Bayesian optimisation of resolved interlaminar stresses in composite laminates using high-aspect-ratio discontinuous Galerkin finite elements
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31224/8254Keywords:
composite laminates, laminate optimisation, Interlaminar stress, Bayesian optimisation, High-fidelity optimisation, Discontinuous GalerkinAbstract
Laminate optimisation is a key route to improved composite structures, linking material choice, fibre orientation and stacking sequence to structural performance and manufacturability. Using this design freedom to optimise local interlaminar-stress severity directly is much harder, since the governing stress field is three-dimensional, highly localised and costly to resolve accurately. This paper presents a coupled discontinuous Galerkin (DG) finite-element and Bayesian optimisation (BO) framework for treating local interlaminar-stress severity as the optimisation objective itself. Candidate laminates are chosen from a finite material-and-fibre-angle library and evaluated with a full 3D DG finite-element solver, whose high-aspect-ratio meshes are central to the efficiency of the optimisation framework: they concentrate refinement around monitored stress regions and resolve the local three-dimensional stress fields without requiring fine elements throughout the surrounding domain. Scalar patch objectives are constructed from the resolved interlaminar normal and shear stresses, including hardmax, smoothmax and monotonic power/log transforms, to test how objective representation affects BO performance without changing the underlying candidate laminate set. Benchmarks are straight free-edge and corner-stressed rectangular-cutout laminates. Against a matched genetic-algorithm (GA) baseline, BO consistently gives higher exact-optimum reliability and better final ranks. In the free-edge benchmark, the best transformed objectives identify the optimum in every run; GA needs 7 times more evaluations and 6.7 times longer mean time to identify the same optimum. In the cutout benchmark, BO finds the optimum after sampling only about 1.2% of the feasible space; GA needs 8 times more evaluations and 7.5 times longer mean time to do so.
Downloads
Downloads
Posted
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Soheil Navvabi, Stefano Giani, William M. Coombs

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.