Document Type: Research Paper
Authors
^{1} Buein Zahra Technical University
^{2} Amirkabir University of Technology
Abstract
Keywords

Mechanics of Advanced Composite Structures 4 (2017) 99110 

Semnan University 
Mechanics of Advanced Composite Structures journal homepage: http://MACS.journals.semnan.ac.ir 
Vibration Optimization of FiberMetal Laminated Composite Shallow Shell Panels Using an Adaptive PSO Algorithm
H. GhashochiBargh ^{a}^{*}, M.H. Sadr ^{b}
^{a }Department of Industrial, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Buein Zahra Technical University, Buein Zahra, Qazvin, Iran
^{b }Aerospace Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, Hafez Avenue, Tehran, Iran
Paper INFO 

ABSTRACT 
Paper history: Received 20161117 Revised 20170404 Accepted 20170411 
The paper illustrates the application of a combined adaptive particle swarm optimization (APSO) algorithm and the ﬁnite strip method (FSM) to the layup optimization of symmetrically fibermetal laminated (FML) composite shallow shell panels for maximizing the fundamental frequency. To improve the speed of the optimization process, adaptive inertia weight was used in the particle swarm optimization algorithm to modify the search process. The use of the inertia weight provided a balance between global and local exploration and exploitation and resulted in fewer iterations on average to find an optimal solution. The fitness function was computed with a semianalytical FSM. The number of layers, the fiber orientation angles, edge conditions, length/width (a/b) ratios, and length/radii of curvature (a/R) ratios were considered as design variables. The classical shallow shell theory (Donnell’s formulation) was applied to calculate the natural frequencies of FML cylindrical curved panels. A program using Maple software was developed for this purpose. To check the validity, the obtained results were compared with some other stacking sequences. The numerical results of the proposed approach were also compared with other algorithms, which showed that the APSO algorithm provides a much higher convergence and reduces the required CPU time in searching for a global optimization solution. With respect to the first natural frequency and weight, a biobjective optimization strategy for the optimal stacking sequence of FML panels is also presented using the weighted summation method.




Keywords: Fiber metal laminate Shallow shell Optimization Adaptive PSO algorithm 

DOI: 10.22075/MACS.2017.1744.1087 
© 2017 Published by Semnan University Press. All rights reserved. 
Fibermetal laminate (FML) composites are laminates composed of alternating layers of reinforced polymeric composites and aluminum alloys in such a way that the aluminum alloy sheets are outer layers that protect the inner composite layers. FMLs’ main attribute is their improved fatigue resistance. Because of their outer aluminum alloy layers, FMLs have improved resistance to impacts and environmental conditions. The use of aluminum alloy layers improves specific stiffness and strength and also results in weight savings in the design of tensiondominated stresses in structural components. These hybrid materials are divided into three groups according to the type of fiber used in the polymeric composite layers, as follows: reinforced with aramid fibers (ARALL), glass fibers (GLARE), and carbon fibers (CARALL) [1, 2]. They have been introduced as structural composite materials for advanced aerospace applications, such as in the Airbus A380 aircraft fuselage, as aircraft lower wing skin, and as the internal parts of airplanes [3]. Figure 1 shows an FMLcomposite shallow shell panel structure that is discretized by strips. In aerospace applications, vibration can be a problem when the excitation frequency coincides with the resonance frequency, which is essential to maximize the fundamental frequency in laminated cylindrical panels.
Figure 1. Cylindrical curved FML panel structure discretized by strips.

Several researchers have reported different studies on optimizing the natural frequency of laminated composite materials. Mateus et al. [4] studied the optimal design of thin, laminated plates and obtained results for the maximum fundamental frequency and minimum elastic strain energy using the ﬁnite element method to determine the frequency response. Narita [5] offered a Ritzbased layerwise optimization approach for symmetrical composite plates with respect to ﬁber orientation. Apalak et al. [6] determined the optimal layer sequences of symmetrical composite plates using a genetic algorithm, artiﬁcial neural networks, and the ﬁnite element method. The fundamental frequency optimization of laminated composite plates was studied by Ghashochi and Sadr [7, 8] using an elitist genetic algorithm, a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm, and the finite strip method. They also studied the optimal design of FML plates and obtained results for the maximum fundamental frequency using a PSO algorithm [9]. Sumana et al. [10] investigated the effect of fiber orientation on the hydrostatic buckling behavior of a fibermetal composite cylinder. Moniri Bidgoli and HeidariRarani [11] investigated the buckling behavior of an FML circular cylindrical shell under axial compression via both analytical and finite element approaches. They studied the effects of FML parameters such as metal volume fraction (MVF), composite fiber orientation, the stacking sequence of layers, and geometric parameters on the buckling loads. Topal [12] studied the frequency optimization of symmetrically laminated angleply annular sector plates using the firstorder shear deformation theory and finite element method to investigate the effects of annularity, boundary conditions, and sector angles on the optimal designs. Nazari et al. [13] optimized the maximum natural frequencies of FMLs of cylindrical shells. They used firstorder deformation theory and the double Fourier series to solve the free vibration problem.
The objective of the present study was to ﬁnd the optimum stacking sequence of the inner composite layers of FML shallow shell panels that gives the maximum natural frequency using the adaptive PSO (APSO) algorithm and finite strip method. To improve the speed of the optimization process, an adaptive strategy was used in the PSO algorithm. The classical shallow shell theory (Donnell’s formulation) was used for the ﬁnite strip formulation of the laminated shallow shell panels. Finally, the effect of different panel aspect ratios, ply angles, number of layers, and boundary conditions on the optimal designs was investigated.
(1a) 
The classical shallow shell theory (CST) was used to perform the analysis. In the CST, the constitutive equations for a shallow shell panel can be expressed by performing appropriate analytical integration through the uniform thickness, as follows [14]:
where N_{x}, N_{y}, and N_{xy} are the membrane direct and shearing stress resultants per unit length; M_{x}_{, }M_{y}, and M_{xy }are the bending and twisting stress couples per unit length; and A_{ij}, B_{ij,} and D_{ij} are the matrices of stiffness coefficients. These matrices are defined by the following:
(1b) 
and ε and ψ are the inplane strain vectors at the midplane and the curvature strain vector. They are defined by the following:

(1c) 
The panel stiffness coefficients are defined as
(2) 
Here, is the transformed reduced stiffness matrix. Due to the symmetry of the layup, the coupling between inplane and outofplane force and deformations will not appear (i.e., ).
The strain energy of the structure per unit volume is . Using Equations (1) and (2) and integrating through the thickness of the structure with respect to z gives an expression for the strain energy of a finite strip, which can be put into the following form:
(3) 
The general expression for the strip kinetic energy is:
(4) 
(11) 
where [k] is the strip stiffness matrix, [m] is the strip mass matrix, {d} is a column matrix that contains the strip’s degrees of freedom, and ρ is the mean mass per unit area of the panel. For the whole structure, the total strain energy and kinetic energy are obtained by summations of the corresponding energy components of all strips.
The structural equation of motions can be obtained by applying the Lagrange equations as
(5) 
The solution of this eigenvalue problem is
(6) 
where ω are the natural frequencies. The natural frequency is normalized as a frequency parameter in
(7) 
where the reference bending rigidity is
(8) 
The optimal design problem can be stated as follows:
(9) 
where k, Al, and ϴare half of the inner composite layers’ number, the number of aluminum layers, and the optimum ply angles, respectively. The optimal stacking sequences and ply angles were searched for with the APSO algorithm.
In the biobjective optimization of FML panels, the objective functions combined with each other through the weighted summation method. The obtained single objective function was then optimized using APSO. To simultaneously maximize the fundamental natural frequency and minimize the weight, the objective function was considered to be in the form f(θ, Al) as a function of laminated angles and the sequence of metal and composite layers, which is deﬁned as
(10) 
where W1 and W2 are the weighting coefficients that sum the two objective functions to have a single fitness function, ω and σ are the optimum frequency and optimum weight, and ω_{0} and σ_{0} are the fundamental frequency and weight corresponding to the prescribed stacking sequences [Al/90/0/90]_{s }[8].
In addition, the biobjective optimization of FML panels is considered as follows:
where ρ, t, and A are density, thickness, and area of layers, respectively.
The assumed inplane displacement and outofplane displacement in the fullenergy semianalytical finite strip method are
(12) 
where u_{li}, u_{2i}, v_{li}, and v_{2i }are the undetermined inplane nodal displacement parameters; w_{li}, w_{2i}, ϴ_{li}, andϴ_{2i} are the undetermined, outofplane nodal displacement parameters along the edges of the strip; ; and [8, 9].
PSO is a populationbased stochastic optimization technique developed by Eberhart and Kennedy in 1995 [15] inspired by the social behavior of animals, such as fish schooling, insects swarming, and birds flocking. This method is used to search for the global optimum of a wide variety of arbitrary problems. PSO shares many similarities with evolutionary computation techniques such as genetic algorithms (GA). However, unlike GA, PSO has no evolution operators such as crossover and mutation. Compared to GA, PSO is based on social biology, which requires cooperation, while GA is based on competition. The advantages of PSO are its simple structure, its immediate accessibility for practical applications, its ease of implementation, its speed to acquire solutions, and its robustness. In PSO, each single solution is a “bird” in the search space. We call it “particle.” All of the particles have fitness values that are evaluated by the fitness function to be optimized and have velocities that direct the flight of the particles. The particles fly through the problem space by following the currently optimum particles.
PSO is initialized with a group of random particles and then searches for optima by updating generations. In every iteration, each particle is updated by following two "best" values. The first one (p^{i}) is the best position attained by the particle i in the swarm so far. Another best value ( ) is the global best position attained by the swarm at iteration k1. After finding the two best values, the basic swarm parameters of position and velocity are updated using the following equations at each iteration [16]:
, 
(13) 
, 
(14) 
where the superscript i denotes the particle; the subscript k denotes the iteration number; v denotes the velocity; and x, which is a real number, denotes the position. The variables r_{1} and r_{2 }are uniformly distributed random numbers in the interval [1,1], and c_{1} and c_{2 }are the acceleration constants. In a different reference, it is mentioned that the choice of these constants is problemdependent. In this work, c_{1} = c_{2 }= 1 was chosen, which gives optimal results in fewer iterations. The results were also rounded to the nearest integer values after optimization. A simple way to understand this updating procedure is described by Hassan, Cohanim, and Weck [17].
Since the initial development of PSO by Kennedy and Eberhart, several variants of this algorithm have been proposed by researchers. The ﬁrst modiﬁcation introduced in PSO was the use of an inertia weight parameter in the velocity update equation of the initial PSO, resulting in Equation (13), a PSO model that is now accepted as the global best PSO algorithm [18]. It is as follows:
(15) 
In Eberhart and Shi’s paper [19], a random value of inertia weight was used to enable the PSO to track the optima in a dynamic environment. It is difficult to predict whether a given time exploration (large values of w) or exploitation (small values of w) would be better in dynamic environments. So, a random value of w is selected to address this problem.
, 
(16) 
where rand() is a random number in [0,1] and w is then a uniform random variable in the range [0.5,1].
In the papers by Eberhart and Shi [20, 21], a linearly decreasing inertia weight was introduced and was shown to be effective in improving the ﬁnetuning characteristic of the PSO. In this method, the value of w is linearly decreased from an initial value of w to a ﬁnal value of w according to the following equation:
, 
(17) 
where iter is the current iteration of the algorithm, and iter_{max} is the maximum number of iterations the PSO is allowed to continue. This strategy is very common, and most of the PSO algorithms adjust the value of inertia weight using this updating scheme.
. 
(18) 
There are other approaches that use decreasing inertia weights [22], such as
In the present study, an adaptive strategy was used in the algorithm. In this strategy, a more diverse set of solutions generate near the best solutions so far until the end of each cycle in the algorithm. The use of an adaptive inertia weight provides a balance between global and local exploration and exploitation, and results in fewer iterations on average to find a sufficiently optimal solution. A parameter is defined to control the amount of generated solutions near the best solutions. In the algorithm, this parameter was assumed to be 20% of the best solutions. Thus, the same number of solutions will always be generated from a solution. As the value of the parameter increases, the PSO search becomes more localized. Thus, using a large value for the parameter may prevent the PSO from finding the global optimum. A selection procedure based on the fitness function picks the best solutions and replaces them in algorithm.
Adaptive inertia weight is updated using the following equation at each iteration [23]:
, 
(19) 
where Fitness _{min} is the minimum value of Fitness and Fitness _{max} is the maximum value of Fitness in every iteration of the PSO.
Table 1.Test functions used in the paper were unimodal (U), multimodal (M), separable (S), and nonseparable (N).
No. 
Function Name 
Test Function 
x_{min} 
f(x)_{min} 

