotemantel, R.; O’Leary, O.; Wagner, M. Optimization Assisted Structural
Design of New Military Transport Aircraft, AIAA-2004-4641. In Proceedings of the 10th AIAA MAO
Conference, Albany, NY, USA, 30 August–1 September 2004.
7. Wasiutynski, Z.; Brandt, A. The Present State of Knowledge in the Field of Optimum Design of Structures.
Appl. Mech. Rev. 1963, 16, 341–350.
8. Schmit, L.A. Structural synthesis—Its genesis and development. AIAA J. 1981, 19, 1249–1263. [CrossRef]
9. Vanderplaats, G.N. Structural Optimization-Past, Present, and Future. AIAA J. 1982, 20, 992–1000. [CrossRef]
10. Maxwell, C. Scientific Papers. 1952, 2, 175–177. Available online: http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/
maxwell-scientificpapers-vol-ii-dover.pdf (accessed on 21 April 2015).
11. Michell, A.G. The limits of economy of material in frame-structures. Lond. Edinb. Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci.
1904, 8, 589–597. [CrossRef]
12. Shanley, F. Weight-Strength Analysis of Aircraft Structures; Dover Publication Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1950.
13. Dantzig, G.B. Programming in Linear Structures; Comptroller, U.S.A.F: Washington, DC, USA, 1948.
14. Heyman, J. Plastic Design of Beams and Frames for Minimum Material Consumption. Q. Appl. Math. 1956,
8, 373–381. [CrossRef]
15. Schmit, L.A. Structural Design by Systematic Synthesis. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference ASCE on
Electronic Computation, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 8–10 September 1960; American Society of Civil Engineers:
Reston, VA, USA, 1960; pp. 105–122.
16. Venkayya, V.B. Design of Optimum Structures. Comput. Struct. 1971, 1, 265–309. [CrossRef]
17. Prager, W.; Taylor, J.E. Problems in Optimal Structural Design. J. Appl. Mech. 1968, 36, 102–106. [CrossRef]
18. Schmit, L.A.; Farshi, B. Some Approximation Concepts for Structural Synthesis. AIAA J. 1974, 12, 692–699.
[CrossRef]
19. Starnes, J.R., Jr.; Haftka, R.T. Preliminary Design of Composite Wings for Buckling, Stress and Displacement
Constraints. J. Aircr. 1979, 16, 564–570. [CrossRef]
20. Gellatly, R.H.; Berke, L.; Gibson, W. The use of Optimality Criterion in Automated Structural Design.
In Proceedings of the 3rd Air Force Conference on Matrix Methods in Structural Mechanics, Wright Patterson
AFB, OH, USA, 19–21 October 1971.
21. Brugh, R.L. NASA Structural Analysis System (NASTRAN); National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA): Washington, DC, USA, 1989.
22. Haug, E.J.; Choi, K.K.; Komkov, V. Design Sensitivity Analysis of Structural Systems, 1st ed.; Academic Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986; Volume 177.
23. Haftka, R.T.; Adelman, H.M. Recent developments in structural sensitivity analysis. Struct. Optim. 1989, 1,
137–151. [CrossRef]
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 26 of 27

24. Arora, J.S.; Huang, M.W.; Hsieh, C.C. Methods for optimization of nonlinear problems with discrete variables:
A review. Struct. Optim. 1994, 8, 69–85. [CrossRef]
25. Sandgren, E. Nonlinear integer and discrete programming for topological decision making in engineering
design. J. Mech. Des. 1990, 112, 118–122. [CrossRef]
26. Thanedar, P.B.; Vanderplaats, G.N. Survey of Discrete Variable Optimization for Structural Design. J. Struct.
Eng. ASCE 1995, 121, 301–306. [CrossRef]
27. Moore, G.J. MSC Nastran 2012 Design Sensitivity and Optimization User’s Guide; MSC Software Corporation:
Santa Ana, CA, USA, 2012.
28. Gill, P.; Murray, W.; Saunders, M. SNOPT: An SQP Algorithm for Large Scale Constrained Optimization.
SIAM J. Optim. 2002, 12, 979–1006. [CrossRef]
29. Dennis, J.E., Jr.; Schnabel, R.B. Numerical Methods for Unconstrained Optimization and Nonlinear Equations;
Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1983.
