Skip to main content
Glama

laminate_properties

Compute effective stiffness, thermal curvature, and first-ply failure margins for bonded multi-layer composite stacks without a solver.

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does so well: it lists the exact methods (Voigt/Reuss rule-of-mixtures, transformed-section neutral axis, CLT A/B/D), the degenerate cases (single material, symmetric stack, zero delta_T) and the fidelity/band/warnings outputs. It stops short of describing auth, cost, or rate behavior, but for a physics screen its behavioral disclosure is rich.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The definition is long and dense, mixing usage positioning, parameter docs, method enumeration, and a return-value dump into prose. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the return listing and mid-paragraph method detail could be trimmed or moved.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies nearly everything an agent needs: what it computes, its inputs, its outputs, its limitations, and when to escalate. It is close to complete, missing only minor unit/default clarity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains layers is bottom→top with thickness in mm plus either a material name or explicit E/nu/yield/cte/density/k properties with override semantics, and explains delta_T, force_n, and moment_nmm roles. It omits width_mm's default and unit semantics for some quantities.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: computes effective stiffness, thermal warp, and first-ply failure of a bonded multi-layer composite stack, and explicitly positions it as the closed-form screening twin gated against a layered fem_run static solve. This distinguishes it from the sibling fem_run and other structural tools.

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?

Explicitly names when to use the tool (screening closed-form twin) and when not to, listing exactly what triggers escalation to a layered fem_run solve: thick stacks, anticlastic curvature, free-edge interlaminar stress, or non-isotropic plies.

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