Structural and Laminate Optimization

Structural optimization applies linear and nonlinear programming to structural and laminate design, to minimize weight, cost, or part count against your real constraints of strength, stiffness, and manufacturability. INNX runs the optimization on the same models used for analysis, so the optimized design is verified, not just theoretical. You receive the optimized design, the constraints that limit it, and a report of the verified analysis of the final design.

Typical problems

• A part that meets its loads but is heavier or more expensive than it needs to be.
• A laminate whose ply angles, ply counts, or thicknesses were chosen by rule of thumb.
• Too many design variables to explore by hand, or design iterations that each need a new analysis.
• Competing objectives, such as weight against cost or part count, that need a clear trade-off rather than a single guess.
• A design that is optimal on paper but cannot be manufactured, because the manufacturing limits were never part of the problem.

What you receive

• The optimized design variables: dimensions, thicknesses, or ply angles and counts, depending on the problem.
• The status of every constraint at the optimum, so you can see which requirements drive the design and how much margin the others keep.
• A full analysis of the final design on the same model used for the optimization: stresses, deformations, failure criteria, and margins of safety.
• A written report in the format of the published case studies.
• Before any work begins, a fixed-scope proposal with clear deliverables, timeline, and price. No open-ended hourly billing.

Methods & tools

Problem formulation. Most of the work in an optimization is stating the problem correctly: the objective (weight, cost, part count), the design variables, and the constraints. Strength constraints come from the failure criteria and margins of safety used in the laminate and FEA analysis; stiffness constraints from allowable displacements or frequencies; manufacturability constraints from what your process can actually build.

Linear and nonlinear programming. Problems whose objective and constraints are linear in the design variables are solved with linear programming, which finds the global optimum reliably. Most structural problems are nonlinear, and are solved with nonlinear programming on the analysis model.

Verified models. The optimization runs on the same models used for analysis, in Code_aster or in custom Python and C code, and those models are verified against closed-form solutions or published benchmarks first. An optimizer will exploit any error in the model, so the model has to be right before it is optimized.

Faster evaluations. When each analysis is too expensive for the number of evaluations an optimizer needs, a physics-informed surrogate model can stand in for it during the search, with the final design checked on the full model.

Linear and nonlinear optimization is part of the hands-on background behind INNX, alongside composite mechanics and aerospace structural design.

Industries

Aerospace, defense, energy, marine, automotive, and sports equipment: any team building load-bearing composite or metallic structures that need to survive real-world mechanical and fluid loading, where weight or cost matters.

Typical pricing

Most focused engineering-analysis projects range from $3,000 to $15,000. Complex composite, CFD, optimization and certification-support engagements typically range from $15,000 to $40,000+. Hourly technical support is available from $110/hour.

Final pricing depends on scope, number of load cases, model maturity, reporting requirements and schedule. Every project is quoted as a fixed price before work begins; see the three ways to scope a project.

Related case studies

No optimization study is published yet. These verification studies show how the analysis models that an optimization runs on are checked:

• Stress Concentration & Hole Edge Verification: Code_aster plate-with-hole verification: peak stress within 1.1% of Peterson's finite-width reference and compressive stress within 4.2% of Kirsch.
• Tapered Panel in Shear: Element Formulation Comparison: Cook's membrane in Code_aster: linear QUAD4/HEXA8 elements under-predict deflection by 0.6% and stress by up to 1% vs QUAD8; 3D matches 2D within 0.3%.

FAQ