30. Kim, H.; Papila, M.; Mason, W.H.; Haftka, R.T.; Watson, L.T.; Grossman, B. Detection and Repair of Poorly
Converged Optimization Runs. AIAA J. 2001, 39, 2242–2249. [CrossRef]
31. Klimmek, T. Parametric Set-Up of a Structural Model for FERMAT Configuration for Aeroelastic and Loads
Analysis. J. Aeroelast. Struct. Dyn. 2014, 3, 31–49.
32. Jutte, C.V.; Stanford, B.K.; Wieseman, C.D. Internal Structural Design of the Common Research Model Wing Box
for Aeroelastic Tailoring; Technical Report-TM-2015-218697; National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA): Hampton, VA, USA, 2015.
33. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). FAR 25, Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes
(Title 14 CFR Part 25). Available online: http://flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25.html (accessed on
15 January 2014).
34. European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance
for Large Aeroplanes CS-25, Amendment 16. Available online: http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/
CS-2520Amdendment16.pdf (accessed on 28 March 2015).
35. ESDU. Computer Program for Estimation of Spanwise Loading of Wings with Camber and Twist in Subsonic
Attached Flow. Lifting-Surface Theory. 1999. Available online: https://www.esdu.com/cgi-bin/ps.pl?sess=
cranfield5_1160220142018cql&t=doc&p=esdu_95010c (accessed on 12 March 2014).
36. Tomas, M. User’s Guide and Reference Manual for Tornado. 2000. Available online: http://www.tornado.
redhammer.se/index.php/documentation/documents (accessed on 12 March 2014).
37. Torenbeek, E. Development and Application of a Comprehensive Design Sensitive Weight Prediction Method for
Wing Structures of Transport Category Aircraft; Delft University of Technology: Delft, The Netherlands, 1992.
38. Jones, R.M. Mechanics of Composite Materials, 2nd ed.; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
39. Tsai, S.W.; Hahn, H.T. Introduction to Composite Materials; Technomic Publishing Co.: Lancaster, PA, USA, 1980.
40. Kassapoglou, C. Review of Laminate Strength and Failure Criteria, in Design and Analysis of Composite Structures:
with Applications to Aerospace Structures; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2013.
41. Niu, M.C. Composite Airframe Structures, 3rd ed.; Conmilit Press Ltd.: Hong Kong, China, 2010.
42. Oliver, M.; climent, H.; Rosich, F. Non Linear Effects of Applied Loads and Large Deformations on Aircraft
Normal Modes. In Proceedings of the RTO AVT Specialists’ Meeting on Structural Aspects of Flexible
Aircraft Control, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 18–20 October 1999.
43. Liu, Q.; Mulani, S.; Kapani, R.K. Global/Local Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Subsonic Wing,
AIAA 2014-0471. In Proceedings of the 10th AIAA Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Conference,
National Harbor, MD, USA, 13–17 January 2014.
44. Barker, D.K.; Johnson, J.C.; Johnson, E.H.; Layfield, D.P. Integration of External Design Criteria with MSC.
Nastran Structural Analysis and Optimization. In Proceedings of the MSC Worldwide Aerospace Conference
& Technology Showcase, Toulouse, France, 24–16 September 2001; MSC Software Corporation: Santa Ana,
CA, USA, 2002.
45. ASM Aerospace Specification Metals Inc. (ASM). ASM Aerospace Specification Metals, Aluminum
7050-T7451. 1978. Available online: http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=
MA7050T745 (accessed on 12 June 2014).
Aerospace 2018, 5, 3 27 of 27

46. ASM Aerospace Specification Metals Inc. (ASM). ASM Aerospace Specification Metals, Aluminum 2024-T3.
1978. Available online: http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=%20MA2024T3
(accessed on 12 June 2014).
47. Soni, S.R. Elastic Properties of T300/5208 Bidirectional Symmetric Laminates—Technical Report Afwal-Tr-80-4111;
Materials Laboratory, Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, Air Force Systems Command: Dayton,
OH, USA, 1980.
48. MSC Patran Laminate Modeler User’s Guide; MSC Software Corporation: Santa Ana, CA, USA, 2008.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).