Composite Laminate Analysis and FEA
Composite laminate analysis computes the stresses and strains in every ply of a laminated part and checks each ply against failure criteria to give a margin of safety for every load case. INNX runs it for aerospace, defense, energy, marine, automotive, and sports engineering teams that need an independent, senior-level analysis without carrying a full-time analyst on payroll. You receive ply-by-ply results, failure indices, margins of safety, and a report your team or certifying body can act on.
Typical problems
- A laminate stack-up that needs a ply-by-ply strength check before a design review, a test, or a design freeze.
- Cutouts, fastener holes, and other features where the stress concentrates and a laminate hand calculation is no longer enough.
- Static, fatigue, and impact load cases that have to be checked against more than one failure criterion.
- A composite or metallic structure whose in-house model has never been checked by an independent analysis.
- A part that is too heavy, where the laminate analysis is the starting point for a structural optimization.
What you receive
- Stress and strain results for composite and metallic structures under static, fatigue, and impact loading, ply by ply for laminates.
- Failure criteria evaluated for every ply and load case: Tsai-Wu, Puck, and maximum stress/strain.
- Margins of safety, so the critical ply, location, and load case are clear.
- A written report in the format of the published case studies: geometry, mesh, materials, boundary conditions, equilibrium checks, results, and conclusions.
- Before any work begins, a fixed-scope proposal with clear deliverables, timeline, and price. No open-ended hourly billing.
Methods & tools
Classical lamination theory (CLT). For flat and moderately curved laminates, CLT relates the in-plane forces and bending moments to the mid-plane strains and curvatures through the laminate stiffness (ABD) matrix. The strains are then transformed into each ply's material axes, where the ply stresses are compared with the allowables. CLT is fast and transparent, which makes it the right first check on a stack-up.
Finite element analysis. Where the geometry, the load path, or a stress concentration is beyond CLT, the part is modeled with finite elements in Code_aster. Element types and solver settings are checked against closed-form solutions or published benchmarks before they are used, as in the case studies below.
Failure criteria. Tsai-Wu gives a single interactive index per ply; Puck separates fiber failure from inter-fiber failure, which tells you how a ply fails and not only whether it does; maximum stress and maximum strain give a direct comparison with each allowable. Reporting several criteria side by side shows where they agree and where the design depends on the choice of criterion.
Custom tools. Python and C for custom analysis, post-processing, and automation, including in-house-built solvers where off-the-shelf tools fall short.
The analysis is backed by a background in composite mechanics, with three years of doctoral research in the field.
Industries
Aerospace, defense, energy, marine, automotive, and sports equipment: any team building load-bearing composite or metallic structures that need to survive real-world mechanical and fluid loading. When the loads come from a flow, see CFD-FEA coupled analysis.
Typical pricing
Most focused engineering-analysis projects range from $3,000 to $15,000. Complex composite, CFD, optimization and certification-support engagements typically range from $15,000 to $40,000+. Hourly technical support is available from $110/hour.
| Engagement | Typical range (USD) |
|---|---|
| Technical review | $500–$1,500 |
| FEA or CFD screening study | $3,000–$7,500 |
| Detailed analysis and report | $7,500–$20,000 |
| Advanced composite, optimization or certification support | $15,000+ |
| Rush work | quoted separately |
Final pricing depends on scope, number of load cases, model maturity, reporting requirements and schedule. Every project is quoted as a fixed price before work begins; see the three ways to scope a project.
Related case studies
These published Code_aster verification studies are metallic, and show the method and the report format used on composite parts:
- Stress Concentration & Hole Edge Verification: Code_aster plate-with-hole verification: peak stress within 1.1% of Peterson's finite-width reference and compressive stress within 4.2% of Kirsch.
- Tapered Panel in Shear: Element Formulation Comparison: Cook's membrane in Code_aster: linear QUAD4/HEXA8 elements under-predict deflection by 0.6% and stress by up to 1% vs QUAD8; 3D matches 2D within 0.3%.
- Loaded Pin in a Bore: Frictional Contact Verification: NAFEMS pin-in-bore frictional contact in Code_aster: contact-point displacement within 0.56% (QUAD4) and 0.43% (QUAD8) of the reference.
FAQ
Which failure criteria do you use for composite laminates?
Tsai-Wu, Puck, and maximum stress/strain. Each criterion is evaluated for every ply and load case, and the report gives the resulting margins of safety.
What software and tools do you use?
OpenFOAM for CFD, Code_aster for FEA, and Python and C for custom analysis, optimization, and automation, including in-house-built solvers where off-the-shelf tools fall short.
How does an engagement start?
With a technical scoping review request. You get a reply within one business day, then a short call to check fit and scope. Well-defined projects receive a fixed-price proposal with clear deliverables and timeline; unclear or technically risky projects start with a paid scoping engagement, credited toward the project if you proceed. No open-ended hourly billing.
Do you sign NDAs?
Yes. Signing an NDA before reviewing your geometry, loads, or design data is standard practice.