Struct Multidisc Optim (2009) 39:569579
DOI 10.1007/s00158-009-0390-4
RESEARCH PAPER
Damping optimization of viscoelastic laminated sandwich
composite structures
A. L. Arajo P. Martins C. M. Mota Soares
C. A. Mota Soares J. Herskovits
Received: 30 October 2008 / Revised: 16 March 2009 / Accepted: 7 April 2009 / Published online: 6 May 2009
Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract Recent developments on the optimization of
passive damping for vibration reduction in sandwich
structures are presented in this paper, showing the
importance of appropriate finite element models as-
sociated with gradient based optimizers for compu-
tationally efficient damping maximization programs.
A new finite element model for anisotropic lami-
nated plate structures with viscoelastic core and lam-
inated anisotropic face layers has been formulated,
using a mixed layerwise approach. The complex mod-
ulus approach is used for the viscoelastic material
behavior, and the dynamic problem is solved in the
frequency domain. Constrained optimization is con-
ducted for the maximization of modal loss factors, using
gradient based optimization associated with the devel-
oped model, and single and multiobjective optimiza-
tion based on genetic algorithms using an alternative
ABAQUS finite element model. The model has been
applied successfully and comparative optimal design
Some parts of this paper were presented at EngOpt 2008,
International Conference on Engineering Optimization, held
at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
A. L. Arajo (B)
ESTIG, Polytechnic Institute of Bragana, Campus de Sta.
Apolnia, Apartado 1134, 5301-857 Bragana, Portugal
e-mail: aaraujo@ipb.pt
P. Martins C. M. Mota Soares C. A. Mota Soares
IDMEC/IST, Technical University of Lisbon,
Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
J. Herskovits
COPPE, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro,
Caixa Postal 68503, 21945-970,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
applications in sandwich structures are presented and
discussed.
Keywords Sandwich structures Layerwise finite
element model Passive damping Multiobjective
optimization Gradient optimization
Genetic algorithms
1 Introduction
Structural damping can be defined as the process by
which a structure or structural component dissipates
mechanical energy or transfers it to connected struc-
tures or ambient media. These mechanisms have the
effect of controlling the amplitude of resonant vibra-
tions and modifying wave attenuation and sound trans-
mission properties, increasing structural life through
reduction in structural fatigue.
Passive damping treatments are widely used in en-
gineering applications in order to reduce vibration and
noise radiation (Nashif et al. 1985; Sun and Lu 1995).
Passive layer damping, usually implemented as con-
strained layer damping, is the most common form of
damping treatment, where the damping layer deforms
in shear, thus dissipating energy in a more efficient
way.
The theoretical work on constrained layer damp-
ing can be traced to DiTaranto (1965) and Mead and
Markus (1969) for the axial and bending vibration
of sandwich beams. Since then, different formulations
and techniques have been reported for modeling and
predicting the energy dissipation of the viscoelastic
core layer in a vibrating passive constrained layer
damping structure (Rao 1978; Yan and Dowell 1972;
570
Rao and He 1993). Other proposed formulations in-
clude thickness deformation of the core layer dealing
with the cases where only a portion of the base structure
receives treatment (Douglas and Yang 1978).
Sandwich plates with viscoelastic core are very ef-
fective in reducing and controlling vibration response
of lightweight and flexible structures, such as those
frequently encountered in aerospace industries, where
the soft core is strongly deformed in shear, due to the
adjacent stiff layers. Due to this high shear developed
inside the core, equivalent single layer plate theories,
even those based on higher order deformations, are not
adequate to describe the behavior of these sandwiches,
mainly due to the high deformation discontinuities that
arise at the interfaces between the viscoelastic core ma-
terial and the surrounding elastic constraining layers.
The usual approach to analyze the dynamic response
of sandwich plates uses a layered scheme of plate and
brick elements with nodal linkage, leading to a time
consuming spatial modeling task. To overcome these
difficulties, layerwise theories have been considered
for constrained viscoelastic treatments, and most re-
cently (Moreira et al. 2006; Moreira and Rodrigues
2006), among others, presented generalized layerwise
formulations in this scope.
Optimal design of constrained layer damping treat-
ments of vibrating structures has been a main subject of
research, aiming at the maximization of modal damping
ratios and modal strain energies, by determining the
optimal material and geometric parameters of the treat-
ments, or minimizing weight by selecting their optimal
length and location. For example, (Baz and Ro 1995)
optimized performance of constrained layer damping
treatments by selecting the optimal thickness and shear
modulus of the viscoelastic layer, and (Marcelin et al.
1992, 1995) used a genetic algorithm and beam finite
elements to maximize the damping factor for partially
treated beams, using as design variables the dimensions
and locations of the patches. As verified by Nokes
and Nelson (1968), this layout optimization can lead
to significant saving in the amount of material used.
Recently, optimal number, position and shape of sur-
face passive constrained layer damping treatments has
been addressed (Alvelid 2008) in automotive indus-
trial applications. For fully covered sandwich beams,
(Lifshitz and Leibowitz 1987) determined the optimal
passive constrained layer damping, with layer thick-
nesses as design variables. The vibration damping of
fully covered constrained layer damping structures is
determined by a large number of parameters which
include material properties and thicknesses of both the
constraining layers and the viscoelastic layer (Arajo
et al. 2008).
A.L. Arajo et al.
In this work, maximization of modal loss factors
of sandwich plates with elastic laminated constraining
layers and a viscoelastic core is conducted with layer
thicknesses and laminate layer ply orientation angles
as design variables. The problem is solved through gra-
dient based optimization using a new mixed layerwise
finite element model, developed by the authors for
the analysis and optimization of laminated sandwich
plates (Arajo et al. 2009). To the authors knowl-
edge, few plate/shell sandwich models with viscoelastic
core exist, and are mostly limited to isotropic materi-
als (Boudaoud et al. 2008). In the paper the authors
show that with such appropriate models associated to
gradient based optimization, computationally efficient
strategies for passive damping maximization can be ac-
complished. An alternative approach is also presented,
which associates ABAQUS commercial finite element
models with an implementation of genetic algorithms
for single and multiobjective optimization.
2 Mixed layerwise sandwich finite element model
The development of the new layerwise finite element
model (Arajo et al. 2009) is briefly presented here, to
analyze sandwich laminated plates with a viscoelastic
(v) core and laminated anisotropic face layers (e1 , e2 ),
and top and bottom piezoelectric sensor (s) and actua-
tor (a) layers, as shown in Fig. 1.
Although sensor and actuator layers are included in
the formulation presented here, the piezoelectric effect
will not be considered in this work, as it deals only with
passive damping.
The basic assumptions in the development of the
sandwich plate model are:
1. All points on a normal to the plate have the same
transverse displacement w(x, y, t), where t denotes
time, and the origin of the z axis is the medium
plane of the core layer;
2. No slip occurs at the interfaces between layers;
Fig. 1 Sandwich plate
Damping optimization of viscoelastic laminated sandwich. . . 571