1 
Bohachevsky 1 (BO1, MS) 
(0,0) 
0 

2 
Bohachevsky 2 (BO2, MN) 
(0,0) 
0 

3 
Branin RCOS (RC, MN) 

4 
Easom (ES, UN) 
1 

5 
Goldstein and Price (GP, MN) 
(0,1) 
3 

6 
Sixhump Camel Back (SB,MN) 
1.03163 

7 
Shubert (SH, MN) 
Include 760 local minimum 
186.730 

8 
Colville (CO, UN) 
(1,1,1,1) 
0 

9 
Michalewicz (MI, MS) 
Include local minimum 
3.3223 

10 
Griewank (GR, MN) 
(0,…,0) 
0 

To evaluate the proposed algorithm (APSO), it was compared with three other optimization algorithms. To investigate the performance of the optimization algorithms, ten benchmark test functions were adopted. Table 1 provides a detailed description of these functions.
The performance of the APSO is shown in Tables 2–5 in comparison with other algorithms for different parameters. From the tables, it can be inferred that for the ten test problems, APSO performed better than ABC and PSO in the case of nine problems. As seen from tables, the results obtained by APSO are closer to the results of RABC, whereas RABC performs better than APSO for five functions. In addition, it was concluded that using APSO provides a much higher convergence and reduces the required CPU time in comparison with the ABC and PSO algorithms.
Table 2.Search result comparisons on ten test functions.
APSO 
PSO 
RABC [24] 
ABC [24] 
Global Minimum 
Problem Dimension 
Function 
No. 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
BO1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
BO2 
2 
0.397887 
0.397887 
0.397887 
0.397887 
0.397887 
2 
RC 
3 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
ES 
4 
3 
3.000071 
3 
3.000010 
3 
2 
GP 
5 
1.03163 
1.03163 
1.03163 
1.03163 
1.03163 
2 
SB 
6 
186.7309 
186.7309 
186.7309 
186.7309 
186.7309 
2 
SH 
7 
1.0165e39 
1.7965e6 
1.1989e27 
1.6073e1 
0 
4 
CO 
8 
9.66015 
9.66015 
9.66015 
9.66015 
9.66015 
10 
MI 
9 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
30 
GR 
10 
Table 3. The standard deviation of the best solutions on ten test functions.
APSO 
PSO 
RABC [24] 
ABC [24] 
Problem Dimension 
Function 
No. 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
BO1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
BO2 
2 
3.3054e16 
3.4742e16 
3.3650e16 
3.3650e16 
2 
RC 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
ES 
4 
2.7544e15 
7.3722e9 
8.9720e16 
3.7232e5 
2 
GP 
5 
2.005e16 
2.3151e16 
2.3093e16 
2.2430e16 
2 
SB 
6 
8.1951e14 
9.0177e11 
7.4204e14 
1.1613e13 
2 
SH 
7 
3.217e31 
4.8217e6 
3.3911e27 
1.0917e1 
4 
CO 
8 
3.5190e16 
7.4301e16 
5.0753e16 
3.5888e16 
10 
MI 
9 
0 
0 
0 
0 
30 
GR 
10 
Table 4. Number of functions evaluated for optimization with different algorithms on ten test functions.
APSO 
PSO 
RABC [24] 
ABC [24] 
Problem Dimension 
Function 
No. 
428 
1216 
500 
1998 
2 
BO1 
1 
537 
1950 
656 
2625 
2 
BO2 
2 
86 
432 
72 
1608 
2 
RC 
3 
1578 
2864 
989 
3314 
2 
ES 
4 
723 
1953 
326 
27773 
2 
GP 
5 
214 
940 
239 
854 
2 
SB 
6 
512 
3007 
465 
2114 
2 
SH 
7 
686 
4906 
1031 
 
