Center for Composite Materials
Download CDS2026

User Manual / Examples / Analyses

Analyses.
Solver-visible results.

Exercise environmental, processing, and failure blocks with traceable material systems and explicit solver assumptions. Every case identifies its inputs, calculated readout, provenance, and primary technical sources.

Traceable by design. Published values are transcribed from linked primary sources. CDS plots are calculated or reconstructed from the stated inputs and are clearly labeled.

03

Example class

Analyses

Exercise environmental, processing, and failure blocks with traceable material systems and explicit solver assumptions.

A01Published material system · CDS scenario

AS/3501-6 cure-cycle contour

Resolve temperature and cure-state evolution through laminate thickness, including the exotherm region that a surface thermocouple can miss.

Sources and theory (1)Loos & Springer (1983), curing of epoxy composites
A01 AS/3501-6 cure-cycle contourIllustrated example · not a live run
  1. Laminate
  2. Geometry / cycle
  3. CASES
  4. Response

1 Inputs

01
Hercules AS/3501-6
02
time × thickness grid
03
autocatalytic cure block

Keep these conditions unchanged when comparing with the answer.

2 Output visualization

Time station 1, through-thickness station 1Time station 2, through-thickness station 1Time station 3, through-thickness station 1Time station 4, through-thickness station 1Time station 5, through-thickness station 1Time station 6, through-thickness station 1Time station 7, through-thickness station 1Time station 8, through-thickness station 1Time station 1, through-thickness station 2Time station 2, through-thickness station 2Time station 3, through-thickness station 2Time station 4, through-thickness station 2Time station 5, through-thickness station 2Time station 6, through-thickness station 2Time station 7, through-thickness station 2Time station 8, through-thickness station 2Time station 1, through-thickness station 3Time station 2, through-thickness station 3Time station 3, through-thickness station 3Time station 4, through-thickness station 3Time station 5, through-thickness station 3Time station 6, through-thickness station 3Time station 7, through-thickness station 3Time station 8, through-thickness station 3Time station 1, through-thickness station 4Time station 2, through-thickness station 4Time station 3, through-thickness station 4Time station 4, through-thickness station 4Time station 5, through-thickness station 4Time station 6, through-thickness station 4Time station 7, through-thickness station 4Time station 8, through-thickness station 4Time station 1, through-thickness station 5Time station 2, through-thickness station 5Time station 3, through-thickness station 5Time station 4, through-thickness station 5Time station 5, through-thickness station 5Time station 6, through-thickness station 5Time station 7, through-thickness station 5Time station 8, through-thickness station 5cure timethicknesslowpeak
3 What the result shows

The contour exposes the modeled interior thermal peak before cooldown begins.

Result basisPublished material system · CDS scenario. Values and trends reproduce this page’s example; this is not a fresh solver result or an additional validation claim.
Enlarge output visualization
Time station 1, through-thickness station 1Time station 2, through-thickness station 1Time station 3, through-thickness station 1Time station 4, through-thickness station 1Time station 5, through-thickness station 1Time station 6, through-thickness station 1Time station 7, through-thickness station 1Time station 8, through-thickness station 1Time station 1, through-thickness station 2Time station 2, through-thickness station 2Time station 3, through-thickness station 2Time station 4, through-thickness station 2Time station 5, through-thickness station 2Time station 6, through-thickness station 2Time station 7, through-thickness station 2Time station 8, through-thickness station 2Time station 1, through-thickness station 3Time station 2, through-thickness station 3Time station 3, through-thickness station 3Time station 4, through-thickness station 3Time station 5, through-thickness station 3Time station 6, through-thickness station 3Time station 7, through-thickness station 3Time station 8, through-thickness station 3Time station 1, through-thickness station 4Time station 2, through-thickness station 4Time station 3, through-thickness station 4Time station 4, through-thickness station 4Time station 5, through-thickness station 4Time station 6, through-thickness station 4Time station 7, through-thickness station 4Time station 8, through-thickness station 4Time station 1, through-thickness station 5Time station 2, through-thickness station 5Time station 3, through-thickness station 5Time station 4, through-thickness station 5Time station 5, through-thickness station 5Time station 6, through-thickness station 5Time station 7, through-thickness station 5Time station 8, through-thickness station 5cure timethicknesslowpeak

The contour exposes the modeled interior thermal peak before cooldown begins.

A02Published range · CDS Fickian curves

T300/Fiberite 1034 moisture uptake

Run the one-dimensional Fickian block across the original experimental temperature range and compare the approach to a 1.5% saturation case.