3. The displacement is C0 along the interfaces; The displacement continuity at the layer interfaces
4. Elastic layers (a, e2 , e1 , s) are modeled with first can be written as:
order shear deformation theory (FSDT) and vis-    
hs he
coelastic core (v) with a higher order shear defor- us x, y, zs , t = ue1 x, y, ze1 + 1 , t
2 2
mation theory (HSDT);    
5. All materials are linear, homogeneous and or- hs he1
v x, y, zs , t = v
s e1
x, y, ze1 + ,t
thotropic and the elastic layers (e1 ) and (e2 ) are 2 2
made of laminated composite materials;    
he1 v hv
6. For the viscoelastic core, material properties are u e1
x, y, ze1 , t = u x, y, , t
2 2
complex and frequency dependent.    
he hv
v e1 x, y, ze1 1 , t = v v x, y, , t
2 2
2.1 Displacement fields     (3)
v hv he2
u x, y, , t = u e2
x, y, ze2 + ,t
The FSDT displacement field of the face layers may be 2 2
   
written in the general form: v hv he2
v x, y, , t = v e2
x, y, ze2 + ,t
2 2
ui (x, y, z, t) = ui0 (x, y, t) + (z zi )xi (x, y, t)    
he2 ha
u e2
x, y, ze2 , t = u x, y, za + , t
a
v i (x, y, z, t) = v0i (x, y, t) + (z zi ) yi (x, y, t) (1) 2 2
   
he ha
wi (x, y, z, t) = w0 (x, y, t) v e2 x, y, ze2 2 , t = v a x, y, za + , t
2 2

where ui0 and v0i are the in-plane displacements of the where the coordinates of layer mid-planes are:
mid-plane of the layer, xi and yi are rotations of nor- hv hs
mals to the mid-plane about the y axis (anticlockwise) zs = + he1 +
2 2
and x axis (clockwise), respectively, w0 is the transverse
hv he1
displacement of the layer (same for all layers in the ze1 = +
2 2
sandwich), zi is the z coordinate of the mid-plane of
each layer, with reference to the core layer mid-plane zv = 0 (4)
(z = 0), and i = e1 , e2 is the layer index. hv he
For the viscoelastic core layer, the HSDT displace- ze2 = 2
2 2
ment field is written as a second order Taylor series ex-
hv ha
pansion of the in-plane displacements in the thickness za = he2
coordinate, with constant transverse displacement: 2 2
and ha , he2 , hv , he1 and hs are the thicknesses of each
v
u (x, y, z, t) =uv0 (x, y, t) + zxv (x, y, t) layer, as shown in Fig. 1.
Applying displacement continuity conditions at the
+ z2 u0 v (x, y, t) + z3 x v (x, y, t) layer interfaces, one obtains:

v v (x, y, z, t) =v0v (x, y, t) + z yv (x, y, t) he1 e1 hv h2 h3

(2) ue01 = x + uv0 + xv + v u0 v + v x v
2 2 4 8
+ z2 v0 v (x, y, t) + z3 y v (x, y, t) he1 e1 hv h2 h3
v0e1 = y + v0v + yv + v v0 v + v y v
wv (x, y, z, t) =w0 (x, y, t) 2 2 4 8
he2 e2 hv h2 h3
ue02 = x + uv0 xv + v u0 v v x v
where uv0 and v0v are the in-plane displacements of 2 2 4 8
the mid-plane of the core, xv and yv are rotations of he2 e2 hv h2 h3
normals to the mid-plane of the core about the y axis v0e2 = y + v0v yv + v v0 v v y v
2 2 4 8
(anticlockwise) and x axis (clockwise), respectively, w0
hs s hv h2 h3
is the transverse displacement of the core (same for us0 = x + he1 xe1 + uv0 + xv + v u0 v + v x v
all layers in the sandwich). The functions u0 v , v0 v , x v 2 2 4 8
and y v are higher order terms in the series expansion, hs s hv h2 h3
v0s = y + he1 ye1 + v0v + yv + v v0 v + v y v
defined also in the mid-plane of the core layer. 2 2 4 8
572 A.L. Arajo et al.

ha a hv h2 h3 denote Youngs moduli, shear moduli and Poissons

ua0 = x he2 xe2 + uv0 xv + v u0 v v x v ratio, respectively.
2 2 4 8
The definition of constitutive relations of a laminate
ha a hv h2 h3
v0a = y he2 ye2 + v0v yv + v v0 v v y v is usually made in terms of stress resultants. These
2 2 4 8
forces and moments are defined separately for the vis-
(5) coelastic core and the elastic layers (Arajo et al. 2002).
These relations allow us to retain the rotational de-
grees of freedom of the elastic layers, while eliminating 2.3 Finite element formulation
the corresponding in-plane displacement ones. Hence,
the generalized displacement field has the following 17 The equations of motion for the plate are obtained
mechanical unknowns: by applying the extended Hamiltons principle, using
an eight node serendipity plate element with the 17
xa ya xe2 ye2 uv0 v0v w0 xv yv u0 v v0 v x v y v xe1 ye1 xs ys mechanical degrees of freedom per node described in
Section 2.1:
2.2 Constitutive relations
Mu + Ku = F (8)
We consider that fiber-reinforced laminae in elastic where u and u are mechanical degrees of freedom and
multi-layers (e1 ) and (e2 ), sensor (s) and actuator (a) corresponding accelerations, respectively, M and K are
layers, and viscoelastic core (v) are characterized as the mass and complex stiffness matrices, respectively,
orthotropic. Constitutive equations for each lamina in and F is the externally applied mechanical load vector.
the sandwich may then be expressed in the principal One should note that the viscoelastic behaviour of the
material directions (x1 , x2 , x3 = z), and for the zero core translates into a complex stiffness matrix K.
transverse normal stress situation, as (Arajo et al. Assuming harmonic vibrations, the final equilibrium
2006): equations are given by:
 
11



Q11 Q12 0 0 0 11



K() 2 M u = F (9)
22

Q12 Q22 0 0 0 22

23 = 0 0 Q44 0 0 23 (6) The forced vibration problem is solved in the fre-


0 0 0 Q55 0
quency domain, which implies the solution of the fol-





13
13
lowing linear system of equations for each frequency
12 0 0 0 0 Q66 12
point:
where ij are stress components, ij and ij are strain  
components, and Qij are reduced stiffness coefficients. K() 2 M u() = F() (10)
Expressions for the reduced quantities mentioned where F() = F (F(t)) is the Fourier transform of the
above can be found in Arajo et al. (2006). For the time domain force history F(t).
viscoelastic core layer, the reduced stiffness coefficients For the free vibration problem, (10) reduces to the
Qij are complex quantities, since the complex modu- following non-linear eigenvalue problem:
lus approach was used in this work, using the elastic-  
viscoelastic principle. In this case, the usual engineering K() n M un = 0 (11)
moduli may be represented by complex quantities:
where, the complex eigenvalue n is written as:
E1 ( j) = E1 ()(1 + j E1 ())
n = n (1 + jn ) (12)
E2 ( j) = E2 ()(1 + j E2 ())
and n is the real part of the complex eigenvalue and n
G12 ( j) = G12 ()(1 + jG12 ()) is the corresponding modal loss factor.
(7) The non-linear eigenvalue problem is solved itera-
G23 ( j) = G23 ()(1 + jG23 ())
tively using ARPACK (Sorensen 1995) with a shift-
G13 ( j) = G13 ()(1 + jG13 ()) invert transformation. The iterative process is consid-

12 ( j) = 12 ()(1 + j12 ()) ered to have converged when:
i i1 
where the prime quantities denote storage moduli, as- (13)
i1
sociated material loss factors are represented by thelet-
ter , represents frequency of vibration and j = 1 where i and i1 are current and previous iteration
is the imaginary unit. Furthermore, in (7), E, G and values for the real part of the particular eigenfrequency
Damping optimization of viscoelastic laminated sandwich. . . 573

of interest, respectively, and is the convergence respectively, and FT H is the Tsai-Hill failure criteria
tolerance. parameter for the elastic composite material layers,
defined as:
 2  2  2
11 22 33
3 Optimal design formulations FT H = + +
X Y Z
 
The objective of this study is to maximize damping in 1 1 1
+ 2 2 11 22
sandwich plate structures with respect to layer thick- X2 Y Z
nesses and fiber orientation angles. If the structure is  
1 1 1
subjected to a given load or load set, this maximization + 22 33
Y2 Z2 X2
of damping must be conducted with design constraints  
on maximum displacement, total mass, failure criteria, 1 1 1
+ 11 33
as well as physical constraints on design variables and Z2 X2 Y2
objective function.  2  2  2
23 13 12
Two different approaches are used, namely: the + + + <1 (15)
R S T
Layerwise/FAIPA model, associating the finite element
model described in the previous section with a gradient where the stress components are calculated for each
based optimization algorithm and continuous design elastic layer ply and refer to the principal material
variables, and the ABAQUS/GA model which uses 3D directions of the ply, X, Y and Z are lamina failure
finite elements from commercial software (ABAQUS stresses in the associated principal directions, which
2005) associated with a specifically developed imple- must respect the sign of the stresses, and one must con-
mentation of a genetic algorithm and discrete design sider different values in traction and compression. R,
variables. Both approaches are described next. S and T are failure stresses in shear for the associated
planes in (15). It should be mentioned here that the
3.1 Layerwise/FAIPA approach transverse normal stress component 33 is assumed to
be zero for the Layerwise/FAIPA approach.
For damping maximization with passive treatments in Assuming a uniform sandwich plate structure made
sandwich type structures, the overall goal will be to of a given set of materials, with fixed in-plane dimen-
maximize the modal loss factor of a particular mode sions, the natural choice for the design variables xi in
of interest, or of a particular set of modes of interest (14) are the thicknesses of the constituent layer plies
within some frequency range. Thus, a weighted sum and the orientation angles of the laminated elastic com-
of reciprocal loss factors was chosen as the objective posite material plies. In (14), xli and xiu are the lower and
function to be minimized in this framework, subjected upper bounds on the design variables.
to design constraints: Calculation of the objective function is done by
solving the eigenvalue problem of (11) iteratively, for

N
1 a frequency dependent complex stiffness matrix and
min f = wk
xi k real mass matrix. The derivatives of the objective func-
k=1
tion with respect to the design variables are calculated
s.t. g j : j 0, j = 1, . . . , N through the following expression:
m
g N+1 : 10  
mmax 1 wn n
wn = 2 (16)
w xi n n xi
g N+2 : 10
wmax
where:
g N+3 : FT H 1 0
    
xli xi xiu , i = 1, . . . , n (14) n 1  n  n
= n (17)
where wk are weighting factors associated with each xi n xi xi
modal loss factor k , N is the total number of modes of    
interest, m and mmax are the overall mass and maximum with  n and  n being the real and imaginary
allowable mass of the structure, respectively, w and parts of the complex eigenvalue n , respectively.
wmax are the maximum displacement of the structure The derivative of the complex eigenvalue with re-
and the maximum allowable value of the displacement, spect to design variables, for the particular case of
574
hysteretic damping, can be obtained using the following
expression (Haftka and Gurdal 1992):
 
K
n unT xi
n M
xi
un
= (18)
xi unT Mun
where the derivatives of the stiffness and mass matrix
are evaluated by forward finite difference at the ele-
ment level.
Calculation of response quantities such as displace-
ments and stresses is done after the eigenvalue problem
has been solved, and is conducted in the frequency
domain, by first making a forward Fourier transform of
the applied load time history, and then solving (10) in
order to the displacement vector, for the resonant fre-
quency of interest. Afterwards, stresses in each elastic
material layer ply are calculated and the Tsai-Hill factor
FT H in (15) is evaluated.
As for sensitivities of displacement and stress
quantities, they can be calculated analytically, semi-
analytically, or using a global finite difference ap-
proach (Haftka and Gurdal 1992).
In this approach, the problem is solved using FAIPA,
the Feasible Arc Interior Point Algorithm (Herskovits
1986, 1998; Herskovits et al. 2005), along with the
developed finite element sandwich model. FAIPA has
proven to be robust and efficient in a wide variety of
applications (Herskovits and Mazorche 2009; Canelas
et al. 2009).
3.2 ABAQUS/GA approach
Genetic algorithms are especially suitable for lam-
inate design, since the stacking sequence design is
discrete in nature (Nagendra et al. 1996). A genetic
algorithm has been developed and linked with commer-
cial code (ABAQUS 2005) for passive damping design
in sandwich structures. For the analysis, quadratic com-
plete integration solid elements were used (C3D20H
for the viscoelastic core, and C3D20 for the other lam-
inae). In a single objective approach, maximization of
modal loss factors can be achieved through minimiza-
tion of the following objective function:

N
1
f = wi P1 P2 P3 (19)
i=1
i 4.1 Passive design of a simply supported
where Pi are penalty functions that allow for design
constraints satisfaction, expressed as:
 
w m
(P1 , P2 , P3 ) = 1.1 , FT H , (20)
wmax mmax
A.L. Arajo et al.
where the 1.1 factor in penalty functions is intended to
keep solutions feasible. For this reason the associated
constraints might never be active.
Design variables are again the layer thicknesses of
viscoelastic core and elastic plies and fiber orientation
angles of the elastic plies, but they are discrete in
this approach, instead of continuous as in Layerwise/
FAIPA.
Multiobjective function optimization was also con-
ducted, where the objective was to maximize modal loss
factors, while simultaneously minimizing the weight of
the structure. In this case the two conflicting objectives
are:

N
1
f1 = wi P1 P2
i=1
i (21)
f2 = mP1 P2
However, in this case of conflicting objectives, there
is no unique optimal solution, and one obtains a series
of non dominant solutions (Pareto frontier) for which
no decrease can be obtained in any of the objectives
without simultaneously increasing at least one of the
remaining objectives.
A Genetic Algorithm (Goldberg 1989) with binary
encoding is used to solve the problem (Yang et al.
1998). The algorithm initializes a random sample of
individuals with different parameters to be optimist
using evolution via survival of the fittest. The selection
scheme used is tournament selection with a shuffling
technique for choosing random pairs for mating.
4 Applications
For the applications described in this section, the elastic
material properties for the composite material layers
(e1 ) and (e2 ) are: E1 = 98.0 GPa, E2 = 7.9 GPa, G12 =
G13 = G23 = 5.6 GPa, 12 = 0.28, = 1520 kg/m3 , and
for the isotropic viscoelastic core (v): G = 20(1 +
0.3 j ) MPa, = 0.49, = 1140 kg/m3 . As for the top
and bottom isotropic sensor (s) and actuator (a) layers,
the elastic material properties are: E = 2.0 GPa, =
0.29 and = 1800 kg/m3 . The piezoelectric effect is
disregarded, as already mentioned.
sandwich beam
A simply supported sandwich beam of length L = 1 m
and width b = 0.005 m, with symmetric layout of layers
is considered. The top and bottom isotropic elastic lay-
ers have a thickness of ha = hs = 0.1 mm, the composite
Damping optimization of viscoelastic laminated sandwich. . . 575

Table 1 Single objective Layerwise/FAIPA ABAQUS/GA

optimal design results
Initial Optimal Intermediate Optimal
for the simply supported
sandwich beam DV: he1 = he2 [mm] 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.5
DV: hv [mm] 2.0 6.8 2.0 7.0
OBJ: f 4.9 3.8 4.9 3.7
1 [Hz] 636 619 630 591
m [g] 2.8 5.0 2.8 4.9
FT H (105 ) 131.9 17.5 131.3 17.6
w [mm] 0.22 0.10 0.22 0.11
DV design variable, OBJ
objective function 1 [%] 20 26 20 27

layers will have equal thickness he1 = he2 , considered
as a design variable. As for the viscoelastic core, its
thickness hv will also be a design variable. Thickness
design variables are allowed to vary between 0.5 mm
and 10 mm, and for the ABAQUS/GA approach in
increments of 0.5 mm. The orientation angles of the
composite layers are considered to be fixed at 0 w.r.t.
the longitudinal axis.
The fundamental flexural modal loss factor of the
beam will be maximized, with a maximum allow-
able mass mmax = 0.005 kg and a maximum allowable
displacement wmax = h/5, where h = ha + he1 + hv +
he2 + hs is the total thickness of the beam. The failure
stresses in the Tsai-Hill expression were considered
to be, for the elastic layers, X = 820 MPa, Y = Z =
45 MPa, both in tension and compression, and R = S =
T = 45 MPa. The excitation consisted of a 1 N force
applied at the mid-point of the beam at t = 0.
For the layerwise model, a 6 1 finite element model
was used, with a total of 543 degrees of freedom. As for
the ABAQUS model, each lamina was discretised with
16 elements (8 along the length, 2 along the width, and
1 along the thickness), with a total of 80 elements and
1627 degrees of freedom. For the GA, the population
size was 25, the mutation probability 0.03, and a total
of 100 and 150 evaluations where made for single and
multiobjective function approaches, respectively.
Results are presented in Table 1, where the initial
or intermediate and final designs are presented for
both approaches, using a single objective function. For
the final design the only active constraint is the mass
constraint. Figure 2 shows the magnitude of the fre-
quency response for the initial and final sandwich beam
designs, and Fig. 3 shows the decrease of the objective
function with iteration number.
As for the multiobjective optimization (ABAQUS/
GA approach), results for the Pareto front solution

Fig. 2 Frequency response (Magnitude) at the point of maximum

displacement for the initial and final designs of the simply sup- Fig. 3 Objective function versus iteration number for the sand-
ported sandwich beam (layerwise model) wich beam design problem (layerwise/FAIPA approach)
576 A.L. Arajo et al.

Table 2 Multiobjective optimal design results for the simply

supported sandwich beam
Optimal designs 1 2 3 4
DV: he1 = he2 [mm] 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0
DV: hv [mm] 7.5 7.0 2.0 0.5
OBJ: f1 3.5 3.7 4.9 7.9
OBJ: f2 (103 ) 5.21 4.93 2.84 1.99
1 [Hz] 580 591 630 641
FT H (105 ) 16.7 17.6 131.3 196.0
w [mm] 0.10 0.11 0.22 0.50
1 [%] 28 27 20 13
DV design variable, OBJ objective function

The obtained optimal results for both approaches

Fig. 4 Pareto front solution for the multiobjective sandwich
beam design problem
are shown in Figs. 4 and 5 for the objective functions
and design variables, respectively. Some optimal design
results are presented in Table 2.
For the results of Table 2 constraints are inactive,
so the displayed values of objective functions were
obtained without the penalties.
are nearly the same, with the slight difference being
explained by the fact that design variables are discrete
in the ABAQUS/GA approach, and continuous in
Layerwise/FAIPA. For both approaches, near mini-
mum thickness for the elastic plies is obtained and
maximum thickness for the viscoelastic core material,
limited by the mass constraint. The maximum displace-
ment constraint as well as the failure criteria constraint
are never active.
A comparison of computational cost between the
two approaches for the present problem show that
the Layerwise/FAIPA approach is more efficient than
ABAQUS/GA in terms of CPU execution times, with
a ratio of 1:20.
As for the discrete Pareto front solutions, GA based
methods do not guaranty either the generation of a
well-distributed Pareto set nor the representation of the
entire Pareto frontier, although appropriate methods
to overcome these limitations have been recently de-
veloped using response surface approximations (Goel
et al. 2007).

4.2 Passive design of a simply supported

sandwich plate

A simply supported sandwich plate of in-plane dimen-

sions 300 200 mm with symmetric layout of layers is
considered. The top and bottom elastic isotropic lay-
ers have a thickness ha = hs = 0.1 mm. The composite
elastic layers (e1 ) and (e2 ) are made of 3 plies each
with equal thickness. The thickness of these 3 plies
are design variables: h(3) (1) (2) (2)
e1 = he2 , he1 = he2 , and he1 =
(1)
(3)
he2 (from outer to inner plies). As for the viscoelastic
core, its thickness hv will also be a design variable.
The thickness design variables can take values from
0.5 mm to 10 mm, and for the ABAQUS/GA approach,
in increments of 0.5 mm. The orientation angles of the
composite elastic layer plies are considered also to be
Fig. 5 Laminae thickness values for the multiobjective sandwich design variables: e(3)
1
= e(1)
2
, e(2)
1
= e(2)
2
, and e(1)
1
= e(3)
2
beam design problem (from outer to inner plies), assuming values between 0
Damping optimization of viscoelastic laminated sandwich. . . 577

Table 3 Single objective Layerwise/FAIPA ABAQUS/GA

optimal design results
Initial Optimal Intermediate Optimal
for the simply supported
(3) (1)
sandwich plate DV: he1 = he2 [mm] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
DV: h(2)
e1 = h(2)
e2 [mm] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
DV: h(1)
=
e1 h(3)
e2 [mm] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
DV: hv [mm] 0.50 2.99 0.50 2.50
(3) (1)
DV: e1 = e2 [deg.] 90 102 90 105
DV: e(2)
1 = e(2)
2 [deg.] 45 99 45 75
(1) (3)
DV: e1
= e2 [deg.] 45 61 45 45
OBJ: f 16.2 5.4 15.7 5.7
1 [Hz] 282 312 284 312
m [g] 329 500 329 466
FT H (103 ) 153.8 102.1 221.3 7.4
w [mm] 0.63 0.11 0.60 0.13
DV design variable, OBJ
objective function 1 [%] 6 19 6 18

and 175 , with increments of 15 for the ABAQUS/GA
approach.
The fundamental flexural modal loss factor of the
beam will be maximized, with a maximum allowable
mass mmax = 0.5 kg and a maximum allowable displace-
ment wmax = h/5, where h = ha + he1 + hv + he2 + hs is
the total thickness of the plate. The failure stresses
in (15) are, for the elastic layers, X = 820 MPa, Y =
Z = 45 MPa, both in tension and compression, and
R = S = T = 45 MPa. The excitation consisted of a
10 N force applied at the mid-point of the plate at t = 0.
For the layerwise model, a 6 4 finite element mesh
was used, with a total of 1505 degrees of freedom. As
for the ABAQUS model, each lamina was discretised
with 24 elements (6 along the length, 4 along the width,
and 1 along the thickness), with a total of 216 elements
and 3636 degrees of freedom. For the GA, the popu-
lation size was 10 individuals, the mutation probability
0.01, and a total of 500 evaluations were made for both
single and multiobjective optimization.
Results are presented in Table 3, where the initial,
intermediate and final designs are presented for both
approaches, using a single objective function. For the
final design, the only active constraints are the mass
constraint, and the lower bounds on elastic layer thick-
nesses. Figure 6 shows the magnitude of the frequency
response for the initial and final sandwich beam de-
signs, and Fig. 7 shows the decrease of the objective
function with iteration number.

Fig. 6 Frequency response (Magnitude) at the point of maximum

displacement for the initial and final designs of the simply sup- Fig. 7 Objective function versus iteration number for the sand-
ported sandwich plate (layerwise model) wich plate design problem (layerwise/FAIPA approach)
578 A.L. Arajo et al.

although normalization has been used. The same type

of solution as in the beam problem is again obtained,
this time with minimum ply thickness for the elastic
layers and maximum overall mass corresponding to
maximum thickness of viscoelastic core layer, which in
turn leads to maximum modal damping.
A direct comparison of computational cost between
the two approaches for the present problem show that
the layerwise/FAIPA approach is more efficient than
the ABAQUS/GA in terms of CPU execution time,
with a ratio of 1:15, in this case.
The same comment regarding the discrete Pareto
front applies for this case, as in the beam problem.

