ANALYTICAL MODE
IDLE

Wafer Chuck
Design Copilot

A demonstration of AI-in-the-loop engineering design — where an AI co-pilot reasons over physics results, proposes geometry and material changes, and iterates toward a converged solution alongside the engineer.

1
🧑‍💻 ENGINEER sets parameters
You configure geometry (wall, top plate, channels), material, and cooling via the sidebar. Starting point is yours to own.
2
🤖 AI runs FEA + diagnoses
The co-pilot meshes the geometry, solves stress / thermal / bow physics, and reads every number — diagnosing why a target fails, not just that it failed.
3
🤖 AI proposes next design
Based on the cost function score and failure mode, the AI proposes specific parameter changes — with a written rationale you can read and critique.
4
🧑‍💻 ENGINEER decides: Accept or Modify
You review the proposal and either accept it (AI drives the next iteration) or override values in the sidebar. You stay in control at every step.
↓ repeat until converged

The co-pilot uses a structured two-phase strategy to guarantee convergence — it never tries to cut cost while constraints are still violated.

PH
1
FEASIBILITY — Bring design in-bounds
Active when any physics target is violated (bow >3µm, stress >180MPa, temp >120°C, mass >3500g). The AI ignores cost entirely and focuses on the fastest path to a feasible region:
Bow failing on high-CTE material? Escalate to Invar/SiC immediately — geometry alone can't save it.
Bow failing on low-CTE material? Maximise cooling (HTC + channel count) to reduce ΔT.
Stress failing? Increase wall thickness and top plate to reduce peak thermal stress.
Temperature failing? Boost HTC and add channels; escalate heater management if needed.
Goal: all 4 targets GREEN. Cost score is not evaluated until Phase 1 exits.
▼   ALL CONSTRAINTS SATISFIED   ▼
PH
2
OPTIMISATION — Minimise cost function
Active once all targets are in-bounds. The AI now holds feasibility as a hard constraint and works solely to reduce the composite cost score — trimming mass, easing cooling demands, and preferring cheaper materials where the physics margin allows:
Large cost improvement available? Reduce wall thickness or channel count to cut mass score.
On Invar/SiC with margin to spare? Try downgrading material if stress & bow headroom is sufficient.
Cost delta <0.01? Declare convergence — marginal gains aren't worth another FEA iteration.
Goal: lowest possible cost score while every constraint stays green.

A 200mm semiconductor wafer chuck must stay flat to within 3µm under a 130°C process heater. The co-pilot iterates over geometry (wall thickness, top plate, cooling channels), material (AL6061, AL7075, Invar, SiC), and cooling physics (HTC, channel count) — diagnosing failures and reducing cost each iteration until all targets converge.

The real system runs FreeCAD for parametric geometry, Gmsh for adaptive meshing, and CalculiX for full finite element analysis — converging in 5–8 FEA iterations in ~2.5 minutes. This demo uses analytical physics models calibrated from those real FEA runs to replicate the same convergence behaviour in the browser.

Default run — physics models calibrated from real FEA runs. The reasoning engine reads live results and proposes parameter changes using the same logic as the real co-pilot.

With API key — a live language model receives the actual physics numbers and full iteration history, writes genuine engineering diagnosis, and proposes next parameters. Each run is unique.

Custom parameters — adjust any slider before starting. The analytical engine responds to your specific inputs and converges from wherever you begin.

200mm
chuck dia
130°C
heater temp
AL6061
material
~30µm
bow — iter 1
~116MPa
stress — iter 1
3.0µm
bow target
📬 Engineering IT Bridge Newsletter

Enjoyed this demo? Get more deep-dives on AI-in-the-loop engineering, industrial automation, and practical IT/OT integration — straight to your LinkedIn feed.

Subscribe on LinkedIn
Cost = 0.35·mass + 0.25·cooling + 0.15·matCost + 0.15·mfg + 0.10·bow — each term normalised 0→1, lower is better