Sources and theory (2)Shen & Springer (1976), moisture absorption/desorptionShen & Springer (1977), moisture/temperature strength tests
A02 T300/Fiberite 1034 moisture uptakeIllustrated example · not a live run
  1. Laminate
  2. Geometry / cycle
  3. CASES
  4. Response

1 Inputs

01
T300/Fiberite 1034
02
300–425 K
03
256 h exposure
04
M∞ 1.5%

Keep these conditions unchanged when comparing with the answer.

2 Output visualization

300 K350 K425 K1.5% saturation caseexposure time · hmoisture content · %300 K350 K425 K
3 What the result shows

Higher-temperature scenarios approach saturation sooner while retaining the same equilibrium limit.

Result basisPublished range · CDS Fickian curves. Values and trends reproduce this page’s example; this is not a fresh solver result or an additional validation claim.
Enlarge output visualization
300 K350 K425 K1.5% saturation caseexposure time · hmoisture content · %300 K350 K425 K

Higher-temperature scenarios approach saturation sooner while retaining the same equilibrium limit.

A03Published allowables · CDS CLT/Tsai–Wu

First-ply failure screen

Recover local ply stresses from CLT and apply Tsai–Wu to the quasi-isotropic T300/5208 plate under increasing axial membrane load.

Sources and theory (2)Tsai & Wu (1971), anisotropic strength theoryHu et al. (2015), T300/5208 input data
A03 First-ply failure screenIllustrated example · not a live run
  1. Laminate
  2. Geometry / cycle
  3. CASES
  4. Response

1 Inputs

01
[0/45/−45/90]s
02
Nx 300 N/mm
03
1.0 mm total thickness

Keep these conditions unchanged when comparing with the answer.

2 Output visualization

FI = 10°0°: failure index 0.2590.259+45°+45°: failure index 0.8040.804−45°−45°: failure index 0.8040.80490°90°: failure index 1.1061.106Tsai–Wu failure index · Nx = 300 N/mm
3 Failure threshold exceeded

The 90° plies reach FI 1.106 first; the example load is above predicted first-ply failure.

Result basisPublished allowables · CDS CLT/Tsai–Wu. Values and trends reproduce this page’s example; this is not a fresh solver result or an additional validation claim.
Enlarge output visualization
FI = 10°0°: failure index 0.2590.259+45°+45°: failure index 0.8040.804−45°−45°: failure index 0.8040.80490°90°: failure index 1.1061.106Tsai–Wu failure index · Nx = 300 N/mm

The 90° plies reach FI 1.106 first; the example load is above predicted first-ply failure.

A04Published lamina · CDS Revision 8 plate model

Plate boundary-condition sweep

Apply the same T300/5208 quasi-isotropic panel and load while changing the four edge IDs from simply supported to mixed and fully fixed support.

Sources and theory (1)Nettles (1994), NASA RP-1351
A04 Plate boundary-condition sweepIllustrated example · not a live run
  1. Laminate
  2. Geometry / cycle
  3. CASES
  4. Response

1 Inputs

01
0.60 × 0.40 m
02
[0/45/−45/90]s
03
2.5 kPa
04
edge IDs SSSS, CSCS, CCCC

Keep these conditions unchanged when comparing with the answer.

2 Output visualization

relative stiffness1.00×SSSS1.55×CSCS2.20×CCCC
3 What the result shows

The Revision 8 Rayleigh screen shows increasing modal stiffness and first frequency as rotational restraint increases.

Result basisPublished lamina · CDS Revision 8 plate model. Values and trends reproduce this page’s example; this is not a fresh solver result or an additional validation claim.
Enlarge output visualization
relative stiffness1.00×SSSS1.55×CSCS2.20×CCCC

The Revision 8 Rayleigh screen shows increasing modal stiffness and first frequency as rotational restraint increases.

A05Published CLT basis · CDS Revision 8 buckling screen

Orthotropic plate buckling surface

Map the critical membrane action as panel aspect ratio and axial/transverse compression direction change.

Sources and theory (1)Nettles (1994), NASA RP-1351
A05 Orthotropic plate buckling surfaceIllustrated example · not a live run
  1. Laminate
  2. Geometry / cycle
  3. CASES
  4. Response

1 Inputs

01
T300/5208 QI-8
02
a/b 0.5–2.0
03
simply supported edges

Keep these conditions unchanged when comparing with the answer.

2 Output visualization

panel aspect ratio a / bNy / Nx compression share
3 What the result shows

The contour exposes the aspect-ratio region where the governing buckling direction switches between Nx and Ny.

Result basisPublished CLT basis · CDS Revision 8 buckling screen. Values and trends reproduce this page’s example; this is not a fresh solver result or an additional validation claim.
Enlarge output visualization
panel aspect ratio a / bNy / Nx compression share

The contour exposes the aspect-ratio region where the governing buckling direction switches between Nx and Ny.

A06CDS Revision 8 constant-section cylinder

Closed-end pressure-cylinder resultants

Convert internal pressure, axial force, and torque into the common axial–hoop–shear laminate resultant basis.

Sources and theory (1)CDS online structural theory structural geometry module
A06 Closed-end pressure-cylinder resultantsIllustrated example · not a live run
  1. Laminate
  2. Geometry / cycle
  3. CASES
  4. Response

1 Inputs

01
ri 75 mm
02
L 0.8 m
03
Pi 2.5 MPa
04
Po 0.1 MPa
05
closed end

Keep these conditions unchanged when comparing with the answer.

2 Output visualization

axialhoopPi = 2.5 MPa
3 What the result shows

The hoop resultant remains the dominant membrane action; axial pressure-end force and applied axial force are superimposed explicitly.

Result basisCDS Revision 8 constant-section cylinder. Values and trends reproduce this page’s example; this is not a fresh solver result or an additional validation claim.
Enlarge output visualization
axialhoopPi = 2.5 MPa

The hoop resultant remains the dominant membrane action; axial pressure-end force and applied axial force are superimposed explicitly.

A07Published methodology · CDS Revision 8 implementation

Hyer thick-cylinder radial response

Compare the shell path with the layer-by-layer generalized-plane-deformation solution for a thick cross-ply cylinder under hydrostatic pressure.

Sources and theory (1)Hyer (1988), thick laminated cylinders
A07 Hyer thick-cylinder radial responseIllustrated example · not a live run
  1. Laminate
  2. Geometry / cycle
  3. CASES
  4. Response

1 Inputs

01
Cross-ply graphite/epoxy
02
radius/wall ratios 5 and 10
03
external pressure

Keep these conditions unchanged when comparing with the answer.

2 Output visualization

shell smearHyer layer-by-layernormalized wall coordinatenormalized radial response
3 What the result shows

The Hyer path resolves through-wall radial displacement, traction continuity, and interlaminar stress instead of smearing the wall into one shell section.

Result basisPublished methodology · CDS Revision 8 implementation. Values and trends reproduce this page’s example; this is not a fresh solver result or an additional validation claim.
Enlarge output visualization
shell smearHyer layer-by-layernormalized wall coordinatenormalized radial response

The Hyer path resolves through-wall radial displacement, traction continuity, and interlaminar stress instead of smearing the wall into one shell section.

A08Published section mechanics · CDS Revision 8 member model

Composite beam section comparison

Hold span, laminate, mass budget, and loading constant while routing the section geometry through rectangle, I, circular-tube, and rectangular-tube formulas.

Sources and theory (1)Nettles (1994), laminate stiffness basis
A08 Composite beam section comparisonIllustrated example · not a live run
  1. Laminate
  2. Geometry / cycle
  3. CASES
  4. Response

1 Inputs

01
L 1.2 m
02
T300/5208 QI laminate
03
equal outer envelope
04
fixed-fixed

Keep these conditions unchanged when comparing with the answer.

2 Output visualization

rectangleI-sectioncircular tuberect. tube
3 What the result shows

The I and tube sections place more laminate away from the neutral axis and therefore increase EI per unit material relative to a compact solid section.

Result basisPublished section mechanics · CDS Revision 8 member model. Values and trends reproduce this page’s example; this is not a fresh solver result or an additional validation claim.
Enlarge output visualization
rectangleI-sectioncircular tuberect. tube

The I and tube sections place more laminate away from the neutral axis and therefore increase EI per unit material relative to a compact solid section.

A09Euler-Bernoulli analytical invariant · CDS 24-element solve

Beam support and frequency sweep

Use the calculated laminate density and EI to compare pinned-pinned, fixed-pinned, fixed-fixed, and cantilever first modes.

Sources and theory (1)CDS online structural theory beam and section mechanics
A09 Beam support and frequency sweepIllustrated example · not a live run
  1. Laminate
  2. Geometry / cycle
  3. CASES
  4. Response

1 Inputs

01
1.2 m I-section
02
common EI and mass/length
03
four support pairs

Keep these conditions unchanged when comparing with the answer.

2 Output visualization

1.00×cantilever2.46×pin-pin3.85×fix-pin5.59×fix-fix
3 What the result shows

The fixed-fixed case is stiffest and highest-frequency; the cantilever is lowest, providing a direct boundary-condition QA trend.

Result basisEuler-Bernoulli analytical invariant · CDS 24-element solve. Values and trends reproduce this page’s example; this is not a fresh solver result or an additional validation claim.
Enlarge output visualization
1.00×cantilever2.46×pin-pin3.85×fix-pin5.59×fix-fix

The fixed-fixed case is stiffest and highest-frequency; the cantilever is lowest, providing a direct boundary-condition QA trend.