4 
CO 
8 
27870 
29587 
26380 
25381 
10 
MI 
9 
30431 
50331 
32168 
56555 
30 
GR 
10 
Table 5. Comparison of CPU time for different algorithms on ten test functions.
APSO 
PSO 
RABC [24] 
ABC [24] 
Problem Dimension 
Function 
No. 
0.022 
0.068 
0.031 
0.093 
2 
BO1 
1 
0.026 
0.083 
0.031 
0.109 
2 
BO2 
2 
0.016 
0.046 
0.015 
0.093 
2 
RC 
3 
0.122 
0.198 
0.094 
0.218 
2 
ES 
4 
0.039 
0.081 
0.015 
0.953 
2 
GP 
5 
0.030 
0.064 
0.031 
0.062 
2 
SB 
6 
0.062 
0.213 
0.046 
0.156 
2 
SH 
7 
0.088 
0.280 
0.109 
16.28 
4 
CO 
8 
3.935 
4.455 
3.921 
3.718 
10 
MI 
9 
5.149 
8.197 
5.281 
8.625 
30 
GR 
10 
4. Results and Discussions
The fundamental frequency of hybrid laminates was maximized for different panel aspect ratios, ply angles, length/R (a/R) ratios, number of layers, and boundary conditions. The degree of panel curvature was taken as a/R = 0 (plate), a/R = 0.2 (relatively shallow), and a/R = 0.5 (shallow) in the examples. A rise in the center was only 3% of the radius R for a shell of a/R = 0.5, and this can be regarded as geometry within the shallow shell theory [25–27]. The laminates were symmetric and made of AS/3501 graphite/epoxy material [28] (inner composite layers) and aluminum alloy 2024T3 [1] (outer aluminum layers). The material properties of the lamina are given as follows: for the composite layers, E_{1 }= 138 GPa, E_{2 }= 8.96 GPa, G_{12 }= 7.1 GPa, and υ_{12 }= 0.3; and for the aluminum layers, E = 72.4 GPa and υ = 0.33. Each of the lamina was assumed to be same thickness.
In Table 6, the optimization of composite laminated panels using the PSO algorithm was validated with those given by Narita [5] through the use of the Ritzbased layerwise optimization method. As seen, the PSO algorithm was successful in predicting the optimal solutions, and higher natural frequencies than those predicted by Narita were achieved for different edge conditions. It can also be seen in Table 7 that there was a very good agreement between the results of the present approach and the published paper by Shooshtari and Razavi [1] for the fundamental frequency of symmetric FML panels (Glare 3). The layup and material properties of this hybrid composite (Glare 3) are as follows [1]:
Al(2024T3)/[0^{0}/90^{0}]GFRC/Al(2024T3)/[90^{0}/0^{0}]GFRC/Al(2024T3)
Glass fiber–reinforced composite layers (0.2 mm thickness each): E_{1 }= 55.8979 GPa, E_{2 }= 13.7293 GPa, G_{12 }= 5.5898 GPa, υ_{12 }= 0.277, and ρ = 2550 kg/m^{3}
Aluminum alloy 2024T3 layers (0.3 mm thickness each): E = 72.4 GPa, υ = 0.33, and ρ = 2700 kg/m^{3}
The dimensionless fundamental frequency of Glare 3 was obtained by using the following equation:
, 
(20) 
where I_{0}= is the mass moment of inertia.
The accuracy of the APSO in predicting the optimal solutions is shown in Figure 2 in comparison with other stacking sequences with various aspect ratios when the length/R = 0.5. The comparisons demonstrate that the panels with the present optimum layups actually give higher fundamental frequencies than panels with other layups. The typical stacking sequences of symmetric 10layer FMLcomposite shallow panels were chosen for comparison purposes; namely, [Al/0/0/0/0]_{S}, [Al/30/30/30/30]_{S}, and [Al/45/45/45/45]_{S}.
The optimal layered sequences and maximal natural frequency parameters of symmetric FML shallow shell panels were searched for using APSO for the various combinations of free (F), simply supported (S), and clamped (C) edge conditions. The panel length/width ratios (a/b = 1, 2, 3, 4), length/R (a/R = 0, 0.2, 0.5), and the layer number (n = 6, 10) are given in Tables 8, 9, and 10. The fiber angle of each inner ply in the FMLcomposite shallow shell panels was changed with a step of Δθ = 1^{0} between 90^{0 } θ_{n} 90^{0}.
Table 6.Comparison of the optimal stacking sequences and natural frequency parameter of symmetric eightlayered composite panels (a/b = 2, increment ).
Case 
Edges BCs 


Optimal stacking 



Narita [5] 
Present study 

Narita [5] 
Present study 
1 
SFSF 
38.66 
38.661 

[0/0/0/0]_{S} 
[0/0/0/0]_{S} 
2 
SSSF 
45.26 
48.575 

[0/30/40/35]_{S} 
[38/38/37/37]_{S} 
3 
SCSF 
61.94 
64.203 

[90/70/55/55]_{S} 
[60/59/61/60]_{S} 
4 
SSSS 
159.9 
159.886 

[90/90/90/90]_{S} 
[90/90/89/90]_{S} 
5 
SSSC 
245.7 
245.736 

[90/90/90/90]_{S} 
[90/90/90/90]_{S} 
6 
SCSC 
353.9 
353.943 

[90/90/90/90]_{S} 
[90/90/90/90]_{S} 
Table 7.Dimensionless frequencies of rectangular Glare 3–hybrid composite(h/ɑ = 0.01).
BCs 
ɑ /b 
Ω 



Shooshtari and Razavi [1] 
Present study 
SSSS 
1 
19.4723 
19.541 

4/3 
26.9917 
27.135 

2 
48.5124 
48.597 
(a) 
(b) 
Figure 2. Comparison between the optimal natural frequency parameters Ω_{opt} and the natural frequency parameter of symmetric FML tenlayered shallow panels for various stacking sequences, a/b ratios, and edge conditions ([a] SCSF, [b] SCSC) when a/R = 0.5. 
Table 8. Optimum solutions for symmetric, fibermetal laminated, shallow shell–type panels for different a/b ratios and edge conditions when a/R = 0.5.
Number of laminae: 
6 

10 


BCs 
a/b 
[Al/θ_{1}/θ_{2}]_{S,opt} 
Ω_{opt} 
[Al/θ_{1}/θ_{2}/ θ_{3}/ θ_{4}]_{S,opt} 
Ω_{opt} 
SFSF 
1 
[Al/36/86]_{S} 
61.962 
[Al/9/55/73/81]_{S} 
60.098 

2 
[Al/1/20]_{S} 
55.407 
[Al/0/10/20/33]_{S} 
56.263 

3 
[Al/1/20]_{S} 
38.528 
[Al/0/5/13/19]_{S} 
40.619 

4 
[Al/1/17]_{S} 
33.939 
[Al/2/5/0/17]_{S} 
36.327 






SSSF 
1 
[Al/73/89]_{S} 
67.171 
[Al/35/90/84/90]_{S} 
66.062 

2 
[Al/31/90]_{S} 
79.009 
[Al/36/62/13/86]_{S} 
79.087 

3 
[Al/45/90]_{S} 
73.375 
[Al/40/47/90/90]_{S} 
67.698 

4 
[Al/45/90]_{S} 
84.962 
[Al/46/49/90/90]_{S} 
85.158 






SCSF 
1 
[Al/31/90]_{S} 
55.126 
[Al/32/90/90/90]_{S} 
67.176 

2 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
76.847 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
73.164 

3 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
123.926 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
126.083 

4 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
201.713 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
209.647 






SSSS 
1 
[Al/68/63]_{S} 
244.345 
[Al/69/64/66/63]_{S} 
243.382 

2 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
538.297 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
566.376 

3 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
642.306 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
666.099 

4 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
776.600 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
811.081 






SSSC 
1 
[Al/76/65]_{S} 
248.071 
[Al/90/78/64/62]_{S} 
247.557 

2 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
569.830 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
591.029 

3 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
712.090 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
743.592 

4 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
979.027 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
1031.343 






SCSC 
1 
[Al/90/86]_{S} 
255.741 
[Al/90/90/90/66]_{S} 
263.052 

2 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
597.414 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
601.425 

3 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
845.220 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
888.938 

4 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
1285.370 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
1362.087 
Table 9. Optimum solutions for symmetric, fibermetal laminated, shallow shell–type panels for different a/b ratios and edge conditions when a/R = 0.2.
Number of laminae: 
6 

10 


BCs 
a/b 
[Al/θ_{1}/θ_{2}]_{S,opt} 
Ω_{opt} 
[Al/θ_{1}/θ_{2}/ θ_{3}/ θ_{4}]_{S,opt} 
Ω_{opt} 
SFSF 
1 
[Al/11/53]_{S} 
50.154 
[Al/10/33/32/68]_{S} 
50.237 

2 
[Al/0/15]_{S} 
36.318 
[Al/2/8/1/36]_{S} 
38.343 

3 
[Al/1/2]_{S} 
32.696 
[Al/2/0/1/2]_{S} 
34.955 

4 
[Al/1/2]_{S} 
31.815 
[Al/0/3/2/1]_{S} 
34.046 






SSSF 
1 
[Al/35/80]_{S} 
54.373 
[Al/34/37/90/90]_{S} 
53.274 

2 
[Al/40/14]_{S} 
56.645 
[Al/37/29/23/90]_{S} 
56.247 

3 
[Al/44/85]_{S} 
65.419 
[Al/42/35/45/2]_{S} 
67.698 

4 
[Al/44/50]_{S} 
83.503 
[Al/45/44/41/51]_{S} 
85.337 






SCSF 
1 
[Al/31/90]_{S} 
55.126 
[Al/9/55/73/81]_{S} 
53.242 

2 
[Al/67/90]_{S} 
68.091 
[Al/64/90/90/90]_{S} 
66.634 

3 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
121.698 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
124.253 

4 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
200.984 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
209.022 






SSSS 
1 
[Al/90/62]_{S} 
166.114 
[Al/90/90/90/56]_{S} 
166.312 

2 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
269.944 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
278.449 

3 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
382.736 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
398.740 

4 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
579.362 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
609.558 






SSSC 
1 
[Al/90/87]_{S} 
188.629 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
192.639 

2 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
305.173 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
317.146 

3 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
513.938 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
541.148 

4 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
845.157 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
895.729 






SCSC 
1 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
220.527 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
227.478 

2 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
367.400 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
385.163 

3 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
697.862 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
739.480 

4 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
1193.332 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
1269.318 
Table 10. Optimum solutions for symmetric, fibermetal laminated, shallow shelltype panels for different a/b ratios and edge conditions when a/R = 0.
Number of laminae: 
6 

10 


BCs 
a/b 
[Al/θ_{1}/θ_{2}]_{S,opt} 
Ω_{opt} 
[Al/θ_{1}/θ_{2}/ θ_{3}/ θ_{4}]_{S,opt} 
Ω_{opt} 
SFSF 
1 
[Al/0/0]_{S} 
33.014 
[Al/0/0/1/0]_{S} 
34.557 

