Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Quantum-assisted Stacking Sequence Retrieval and Laminated Composite Design

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that stacking sequence retrieval in composite design can be solved by quantum-assisted methods, and that a tensor-network solver matches or beats the classical state of the art on most tested cases up to 200 plies.

desk verdict Solid competition report with a credible DMRG benchmark, but the 'outperforming classical methods' claim rests on on-manifold test targets and an unfair Opti-BLESS baseline, so treat the headline as plausible rather than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10303 v1 pith:E5M7V7PL submitted 2024-11-15 quant-ph cs.CEcs.ET

Arne Wulff , Swapan Madabhushi Venkata , Boyang Chen , Sebastian Feld , Matthias Möller , Yinglu Tang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.CEcs.ET
keywords stackingsequenceretrievallaminationparameterscompositelaminatesDMRGF-VQEquantumoptimizationmanufacturingconstraintstensornetworks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Stacking sequence retrieval — choosing the discrete ply-angle sequence so that a composite laminate's stiffness matches target lamination parameters — is the combinatorial bottleneck in the standard bi-level optimization of composite structures. This paper claims that the problem can be cast as a ground-state search on a diagonal quantum Hamiltonian and solved with a quantum-inspired tensor-network solver (DMRG) and a variational quantum algorithm (F-VQE). In a comparison with two established classical solvers, LAYLA and Opti-BLESS, DMRG outperformed them on most test cases in both accuracy and runtime while enforcing the full set of manufacturing constraints, up to 200 plies. F-VQE found the optimal stacking sequence in every trial for 8- and 10-ply laminates and, unlike the earlier hardware-efficient circuit, kept a superposition of candidate states during optimization. The same framework handles finer 15-degree ply-angle increments, buckling-factor maximization, and a tunable penalty for clustering or dispersing same-angle plies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is a diagonal Hamiltonian whose basis states encode ply-angle sequences: each ply is a $d$-dimensional quantum register (two qubits for the four conventional angles), and the energy of a state is the squared distance from the target lamination parameters plus penalty terms for disorientation, contiguity, the 10% rule, and the balanced condition. DMRG minimizes this Hamiltonian in matrix product form, with bond dimension and number of sweeps as the primary tuning parameters. F-VQE applies a filter function to the measured probability distribution so that low-energy states are amplified while the overall state remains a superposition. A nearest-neighbor bias term $\alpha \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \delta_{s_n,s_{n+1}}$ tunes clustering versus dispersion of same-angle plies, and an excitation-preserving partial-swap circuit conserves ply-angle counts when the objective is, for example, maximizing the buckling factor under biaxial loading.

