The Loop couples design, simulation, and workmanship into one system instead of three isolated ones. Below are the two stages you can run cold, with real physics under the hood — classical laminate theory, a Tsai-Wu strength screen, and correlated uncertainty propagation. Nothing here is faked, and nothing claims more precision than the data supports.
Sarah — a structural engineer qualifying a brand-new material for a composite bracket — walks every stage with you, one screen at a time. Old way: months of guesswork. Greenlight way: several weeks, with traceable data at every step.
A new material’s datasheet or test report becomes structured, cited data — every value traced to a source, page, and vendor-stated-vs-assumed flag.
SARAH Sarah has a datasheet for a material the library has never seen. She drops the PDF into Ingest; mAI (Machine AI) returns structured rows, every value tagged vendor-stated or assumed, with its source page. She saves it to her private save space — it’s hers.
This is a fixed demonstration of what the Digital Twin does — build, watch, validate, remember — not a true engineering system yet: no material picker, no editable load case, just the four beats in order. The freeform version (any material, any load, any temperature window) is a signed-in Loop tool, not this demo.
Third-party product names (e.g. TC1320 PEKK) are used for representative demonstration purposes only.
The validated layup goes to the TapeLayer™ inside a sealed, environmentally controlled build chamber.
Effective laminate modulus Ex = 51.82 GPa going into the build — the same number the Design tool above would recommend for this material.
Transparent, user-adjustable — every line recomputes live from the inputs below. This is the one tool in the Loop where dollar figures are shown; Design and Digital Twin stay cost-free by design.
Autoclave-class cure is industry-reported at ≈60–75% of total processing energy; this calculator uses the 67.5% midpoint to split out a cure-energy line below.
Greenlight couples economics directly into the engineering workflow — cost is a design variable, not an afterthought.
Typical 100–500 kWh/cycle; >1000 for large aerospace.
Part area × plies + cutting scrap — set your own.
| Line | Type | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Machine energy (9 kWh × $0.12/kWh) | fixed | $1.08 |
| of which cure energy (≈68%, industry-reported) | memo | $0.73 |
| Autoclave process energy (250 kWh/cycle × $0.12/kWh) | fixed | $30.00 |
| Layup labor (1.5 hr × $45.00/hr) | fixed | $67.50 |
| Raw material (prepreg tape) | consumable | $360.00 |
| Gloves | consumable | $1.20 |
| Cutting blades | consumable | $3.50 |
| Vacuum bagging film | consumable | $4.00 |
| Release film | consumable | $2.75 |
| Maintenance reserve | consumable | $6.00 |
| Fixed subtotal | $98.58 | |
| Consumable subtotal | $377.45 | |
| Total per part | $476.03 |
Design-time prediction from classical laminate theory + correlated Monte-Carlo uncertainty. No physical build has happened yet — see the Digital Twin tool for as-made validation.
Third-party product names (e.g. IM7/8552, TC1320 PEKK) are used for representative demonstration purposes only.
Start from where this part has to live — not a bare minimum-modulus number. Check every environment that applies; each flows onto your printable requirements card below.
Environment-based material screening arrives with environmental property data — recorded on your requirements card today.
Describe what you need in your own words — e.g. “a 40 cm bracket that can’t deflect more than 2 mm under a 50 kg load at the tip.” mAI reads it back to you; nothing is applied to the form until you say so.
Start from the structure, not the datasheet: modulus alone is a poor selection criterion — stiffness is the structural property, and it depends on thickness. Enter the panel and the requirement; the tool works forward to a layup.
Modulus vs. stiffness: modulus E (Pa) is a material property. Structural stiffness — axial k = EA/L (N/m) or bending stiffness EI — depends on geometry as well as material. This tool derives the structure from material + geometry; it never recommends on modulus alone.
Drop a STEP file here
or click to choose · .step / .stp
Processed entirely in your browser — the file is never uploaded or stored. Reads the bounding box only (no holes, thickness maps, or load features yet). IGES is not supported in this demo.
Demonstrates CAD-file recognition only — not an engineering analysis. For demonstration purposes only.
Reading the bounding box is a start; mAI reading actual load-bearing features (fastener holes, thickness variation, cutouts) directly from the model geometry is coming soon, alongside the hardware that will validate what it extracts.
Results below the floor are labeled exploratory, never silently dropped or promoted.
Matrix: PEKK (thermoplastic) · ply thickness 0.14 mm — representative value (assumed)· density 1590 kg/m³ ±3.9% band at 95% confidence (vendor) (ASTM D792 (typical — not vendor-stated))
Tg 159 °C ±3.9% band at 95% confidence (vendor) (ASTM D7028 (DMA) (typical — not vendor-stated)) · Tm 337 °C ±3.9% band at 95% confidence (vendor) (ASTM D3418 (DSC) (typical — not vendor-stated))
Derived service ceiling 159°C — Tg exactly — semi-crystalline matrix carries load through the amorphous fraction's glass transition (model-derived, unless otherwise stated).
| Property | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| E1 — fiber-direction tensile modulus (GPa) ASTM D3039 (typical — not vendor-stated) | 134.00 GPa ±19.6% band at 95% confidence (assumed) | assumed |
| E2 — transverse modulus (GPa) ASTM D3039 (typical — not vendor-stated) | 9.20 GPa ±19.6% band at 95% confidence (assumed) | assumed |
| G12 — in-plane shear modulus (GPa) ASTM D3518 (typical — not vendor-stated) | 5.00 GPa ±19.6% band at 95% confidence (assumed) | assumed |
| ν12 — major Poisson ratio (—) ASTM D3039 (typical — not vendor-stated) | 0.310 — ±19.6% band at 95% confidence (assumed) | assumed |
| Xt — fiber-direction tensile strength (MPa) ASTM D3039 (typical — not vendor-stated) | 2050.00 MPa ±19.6% band at 95% confidence (assumed) | assumed |
| Xc — fiber-direction compressive strength (MPa) ASTM D6641 (typical — not vendor-stated) | 1100.00 MPa ±19.6% band at 95% confidence (assumed) | assumed |
| Yt — transverse tensile strength (MPa) ASTM D3039 (typical — not vendor-stated) | 62.00 MPa ±19.6% band at 95% confidence (assumed) | assumed |
| Yc — transverse compressive strength (MPa) ASTM D6641 (typical — not vendor-stated) | 190.00 MPa ±19.6% band at 95% confidence (assumed) | assumed |
| S — in-plane shear strength (MPa) ASTM D3518 (typical — not vendor-stated) | 130.00 MPa ±19.6% band at 95% confidence (assumed) | assumed |
Why this one (others below are feasible too): Lowest areal mass (1.78 kg/m², 8 plies) among the 60 candidate layups meeting the stiffness target at ≥90% confidence; ties broken by least overshoot.
8 plies total. Both outer surfaces are 0°.
What the numbers mean: a confidence % is the modeled probability of meeting the stated targetgiven the material’s published property band — not how “sure” the tool is. A band like “±6.2% band at 95% confidence” means 95% of modeled outcomes fall within ±6.2% of the stated value — it is a spread, not a probability.
A one-page summary you can hand off — “okay boss, this is what we need.” Printing this page prints only the card below.
Requires calibrated machine energy, cycle time, and consumable rates from an actual TapeLayer build of this part — arrives with hardware. Use the standalone Cost tool for a manual, transparent estimate today.
Depends on machine layup rate and part geometry, both measured from real builds — arrives with hardware, not modeled here.
| Layup notation | Plies | Derived stiffness k (kN/mm) | Areal mass (kg/m²) | Confidence of meeting target | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [0/±45/90]ₛ recommended | 8 | 36.3 kN/mm · ±19.6% band at 95% confidence | 1.78 kg/m² | 95.8% | feasible |
| [0₂/90₂]ₛ | 8 | 50.4 kN/mm · ±19.6% band at 95% confidence | 1.78 kg/m² | 100.0% | feasible |
| [0₂/±45]ₛ | 8 | 53.6 kN/mm · ±19.6% band at 95% confidence | 1.78 kg/m² | 100.0% | feasible |
| [0₃/90]ₛ | 8 | 72.3 kN/mm · ±19.6% band at 95% confidence | 1.78 kg/m² | 100.0% | feasible |
| [0₄]ₛ | 8 | 93.8 kN/mm · ±19.6% band at 95% confidence | 1.78 kg/m² | 100.0% | feasible |
| [0/(±45)₂]ₛ | 10 | 36.1 kN/mm · ±19.6% band at 95% confidence | 2.23 kg/m² | 95.5% | feasible |
| [0/±45/90₂]ₛ | 10 | 39.1 kN/mm · ±19.6% band at 95% confidence | 2.23 kg/m² | 99.0% | feasible |
| [0₂/90₃]ₛ | 10 | 52.0 kN/mm · ±19.6% band at 95% confidence | 2.23 kg/m² | 100.0% | feasible |
What the numbers mean: a confidence % is the modeled probability of meeting the stated targetgiven the material’s published property band — not how “sure” the tool is. A band like “±6.2% band at 95% confidence” means 95% of modeled outcomes fall within ±6.2% of the stated value — it is a spread, not a probability.
Every band above comes from published or assumed material property spreads today. Once a TapeLayer machine builds coupons of this exact layup, the Digital Twin tool’s as-made flywheel feeds real Step-1 workmanship + measured properties back into this material’s private save space — the same recommendation, but with the band shrunk toward the machine’s own measured precision instead of a vendor or assumed spread. Coming soon.
The walkthrough below runs on a shared demo material. Sign in and Ingest becomes real — drop your own datasheet and mAI (Machine AI) extracts it for you.
You’ve read the Loop above — now click through it, one stage per screen. Every number below is computed live by the same NCAMP-pinned engine that powers the tools on this page; anything not computed is a labeled input. Use the stage buttons or the ←/→ arrow keys to move through the walkthrough.
Third-party product names (e.g. TC1320 PEKK) are used for representative demonstration purposes only.
A datasheet becomes structured, cited rows
Input — a datasheet arrives