2 
[Al/0/0]_{S} 
32.961 
[Al/0/0/0/2]_{S} 
34.380 

3 
[Al/0/0]_{S} 
33.925 
[Al/0/0/0/0]_{S} 
34.442 

4 
[Al/0/0]_{S} 
33.913 
[Al/0/0/0/0]_{S} 
34.317 






SSSF 
1 
[Al/0/0]_{S} 
36.893 
[Al/0/0/0/0]_{S} 
38.003 

2 
[Al/37/39]_{S} 
47.796 
[Al/37/37/37/37]_{S} 
48.376 

3 
[Al/42/46]_{S} 
65.772 
[Al/41/44/44/43]_{S} 
67.801 

4 
[Al/43/44]_{S} 
83.184 
[Al/44/44/45/45]_{S} 
88.031 






SCSF 
1 
[Al/0/1]_{S} 
38.748 
[Al/0/0/0/2]_{S} 
39.323 

2 
[Al/58/64]_{S} 
65.319 
[Al/58/58/63/67]_{S} 
66.118 

3 
[Al/90/89]_{S} 
128.007 
[Al/90/88/90/90]_{S} 
129.554 

4 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
206.413 
[Al/90/90/90/88]_{S} 
208.195 






SSSS 
1 
[Al/45/46]_{S} 
56.777 
[Al/45/45/45/44]_{S} 
56.229 

2 
[Al/89/90]_{S} 
154.116 
[Al/90/90/90/90]_{S} 
154.807 

3 
[Al/90/88]_{S} 
343.068 
[Al/90/88/90/87]_{S} 
346.044 

4 
[Al/89/89]_{S} 
552.521 
[Al/90/90/89/88]_{S} 
561.070 






SSSC 
1 
[Al/60/60]_{S} 
69.144 
[Al/60/60/60/59]_{S} 
69.331 

2 
[Al/88/90]_{S} 
222.937 
[Al/89/90/90/88]_{S} 
230.922 

3 
[Al/90/89]_{S} 
520.766 
[Al/90/90/89/87]_{S} 
525.538 

4 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
858.658 
[Al/89/90/88/88]_{S} 
867.609 






SCSC 
1 
[Al/89/89]_{S} 
88.997 
[Al/90/90/89/88]_{S} 
89.114 

2 
[Al/89/90]_{S} 
312.400 
[Al/90/90/87/90]_{S} 
325.548 

3 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
742.618 
[Al/90/90/90/89]_{S} 
747.503 

4 
[Al/90/90]_{S} 
1218.994 
[Al/90/89/88/90]_{S} 
1232.896 
Table 11. Biobjective optimization results of symmetric, FML, eightlayered panel (a = 1 m, b = 1 m).
W1 
W2 

(Hz) 
(kg) 

Optimum stacking sequences 
0 
1 

6.8 
5.1 

[45/45/45/45]_{S} 
0.25 
0.75 

8.94 
5.175 

[Al/45/45/45]_{S} 
0.5 
0.5 

9.8 
5.25 

[Al/Al/45/45]_{S} 
0.75 
0.25 

10.058 
5.325 

[Al/Al/Al/45]_{S} 
1 
0 

10.058 
5.325 

[Al/Al/Al/45]_{S} 
As can be seen, the optimal fiber orientations vary from 0^{0} to 90^{0} or 0^{0} to 90^{0} with increases in a/b ratios. The results demonstrate that the edge conditions play an important role in the natural frequency parameter of shallow FMLs. As the number of the clamped panel edges increased, an evident increase in the natural frequency parameters was observed. This can be explained by the fact that the clamped edges provide less degrees of freedom, and the effect of this is to stiffen the shallow panels. Since graphite/epoxy is far less dense than aluminum, the presented optimum FML results with two aluminum layers are optimum in terms of weight, too.
The results of the biobjective optimization of symmetric, FML, eightlayered panels with simply supported edge conditions are presented in Table 11 with respect to the first natural frequency and the weight for a/b = 1 and a/R = 0. The laminates were made of glass fiber–reinforced composite [1] and aluminum alloy 2024T3 [1], and the thickness of layers was considered to be 0.25 mm. As inferred from the results, the angle of layers and sequence of metal and composite layers play an important role in the fundamental frequency and weight of panels. As seen, FML panels with outer aluminum layers have the maximum natural frequency and minimum weight in comparison with other stacking sequences.
In this study, the fundamental frequency optimization of FML curved panels was studied using the combination of APSO and FSM for various panels edge conditions, a/b ratios, a/R ratios, and layer numbers. As inferred from the results, the APSO provides a much higher convergence and reduces the required CPU time in comparison with the PSO and ABC algorithms. As seen, the combination of APSO and FSM was successful in determining the fundamental frequency and the optimal layering sequences of FML curved panels. It can be noticed from the results that the maximum fundamental frequency and the optimum stacking sequences were substantially influenced by edge conditions, a/b ratios, and a/R ratios. The maximum fundamental frequency and the optimum fiber orientations were not substantially influenced and approach a limiting value with an increasing layer number.
References
[1] Shooshtari A, Razavi S. A closed form solution for linear and nonlinear free vibrations of composite and fiber metal laminated rectangular plates. Compos Struct 2010; 92: 266375.
[2] Botelho EC, Campos AN, Barros E, Pardini LC, Rezende MC. Damping behavior of continuous fiber/metal composite materials by the free vibration method. Compos: Part B 2006; 37: 25563.
[3] Botelho EC, Almeida LC, Rezende MC. Elastic properties of hygrothermally conditioned glare laminate. Int J Eng Sci2007; 45: 16372.
[4] Mateus HC, Soares CMM, Soares CAM. Sensitivity analysis and optimal design of thin laminated composite structures. Computers &Structures 1991; 41: 5018.
[5] Narita Y. Layerwise optimization for the maximum fundamental frequency of laminated composite plates. J Sound and Vibration 2003; 263: 100516.
[6] Apalak MK, Yildirim M, Ekici R. Layer optimisation for maximum fundamental frequency of laminated composite plates for different edge conditions. Composites Science and Technology 2008; 68: 53750.
[7] Ghashochi Bargh H, Sadr MH. Stacking sequence optimization of composite plates for maximum fundamental frequency using particle swarm optimization algorithm. Meccanica 2012; 47: 71930.
[8] Sadr MH, Ghashochi Bargh H. Optimization of laminated composite plates for maximum fundamental frequency using ElitistGenetic algorithm and ﬁnite strip method. J Glob Optim 2012; 54: 70728.
[9] GhashochiBargh H, Sadr MH. A modified multiobjective elitistartificial bee colony algorithm for optimization of smart FML panels. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 2014; 52(6): 12091224.
[10] Sumana BG, Sagar HV, Sharma KV, Krishna M. Numerical analysis of the effect of fiber orientation on hydrostatic buckling behavior of fiber metal composite cylinder. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 2015; 34(17): 14221432.
[11] Moniri Bidgoli AM, HeidariRarani M. Axial buckling response of fiber metal laminate circular cylindrical shells. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 2016; 57(1): 4563.
[12] Topal U. Frequency optimization of laminated composite annular sector plates. Journal of Vibration and Control 2015; 21(2): 320327.
[13] Nazari A, Malekzade Fard K, Majidian M. Vibration analysis of FML cylindrical shell optimized according to maximum natural frequency under various boundary conditions. Modares Mechanical Engineering 2016; 16(7): 143152.
[14] Narita Y, Robinson P. Maximizing the fundamental frequency of laminated cylindrical panels using layerwise optimization. Int J Mech Sci 2006; 48: 151624.
[15] Eberhart RC, Kennedy J. A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on micro machine and human science, Nagoya, Japan. IEEE Service Center, Piscataway; 1995. p. 39–43.
[16] Eberhart RC, Shi Y. Comparison between genetic algorithms and Particle Swarm Optimization. In: Porto VW, Saravanan N, Waagen D and Eiben AE (eds) Evolutionary Programming VII, Springer; 1998. p. 61116.
[17] Hassan R, Cohanim B, Weck O. A comparison of particle swarm optimization and the genetic algorithm. In: 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics & material conference, Austin, Texas; 2005. no. 1897.
[18] Shi Y, Eberhart R. Fuzzy adaptive particle swarm optimization. In: Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Seoul, Korea; 2001.
[19] Eberhart R.C, Shi Y.H, Tracking and optimizing dynamic systems with particle swarms. In: Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Korea; 2001.
[20] Shi Y.H, Eberhart RC. Empirical study of particle swarm optimization. In: Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Washington DC, USA; 1999.
[21] Shi Y.H, Eberhart R.C. Experimental study of particle swarm optimization. In: SCI2000 Conference, Orlando; 2000.
[22] Fan S, Chiu Y. A decreasing inertia weight particle swarm optimizer. Engineering Optimization 2007; 39: 203–228.
[23] GhashochiBargh H, Khalili M, MirzakarimiIsfahani S. An Elitist Adaptive Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Numerical Optimization. Journal of Computational Intelligence and Electronic Systems 2014; 3(4): 302306.
[24] Kang F, Li J, Ma Zh. Rosenbrock artificial bee colony algorithm for accurate global optimization of numerical functions. Information Sciences 2011; 181: 350831.
[25] Avramov, KV, Papazov SV, Breslavsky ID. Dynamic instability of shallow shells in threedimensional incompressible inviscid potential flow. Journal of Sound and Vibration 2017; 394: 593611.
[26] Kar VR, Mahapatra TR, Panda SK. Effect of different temperature load on thermal postbuckling behaviour of functionally graded shallow curved shell panels. Composite Structures 2017; 160: 12361247.
[27] Narita, Y, Robinson P. Maximizing the fundamental frequency of laminated cylindrical panels using layerwise optimization. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 2006; 48(12): 15161524.
[28] Vinson JR, Sierakowski RL. The behavior of structures composed of composite materials. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoﬀ; 1986.