5 Conclusions

Damping maximization in passive sandwich laminated

plates with viscoelastic core and laminated face layers
has been addressed in this paper. The optimization
Fig. 8 Pareto front solution for the multiobjective sandwich plate problem was formulated with thickness design vari-
design problem
ables, as well as elastic ply angles of laminated face
layers, and the maximization of fundamental modal loss
factors was sought.
As for the multiobjective optimization (ABAQUS/
A gradient based approach was used, employing the
GA approach), results for the Pareto front solution
Feasible Arc Interior Point Algorithm along with a new
are shown in Fig. 8. Some optimal design results are
layerwise sandwich model that was developed for this
presented in Table 4.
purpose. An alternative approach, using the finite ele-
For the results of Table 4 constraints are inactive,
ment program ABAQUS associated to an implemen-
so the displayed values of objective functions were
tation of genetic algorithms, was used in order to solve
obtained without the penalties.
the same problems through single and multiobjective
The slower rate of convergence in the layerwise/
optimization.
FAIPA approach, when compared with the beam
Results for the optimization of a simply supported
example, is due to the different sensitivity magnitudes
sandwich beam and simply supported sandwich plate
between thickness and fiber angle design variables,
show that the present technique can improve substan-
tially modal loss factors for these structures. Both the
Table 4 Multiobjective optimal design results for the simply approaches presented agree well, although the com-
supported sandwich plate putational effort associated to the ABAQUS/GA ap-
Optimal designs 1 2 3 4 proach is much greater than the corresponding effort
DV: h(3)
e1 = h(1)
e2 [mm] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 for the Layerwise/FAIPA approach (at least 15 times).
(2) (2)
DV: he1 = he2 [mm] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
(1) (3)
Acknowledgements The authors thank the financial support
DV: =
he1 he2 [mm] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 of Fundaao para a Cincia e a Tecnologia, Portugal, through:
DV: hv [mm] 9.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 POCTI/FEDER, and POCI(2010)/FEDER, CNPq (Brazil), and
DV: e(3) (1)
1 = e2 [deg.] 105 105 105 105 FARPEJ (Brazil).
DV: e(2)
1 = e(2)
2 [deg.] 90 75 75 90
(1) (3)
DV: e1
= e2 [deg.] 75 45 45 60
OBJ: f1 3.81 5.71 5.35 8.58 References
OBJ: f2 0.91 0.47 0.50 0.36
1 [Hz] 328 312 316 293 ABAQUS (2005) Analysis users manual version 6.5. Hibbit,
FT H (103 ) 0.7 7.4 5.3 36.3 Karlsson and Sorensen, Pawtucket
w [mm] 0.04 0.13 0.11 0.29 Alvelid M (2008) Optimal position and shape of applied damping
1 [%] 26 18 19 12 material. J Sound Vib 310:947965
Arajo AL, Mota Soares CM, Herskovits J, Pedersen P (2002)
DV design variable, OBJ objective function Development of a finite element model for the identification
Damping optimization of viscoelastic laminated sandwich. . .
of mechanical and piezoelectric properties through gradi-
ent optimisation and experimental vibration data. Compos
Struct 58:307318
Arajo AL, Lopes HMR, Vaz MAP, Mota Soares CM,
Herskovits J, Pedersen P (2006) Parameter estimation in
active plate structures. Comput Struct 84:14711479
Arajo AL, Mota Soares CM, Mota Soares CA (2008) Optimal
design of active, passive, and hybrid sandwich structures.
In: Lindner DK (ed) Modeling, signal processing, and con-
trol for smart structures, proc. of SPIE, vol 6926. SPIE,
Bellingham, p 69260T
Arajo AL, Mota Soares CM, Mota Soares CA (2009) Finite
element model for hybrid active-passive damping analysis of
anisotropic laminated sandwich structures. J Sandw Struct
Mater doi:10.1177/1099636208104534
Baz A, Ro J (1995) Optimum design and control of active con-
strained layer damping. J Mech Eng Des 117:135144
Boudaoud H, Belouettar S, Daya EM, Potier-Ferry M (2008)
A shell finite element for active-passive vibration control
of composite structures with piezoelectric and viscoelastic
layers. Mech Adv Mater Struct 15:208219
Canelas A, Roche JR, Herskovits J (2009) The inverse elec-
tromagnetic shaping problem. Struct Multidiscipl Optim
doi:10.1007/s00158-008-0285-9
DiTaranto RA (1965) Theory of vibratory bending for elastic and
viscoelastic layered finite-length beams. ASME J Appl Mech
32:881886
Douglas BE, Yang JCS (1978) Transverse compressional damp-
ing in the vibratory response of elastic-viscoelastic beams.
AIAA J 16:925930
Goel T, Vaidyanathan R, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Queipo NV,
Tucker K (2007) Response surface approximation of pareto
optimal front in a multi-objective optimization. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 196:879893
Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization
and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Boston
Haftka RT, Gurdal Z (1992) Elements of structural optimization.
Kluwer, Dordrecht
Herskovits J (1986) A two-stage feasible directions algorithm for
nonlinear constrained optimization. Math Program 36:1938
Herskovits J (1998) A feasible directions interior point technique
for nonlinear optimization. J Optim Theory Appl 99:121
146
Herskovits J, Mazorche JR (2009) A feasible directions algorithm
for nonlinear complementarity problems and applications in
mechanics. Struct Multidiscipl Optim 37:435446
579
Herskovits J, Mappa P, Goulart E, Mota Soares CM (2005) Math-
ematical programming models and algorithms for engineer-
ing design optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
194:32443268
Lifshitz JM, Leibowitz M (1987) Optimal sandwich beam de-
sign for maximum viscoelastic damping. Int J Solids Struct
23:10271034
Marcelin JL, Trompette P, Smati A (1992) Optimal constrained
layer damping with partial coverage. Finite Elem Anal Des
12:273280
Marcelin JL, Shakhesi S, Pourroy F (1995) Optimal constrained
layer damping of beams: experimental numerical studies.
Shock Vib 2:445450
Mead DJ, Markus S (1969) The forced vibration of a three-layer,
damped sandwich beam with arbitrary boundary conditions.
AIAA J 10:163175
Moreira RAS, Rodrigues JD (2006) A layerwise model for thin
soft core sandwich plates. Comput Struct 84:12561263
Moreira RAS, Rodrigues JD, Ferreira AJM (2006) A generalized
layerwise finite element for multi-layer damping treatments.
Comput Mech 37:426444
Nagendra S, Justin D, Gurdal Z, Haftka RT, Watson LT (1996)
Improved genetic algorithm for the design of stiffened com-
posite panels. Comput Struct 58:543555
Nashif AD, Jones DIG, Henderson JP (1985) Vibration damping.
Wiley, New York
Nokes DS, Nelson FC (1968) Constrained layer damping with
partial coverage. Shock Vib Bull 38:510
Rao DK (1978) Frequency and loss factors of sandwich beams
under various boundary conditions. Int J Mech Eng Sci 20:
271278
Rao MD, He S (1993) Dynamic analysis and design of laminated
composite beams with multiple damping layers. AIAA J
31:736745
Sorensen DC (1995) Implicitly restarted arnoldi/lanczos methods
for large scale eigenvalue calculations. Tech. Rep. Technical
Report TR95-13, Department of Computational and Ap-
plied Mathematics, Rice University, Houston, Texas
Sun CT, Lu YP (1995) Vibration damping of structural elements.
Prentice Hall PTR, Englewood Cliffs
Yan MJ, Dowell EH (1972) Governing equations of vibrat-
ing constrained-layer damping sandwich plates and beams.
ASME J Appl Mech 39:10411046
Yang G, Reinstein LE, Pai S, Carroll DL (1998) A new ge-
netic algorithm technique in optimization of permanent 125-i
prostate implants. Med Phys 25:23082315