What would settle it

Run DMRG, LAYLA, and Opti-BLESS on random target points inside the feasible lamination-parameter space rather than targets derived from valid sequences, holding ply count and constraints fixed. If DMRG's error and runtime advantage over LAYLA and Opti-BLESS shrinks or reverses on such targets, the paper's competitiveness claim is specific to its generated test distribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that stacking sequence retrieval can be represented as the minimization of a Hamiltonian over quantum basis states, with manufacturing constraints added as penalty terms, and that this representation is not just a theoretical construction but a working solver. DMRG, run as a classical tensor-network ground-state solver, produced valid stacking sequences whose lamination parameters stayed within about 0.2 of the targets for ply counts from 15 to 200, and it required less computation time than LAYLA on nearly all configurations while matching or beating both classical methods on accuracy. F-VQE, which reshapes the probability distribution of the variational state to amplify low-energy configurations, is claimed to fix the early state-collapse observed in the authors' earlier variational approach and to converge to the optimal stacking sequence across all tested 8- and 10-ply instances. Because DMRG cannot represent the entanglement a true quantum computer could generate, the authors present it as a conservative baseline and argue that actual quantum hardware is likely to do at least as well.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that target lamination parameters generated from valid stacking sequences represent the targets that actually arise from the first level of bi-level optimization; if real targets are less regular or not achievable by any valid sequence, the reported accuracy and runtime comparisons may not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If these results are correct, a tensor-network solver with modest bond dimensions is a practical alternative for the stacking sequence retrieval step in composite design, since it stays accurate to about 0.2 in lamination-parameter distance up to 200 plies.
  • The F-VQE demonstration implies that variational quantum circuits can avoid premature collapse and amplify good candidate states, addressing a known weakness of earlier hardware-efficient variational approaches.
  • Handling 15-degree ply-angle increments opens the formulation to design spaces beyond the conventional 0, ±45, and 90 degree laminates without changing the underlying encoding.
  • The buckling-factor objective and the nearest-neighbor clustering bias show that the same machinery can optimize properties beyond stiffness matching and can encode manufacturing-cost preferences.
  • Since DMRG is entanglement-limited, the authors conclude that actual quantum algorithms are a potential upgrade path that could exceed this baseline performance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A next natural test, not reported in the paper, would be to run the same comparison on targets produced by a real first-level optimizer, since targets generated from valid sequences make the optimal loss exactly zero by construction.
  • The near-constant error of about 0.2 across ply counts suggests the bottleneck is the solver's representation, not the problem size; if so, even larger laminates are within reach at that accuracy.
  • The same basis-state encoding applies to any layer-wise design problem with discrete choices and additive layer contributions, so the method could be carried over to wind-turbine blades, battery stacks, or hybrid-material panels.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports the QAIMS lab's finalist submission to the Airbus/BMW Quantum Computing Challenge. It extends the authors' earlier work on quantum/tensor-network stacking sequence retrieval by (i) enforcing the full set of manufacturing constraints in DMRG, (ii) implementing F-VQE for lamination-parameter matching and buckling-factor maximization, (iii) adding a nearest-neighbor clustering/dispersion term, and (iv) benchmarking DMRG against LAYLA and Opti-BLESS on symmetric laminates with up to 200 plies. The central claim is that, with the full set of constraints, DMRG is competitive with and outperforms LAYLA and Opti-BLESS on most test cases in both accuracy and efficiency, which the authors take as evidence that quantum-inspired and ultimately quantum algorithms could be a viable route for SSR in composite laminate design.

