Skip to main content
Glama

Laminate Properties

laminate_properties
Read-only

Computes effective stiffness, thermal warp, and first-ply failure of bonded multi-layer composite stacks. Provides closed-form screening before detailed FEM analysis.

Instructions

Effective stiffness, thermal warp, and first-ply failure of a bonded multi-layer composite stack (NO solver) — the closed-form screening twin a layered multi-material CalculiX fem_run static solve is gated against (e.g. 1 metal layer + 1 plastic layer, or any [(material, thickness), …]).

layers is the stack bottom→top; each entry is a mapping with a thickness (mm) and either a corpus material name or explicit E/youngs_mpa/ youngs_gpa (+ optional nu/poisson, yield_mpa, cte/cte_per_k, density_kg_m3, thermal_conductivity_w_mk); explicit values override the card. width_mm scales EI / first-ply. Optional delta_T (K) gives the bimetal thermal curvature; force_n (in-plane, total across width) and/or moment_nmm (about the neutral axis) give the first-ply margin.

Computes the in-plane modulus (Voigt rule-of-mixtures parallel, Reuss series through-thickness); the transformed-section neutral axis, EI_eff, and flexural modulus E_flex = 12·EI/(b·h³); the CLT A/B/D matrices per unit width (B ≠ 0 ⇒ bending–extension coupling / warp warning); mass-averaged ρ, stiffness-weighted in-plane CTE, series/parallel thermal conductivity; the transformed-section bimetal curvature (= Timoshenko's two-layer formula exactly, also reported); and per-layer extreme-fibre stress → margin to yield → governing layer + load to first yield. A single-material stack reduces to that material's E / EI; a symmetric stack gives B = 0; ΔT = 0 or zero CTE-mismatch gives zero curl. Escalate to a layered fem_run solve for thick stacks, anticlastic curvature, free-edge interlaminar stress, or non-isotropic plies.

Returns {n_layers, width_mm, total_thickness_mm, layers, E_inplane_mpa, E_through_mpa, neutral_axis_mm, EI_eff_nmm2, E_flex_mpa, A_matrix, B_matrix, D_matrix, coupling_ratio, asymmetric, rho_eff_kg_m3, cte_eff_per_k, k_through_w_mk, k_inplane_w_mk, delta_T, thermal_curvature_per_mm, radius_of_curvature_mm, timoshenko_curvature_per_mm, applied_force_n, applied_moment_nmm, kappa_applied_per_mm, axial_strain, layer_stresses, first_ply, fidelity, band_pct, valid_range_ok, warnings, escalate_to}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layersYes
delta_TNo
force_nNo
width_mmNo
moment_nmmNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that this is a closed-form/no-solver calculation and lists exactly what is computed: Voigt/Reuss moduli, neutral axis, EI_eff, CLT A/B/D matrices, bimetal curvature, and per-layer first-ply margins. It also flags special cases (B != 0 => warp warning, symmetric stack => B=0, delta_T=0 => zero curl) and returns a fidelity/warnings/escalate_to block, so side effects and limitations are unusually clear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long, but it is dense and every segment earns its place: purpose, input semantics, computed outputs, special-case behavior, and escalation path. The front-loaded first sentence names purpose and solver scope before any parameter or output details, and the output enumeration is justified because there is no output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description supplies a full return-key list with units embedded and explains formulas to the point that an agent can predict results. It covers valid inputs, defaults, special cases, and the boundary of applicability. The only thing not enumerated is the closed set of material names, but sibling material_list/material_get tools cover that.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds. It defines layers as bottom-to-top entries with thickness and either a corpus material name or explicit E/youngs_mpa/youngs_gpa plus optional mechanical properties, and notes that explicit values override the card. It also assigns meaning to width_mm, delta_T, force_n, and moment_nmm, including their units and mechanical role.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Effective stiffness, thermal warp, and first-ply failure of a bonded multi-layer composite stack' and immediately flags 'NO solver', distinguishing it from a CalculiX fem_run static solve. It is immediately recognizable as a closed-form screening tool, not a generic analysis utility.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names fem_run as the alternative and gives explicit escalation conditions: 'Escalate to a layered fem_run solve for thick stacks, anticlastic curvature, free-edge interlaminar stress, or non-isotropic plies.' It also says it is the 'screening twin' that a fem_run solve is 'gated against', so an agent knows when to call this cheap screening path first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools