4.7 Article

Support Vector Machine Applied to the Optimal Design of Composite Wing Panels

期刊

AEROSPACE
卷 8, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/aerospace8110328

关键词

multi-objective optimization; stiffened panels; composite wing; layout optimization; sizing optimization; buckling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a workflow for optimal design of laminated composite stiffened panels using design of experiments, metamodeling, and optimization phases, with machine learning strategy and multi-objective formulation. The deterministic algorithm choice accelerates convergence towards optimal design, achieving a balance between exploring new design regions and refining optimal design. Numerical experiments demonstrate the viability of the proposed methodology for a representative upper skin wing panel design.
One of the core technologies in lightweight structures is the optimal design of laminated composite stiffened panels. The increasing tailoring potential of new materials added to the simultaneous optimization of various design regions, leading to design spaces that are vast and non-convex. In order to find an optimal design using limited information, this paper proposes a workflow consisting of design of experiments, metamodeling and optimization phases. A machine learning strategy based on support vector machine (SVM) is used for data classification and interpolation. The combination of mass minimization and buckling evaluation under combined load is handled by a multi-objective formulation. The choice of a deterministic algorithm for the optimization cycle accelerates the convergence towards an optimal design. The analysis of the Pareto frontier illustrates the compromise between conflicting objectives. As a result, a balance is found between the exploration of new design regions and the optimal design refinement. Numerical experiments evaluating the design of a representative upper skin wing panel are used to show the viability of the proposed methodology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据