Significance. If the comparative claim survives scrutiny, this would be one of the largest-scale demonstrations of a quantum-inspired method on a practically motivated combinatorial design problem, and the open-source implementation would provide a useful baseline. The DMRG implementation with all manufacturing constraints as MPO penalties, the use of known-optimum benchmark targets, and the explicit head-to-head comparison with two classical SSR codes are concrete strengths. The F-VQE results show that probability-shaping filters maintain superposition and amplify good states, addressing a limitation of the earlier HWE approach. However, the benchmarking limitations identified below mean that the central 'outperforming' conclusion is, at present, an extrapolation from a favorable instance distribution rather than a demonstrated property on representative SSR problems.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3.2, Fig. 8] The benchmark constructs all target lamination parameters from valid stacking sequences (Section 2.3.2: 'we generated a diverse set of target lamination parameters corresponding to valid stacking sequences'), so every instance has an exactly feasible optimum with loss 0. In the bi-level workflow of Section 2.1, the SSR target comes from the first-level continuous lamination-parameter optimization, which generically produces targets that no valid stacking sequence achieves exactly; for such off-manifold targets, accuracy is determined by the trade-off between matching the lamination parameters and satisfying the manufacturing constraints. The comparison in Figure 8 therefore does not exercise the regime where the claimed advantage matters most. To support the conclusion that DMRG outperforms LAYLA and Opti-BLESS on representative SSR problems, the authors should add benchmarks with off-manifold targets (e.g., perturbed targets or targets from a first-level optimizer) and report both the lamination-parameter distance and the constraint-violation rate.
  2. [§2.3.2/§5.2.2, Fig. 8] Opti-BLESS is evaluated without constraint enforcement (Section 2.3.2 and Section 5.2.2), while DMRG and LAYLA produce valid stacks; unconstrained solutions may violate manufacturing rules, so their reported distances are not on equal terms with the DMRG/LAYLA results in Figure 8. The comparison is further weakened because Opti-BLESS was run on only 10 of the 40 targets per configuration (Section 5.2.2), making the distributions noisier. The paper also acknowledges that LAYLA's hyperparameters were not tuned (Section 2.5). The central 'outperforming in most cases' claim needs a like-for-like comparison, with constraints enabled for all methods (or a common feasibility filter) and matched trial counts.
  3. [§2.4/§5.1/§5.2.1] The buckling-factor experiments do not use a fixed hyperparameter setting: Section 2.4 states that the penalty was 'incrementally increased ... until optimization produced a valid result,' and Section 5.1 reports h=0.1 chosen 'after testing.' Per-trial, outcome-dependent penalty adjustment makes it difficult to separate algorithmic performance from oracle-like tuning. For reproducibility, the constrained buckling results should be obtained under a fixed penalty schedule or a predefined selection rule applied identically to all trials.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.3.2] The sampling procedure for the 'diverse set of target lamination parameters' is not specified; please state how many random valid sequences were used, how the ply counts were selected, and the random seed, so the benchmark is reproducible.
  2. [Eq. (7)] The product in the basis-state encoding should run over |s_n⟩ for n=1,...,N; as typeset it reads |sN⟩ for every factor, which obscures the encoding.
  3. [Eq. (15)] There is a stray comma after (zn−zn−1), and the vD formula uses a summation index k with terms depending on n; please align the indexing and notation.
  4. [Fig. 8] The caption and Section 5.2.2 do not report how many independent DMRG runs are summarized in each box, nor how the vertical mean-runtime line combines the five bond dimensions and four sweep counts; please clarify.
  5. [§2.4] The statement that F-VQE 'consistently identified the optimal state across all trials' should be qualified as 'the optimal basis state was sampled at least once among the 1000 shots,' because Figures 4 and 5 show that the target-state probability remains well below 1 throughout optimization.
  6. [§5.2.1] The statement that no significant dependence on the parameter-optimization scheme was found is not accompanied by data; either show the comparison or omit the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the benchmark targets, classical baselines, and ground-truth checks are external; self-citations provide prior formulation but are not load-bearing for the new claims.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the claims it actually makes. For the comparative study, the target lamination parameters are generated from valid stacking sequences (Sec. 2.3.2), which gives a known zero-loss optimum and provides an external reference; this is a benchmark construction, not a fitted input. DMRG's penalty weights (Table 2) are hyperparameters chosen a priori and scaled inversely with ply count, not calibrated to the test targets and not renamed as predictions. F-VQE results are checked against brute-force ground truth via histograms of all permutations (Figs. 6 and 7), and the DMRG-versus-classical comparison uses independent open-source implementations LAYLA and Opti-BLESS. Self-citations to [1] supply encoding, MPO, and DMRG implementation details, but those are prior published tools; the new demonstrations—full constraint set, 15-degree ply increments, buckling maximization, and clustering-dispersion control—are executed and evaluated in this paper, and the competitive-performance claim rests on those new experiments, not on the self-citation alone. No equation is defined in terms of a predicted quantity, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to force a choice. The paper itself flags limitations such as Opti-BLESS being run without constraint enforcement (Sec. 5.2.2) and F-VQE's shot-limited scaling (Sec. 2.5); these affect comparability and generalizability, but they are not circular reductions. Overall, no specific circular step can be quoted from the text, so the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the clustering/dispersion bias and penalty terms are Hamiltonian terms, not entities. The free parameters are hand-chosen penalty weights and scaling constants that affect the results. The benchmark design (targets generated from valid sequences) is an ad hoc assumption that makes optimal values known.

free parameters (5)
  • Constraint penalty weights gamma_c = Disorientation 1.0/N, contiguity 0.5/N, 10-percent-rule 0.2/N, balanced 0.2/N (DMRG); gamma=0.05 (F-VQE LP search)
    Chosen by hand and scaled inversely with ply count N; not derived from first principles, and the claims of constraint satisfaction depend on these values.
  • Buckling penalty gamma = Started at 5, incremented by 5 per trial until a valid stacking sequence is produced
    Per-trial manual tuning during optimization; introduces a selection bias in the constraint-enforcement results.
  • Clustering/dispersion bias alpha = Varied across negative and positive values (Figure 10)
    User-chosen parameter controlling nearest-neighbor ply coupling; the demonstration sweeps over it.
  • Laminate thickness h for buckling objective = 0.1
    Chosen after testing to avoid overflow in the exponential filter and balance penalty magnitudes (Section 5.1).
  • Positivity offset lambda_max = Sufficiently large constant, value not specified
    Added to the buckling objective (eq. 38) to ensure positivity; value is chosen rather than derived.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Classical lamination theory relates the ABD stiffness matrix to stacking sequence via lamination parameters (eqs. 2, 12-15)
    Standard theory in composite mechanics, cited from [2-4,9-11]; the whole objective depends on it.
  • domain assumption Symmetry of the laminate around the midplane, so B-lamination parameters vanish
    The problem restricts to symmetric laminates (Section 2.2.1), which is standard for aerospace laminates and simplifies the encoding.
  • domain assumption The set of manufacturing constraints (disorientation, contiguity, balanced, 10-percent rule) is the authoritative full set (Section 2.2.1)
    Taken from [16,24]; the optimality of solutions is defined relative to these constraints.
  • standard math DMRG with matrix product states provides a faithful approximate ground-state solver for the loss Hamiltonian
    Standard tensor-network method [29-32]; used as a classical proxy for quantum algorithms.
  • standard math F-VQE converges to a distribution shaped by the chosen filter function
    Algorithm from [23]; the paper relies on its convergence properties without re-deriving them.
  • domain assumption Buckling factor closed-form (eq. 16) applies for biaxially loaded simply supported plate with m=n=1
    Analytical approximation from [11]; used as optimization objective.
  • ad hoc to paper Target lamination parameters generated from valid stacking sequences constitute a representative benchmark
    The paper manufactures test instances this way (Section 2.3.2), so the optimal value is 0; this is a benchmark design choice rather than an externally grounded dataset.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum-assisted Stacking Sequence Retrieval and Laminated Composite Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5M7V7PL

@misc{pith2026241110303,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum-assisted Stacking Sequence Retrieval and Laminated Composite Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5M7V7PL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10303}
}
read the original abstract

We, the QAIMS lab lab at the Aerospace Faculty of TU Delft, participated as finalists in the Airbus/BMW Quantum Computing Challenge 2024. Stacking sequence retrieval, a complex combinatorial task within a bi-level optimization framework, is crucial for designing laminated composites that meet aerospace requirements for weight, strength, and stiffness. This document presents the scientifically relevant sections of our submission, which builds on our prior research on applying quantum computation to this challenging design problem. For the competition, we expanded our previous work in several significant ways. First, we incorporated a full set of manufacturing constraints into our algorithmic framework, including those previously established theoretically but not yet demonstrated, thereby aligning our approach more closely with real-world manufacturing demands. We implemented the F-VQE algorithm, which enhances the probability shaping of optimal solutions, improving on simpler variational quantum algorithms. Our approach also demonstrates flexibility by accommodating diverse objectives as well as finer ply-angle increments alongside the previously demonstrated conventional ply angles. Scalability was tested using the DMRG algorithm, which, despite limitations in entanglement representation, enabled simulations with up to 200 plies. Results were directly compared to conventional stacking sequence retrieval algorithms with DMRG showing high competitiveness. Given DMRG's limited entanglement capabilities, it serves as a conservative baseline, suggesting potential for even greater performance on fully realized quantum systems. This document serves to make our competition results publicly available as we prepare a formal publication on these findings and their implications for aerospace materials design optimization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10303 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a) Diagram of a laminated composite material, which consists of multiple layers that are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a) A depiction of the dependencies of the stiffness matrix which couples forces to deformations, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a) The parameterized quantum circuit used lamination parameter search b) The parameterized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of lamination parameter search with F-VQE for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results of lamination parameter search with F-VQE for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of buckling factor maximization with F-VQE for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results of buckling factor maximization with F-VQE for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results for DMRG with conventional ply-angles and manufacturing constraints, in compar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Results of DMRG with 15 degree separation in varying configurations. Shown are the distri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Effect of an added bias α on nearest neighbor interactions, on a laminate of N = 50 plies. For each stack, we chose the best of 10 independent trials of DMRG at bond-dimension 32. 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum computing and tensor networks for laminate design: A novel approach to stacking sequence retrieval

    Arne Wulff et al. “Quantum computing and tensor networks for laminate design: A novel approach to stacking sequence retrieval”. In:Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 432 (2024), p. 117380.issn: 0045-7825. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2024.117380

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Bending and Stretching of Certain Types of Heterogeneous Ae- olotropic Elastic Plates

    E. Reissner and Y. Stavsky. “Bending and Stretching of Certain Types of Heterogeneous Ae- olotropic Elastic Plates”. In:Journal of Applied Mechanics 28 (3 Sept. 1961), pp. 402–408.issn: 0021-8936. doi: 10.1115/1.3641719

    work page doi:10.1115/1.3641719 1961

  3. [3]

    On the Theory of Laminated Anisotropic Shells and Plates

    S. B. Dong, K. S. Pister, and R. L. Taylor. “On the Theory of Laminated Anisotropic Shells and Plates”. In:Journal of the Aerospace Sciences 29 (8 Aug. 1962), pp. 969–975.issn: 1936-9999.doi: 10.2514/8.9668

    work page doi:10.2514/8.9668 1962

  4. [4]

    Tsai and H

    Stephen W. Tsai and H. Thomas Hahn.Introduction to Composite Materials. Routledge, Oct. 1980. isbn: 9780203750148. doi: 10.1201/9780203750148

    work page doi:10.1201/9780203750148 1980

  5. [5]

    Optimum stacking sequence design of com- posite materials Part I: Constant stiffness design

    Hossein Ghiasi, Damiano Pasini, and Larry Lessard. “Optimum stacking sequence design of com- posite materials Part I: Constant stiffness design”. In:Composite Structures 90 (1 Sept. 2009), pp. 1–11. issn: 02638223. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.01.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.01.006 2009

  6. [6]

    Optimum stacking sequence design of composite materials Part II: Variable stiffness design

    Hossein Ghiasi et al. “Optimum stacking sequence design of composite materials Part II: Variable stiffness design”. In: Composite Structures 93 (1 Dec. 2010), pp. 1–13.issn: 02638223. doi: 10. 1016/j.compstruct.2010.06.001

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    A review on optimization of composite structures Part I: Laminated composites

    S. Nikbakt, S. Kamarian, and M. Shakeri. “A review on optimization of composite structures Part I: Laminated composites”. In:Composite Structures 195 (July 2018), pp. 158–185.issn: 02638223. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.03.063

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.03.063 2018

  8. [8]

    A review on optimization of composite structures Part II: Functionally graded materials

    S. Nikbakht, S. Kamarian, and M. Shakeri. “A review on optimization of composite structures Part II: Functionally graded materials”. In:Composite Structures 214 (Apr. 2019), pp. 83–102. issn: 02638223. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.01.105

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.01.105 2019

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    S. W. Tsai and N. J. Pagano. Invariant Properties of Composite Materials . 1968. url: https : //apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0668761

    1968

  2. [10]

    Optimal Design of Variable Stiffness Composite Structures Using Lam- ination Parameters

    Samuel T. IJsselmuiden. “Optimal Design of Variable Stiffness Composite Structures Using Lam- ination Parameters”. In: (2011). url: http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:973a564b- 5734- 42c4-a67c-1044f1e25f1c

    2011

  3. [11]

    Static and dynamic aeroelastic tailoring with composite blending and manoeuvre load alleviation

    Marco Tito Bordogna et al. “Static and dynamic aeroelastic tailoring with composite blending and manoeuvre load alleviation”. In: Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 61.5 (Jan. 2020), pp. 2193–2216. issn: 1615-1488. doi: 10.1007/s00158-019-02446-w

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Two-level optimization technique of composite laminate panels by genetic algo- rithms

    Koetsu Yamazaki. “Two-level optimization technique of composite laminate panels by genetic algo- rithms”. In: vol. 37. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Apr. 1996, pp. 1882–1887. doi: 10.2514/6.1996-1539

    1996 doi

  5. [13]

    Multi-step blended stacking sequence design of panel assemblies with buckling constraints

    Samuel T. IJsselmuiden et al. “Multi-step blended stacking sequence design of panel assemblies with buckling constraints”. In: Composites Part B: Engineering 40 (4 June 2009), pp. 329–336. issn: 13598368. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2008.12.002

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    A lamination parameter-based strategy for solving an integer- continuous problem arising in composite optimization

    Dianzi Liu and Vassili V. Toropov. “A lamination parameter-based strategy for solving an integer- continuous problem arising in composite optimization”. In: Computers & Structures 128 (Nov. 2013), pp. 170–174.issn: 00457949. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2013.06.003

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    Two-level layup optimization of com- posite laminate using lamination parameters

    Xiaoyang Liu, Carol A. Featherston, and David Kennedy. “Two-level layup optimization of com- posite laminate using lamination parameters”. In:Composite Structures 211 (Mar. 2019), pp. 337–

    2019

  8. [16]

    Efficient design optimization of nonconventional laminated composites using lamination parameters: A state of the art

    Mazen A. Albazzan et al. “Efficient design optimization of nonconventional laminated composites using lamination parameters: A state of the art”. In:Composite Structures 209 (Feb. 2019), pp. 362–

    2019

  9. [17]

    Airframe-Stuctural-Design

    Michael Chun-Yung Niu. Airframe-Stuctural-Design. Technical Book Co, 1988.isbn: 962-7128-04- X

    1988

  10. [18]

    J A Bailie, R P Ley, and A Pasricha.A summary and review of composite laminate design guide- lines, NAS1-19347. 1997. url: https://www.abbottaerospace.com/downloads/nasa- nas1- 19347-summary-and-review-of-composite-laminate-design-guidelines/

    1997

  11. [19]

    Department of Defense, USA, June

    Composite Materials Handbook (Volume 3) MIL-HDBK-17-3F . Department of Defense, USA, June

  12. [20]

    Ising formulations of many NP problems

    Andrew Lucas. “Ising formulations of many NP problems”. In:Frontiers in Physics 2 (2014), pp. 1–

    2014

  13. [21]

    A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. “A Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm”. In: Arxiv (Nov. 2014). arXiv:1411.4028. url: http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4028

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Quantum Supremacy through the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm

    Edward Farhi and Aram W Harrow. “Quantum Supremacy through the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm”. In: Arxiv (Feb. 2016). arXiv: 1602.07674. url: http://arxiv.org/ abs/1602.07674

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Filtering variational quantum algorithms for combinatorial optimization

    David Amaro et al. “Filtering variational quantum algorithms for combinatorial optimization”. In: Quantum Science and Technology 7 (1 Jan. 2022), p. 015021.issn: 2058-9565.doi: 10.1088/2058- 9565/ac3e54

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    A method using beam search to design the lay-ups of composite laminates with many plies

    Noémie Fedon et al. “A method using beam search to design the lay-ups of composite laminates with many plies”. In:Composites Part C: Open Access 4 (Mar. 2021), p. 100072.issn: 26666820. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomc.2020.100072

    2021

  17. [25]

    doi: 10.3389/fphy.2014.00005

    issn: 2296-424X. doi: 10.3389/fphy.2014.00005

    2014

  18. [26]

    Variational quantum algorithms

    M. Cerezo et al. “Variational quantum algorithms”. In:Nature Reviews Physics 3 (9 Aug. 2021), pp. 625–644. issn: 2522-5820. doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Hybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms and Quantum Error Mitigation

    Suguru Endo et al. “Hybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms and Quantum Error Mitigation”. In: Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 90 (3 Mar. 2021), p. 032001.issn: 0031-9015. doi: 10. 7566/JPSJ.90.032001

    2021

  20. [28]

    Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms

    Kishor Bharti et al. “Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms”. In:Reviews of Modern Physics 94 (1 Feb. 2022), p. 015004.issn: 0034-6861. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.94.015004

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups

    Steven R. White. “Density-matrix algorithms for quantum renormalization groups”. In:Physical Review B 48 (14 Oct. 1993), pp. 10345–10356.issn: 0163-1829.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.48.10345

    1993 doi

  22. [30]

    Permutation genetic algorithm for stacking sequence design of composite lami- nates

    Boyang Liu et al. “Permutation genetic algorithm for stacking sequence design of composite lami- nates”. In:Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 186 (2-4 June 2000), pp. 357–

    2000

  23. [31]

    Density Matrix Renormalization Group and Periodic Boundary Conditions: A Quantum Information Perspective

    F. Verstraete, D. Porras, and J. I. Cirac. “Density Matrix Renormalization Group and Periodic Boundary Conditions: A Quantum Information Perspective”. In:Physical Review Letters 93 (22 Nov. 2004), p. 227205.issn: 0031-9007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.227205

    2004 doi

  24. [32]

    The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states

    Ulrich Schollwöck. “The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states”. In: Annals of Physics 326 (1 Jan. 2011), pp. 96–192.issn: 00034916. doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2010. 09.012

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    LAYLA: a method using beam search to design the lay-ups of composite laminates with many plies

    Noémie Fedon. LAYLA: a method using beam search to design the lay-ups of composite laminates with many plies . 2021. url: https://github.com/noemiefedon/LAYLA

    2021

  26. [34]

    Opti-BLESS

    Terence Macquart. Opti-BLESS. 2021. url: https://github.com/TMacquart/OptiBLESS

    2021

  27. [35]

    A repair algorithm for composite laminates to satisfy lay-up design guide- lines

    Noémie Fedon et al. “A repair algorithm for composite laminates to satisfy lay-up design guide- lines”.In: Composite Structures259(2021),p.113448. issn:0263-8223. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct. 2020.113448

    2021

  28. [36]

    CornerTransferMatrixRenormalizationGroupMethod

    TomotoshiNishinoandKouichiOkunishi.“CornerTransferMatrixRenormalizationGroupMethod”. In: Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 65 (4 Apr. 1996), pp. 891–894.issn: 0031-9015. doi: 10.1143/JPSJ.65.891

    1996 doi

  29. [37]

    A floating node method for the modelling of discontinuities in composites

    BY Chen et al. “A floating node method for the modelling of discontinuities in composites”. In: Engineering Fracture Mechanics 127 (2014), pp. 104–134

    2014

  30. [38]

    Modelling the tensile failure of composites with the floating node method

    BY Chen, TE Tay, and ST Pinho. “Modelling the tensile failure of composites with the floating node method”. In:Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 308 (2016), pp. 414– 442

    2016

  31. [39]

    Modelling delamination migration in angle-ply laminates

    BY Chen et al. “Modelling delamination migration in angle-ply laminates”. In:Composites Science and Technology 142 (2017), pp. 145–155

    2017

  32. [40]

    Optimum design of laminated composite plates using lamination parameters

    Mitsunori Miki and Yoshihiko Sugiyama. “Optimum design of laminated composite plates using lamination parameters”. In: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Apr. 1991.doi: 10.2514/6.1991-971. 11

    1991 doi

  33. [41]

    Effectsofgeometrical and material parameters on free vibration analysis of fiber metal laminated plates

    FaramarzAshenaiGhasemi,RezaPaknejad,andKeramatMalekzadehFard.“Effectsofgeometrical and material parameters on free vibration analysis of fiber metal laminated plates”. In:Mechanics & Industry 14.4 (2013), pp. 229–238.doi: 10.1051/meca/2013062

    2013

  34. [42]

    Lamination Parameters for Sandwich and Hybrid Material Composites

    Gustavo H. C. Silva and Yasser Meddaikar. “Lamination Parameters for Sandwich and Hybrid Material Composites”. In:AIAA Journal 58.10 (2020), pp. 4604–4611.doi: 10.2514/1.J059093

    2020 doi

  35. [48]

    Quantumalgorithmsforelectronicstructurecalculations:Particle- hole Hamiltonian and optimized wave-function expansions

    PanagiotisKl.Barkoutsosetal.“Quantumalgorithmsforelectronicstructurecalculations:Particle- hole Hamiltonian and optimized wave-function expansions”. In:Phys. Rev. A 98 (2 Aug. 2018), p. 022322. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.022322. 12 5 Supplementary information 5.1 Additional info...

    2018 doi

  36. [200]

    Golden Application

    where a ten-fold increase in time can be observed for 40 and 60 sweeps with bond dimensions of 16 and 32. In addition, fig. 9 shows that DMRG can effectively handle ply angles at15◦ separation, which is a huge increase in ply-angle choices over the conventional45◦ separation. ...

  37. [350]

    doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.12.054

    issn: 02638223. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.12.054

    2018 doi

  38. [372]

    doi: 10.1016/S0045-7825(99)90391-2

    issn: 00457825. doi: 10.1016/S0045-7825(99)90391-2

    doi

  39. [374]

    doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.10.095

    issn: 02638223. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.10.095

    2018 doi

  40. [2002]

    url: https://www.abbottaerospace.com/downloads/mil-hdbk-17f/. 10

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.