Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 72 references

A Phase-Field-Micromechanics Study on the Microstructural Evolution during Viscous Sintering

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A phase-field model predicts neck growth and stress in viscous sintering.

desk verdict A useful incremental phase-field tool for high-viscosity-contrast viscous sintering, but the validation claims are softer than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04050 v1 pith:ZQBCOIRK submitted 2024-12-05 cs.CE

Xiaoxu Dai , Bo Qian , Arkadz Kirshtein , Qingcheng Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CE
keywords phase-fieldmethodviscoussinteringmicrostructuralevolutionmicromechanicsneckgrowthnon-isothermalpolymerstressdistribution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that viscous sintering can be simulated without tracking the deforming particle surface, by using a phase-field variable that is 1 inside particles and 0 in the surrounding vapor. The proposed diffuse-interface model couples a modified Cahn-Hilliard equation with incompressible creeping flow, and it is tested against an exact analytical solution for two coalescing cylinders and against polymer sintering experiments under isothermal and non-isothermal conditions. If correct, the model gives a single computational framework for predicting neck growth, shrinkage strain, and internal stress in particle assemblies. That matters for optimizing polymer and additive-manufacturing processes where particle size, shape, and packing control final density.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the phase-field variable $C$, which marks the particle phase and lets the evolving surface be represented implicitly. Its evolution is driven by a modified Cahn-Hilliard equation with convection, coupled to the incompressible Stokes equation whose stress includes the capillary force $\nabla\cdot(\partial f/\partial \nabla C \otimes \nabla C)$ and an effective viscosity interpolated between particle and vapor values. The interpolation function $N(C)$ is what converts the sharp material jump into a numerically smooth one, and it carries the model's treatment of the high viscosity contrast; the entire validation depends on this closure.

What would settle it

Repeat the two-particle coalescence simulation with the same physical parameters but with $\beta$ set to $10^{-3}$, $10^{-4}$, and $10^{-6}$ and with $\omega$ varied above 3; if the normalized neck-growth curves change noticeably across these choices, the viscosity interpolation injects a spurious parameter and the stress predictions are not reliable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a thermodynamically consistent diffuse-interface model can capture the whole viscous sintering process, including the sharp viscosity change between particle and vapor, and produce quantitatively reliable neck growth. The paper derives the governing equations from a surface-energy free energy and an energy-variational principle, with the effective viscosity inside the diffuse interface interpolated by $N(C)=C^2[1+2(1-C)+\omega(1-C)^2]$, $\omega>3$, and a vapor-to-particle viscosity ratio $\beta=0.001$. Compared with the exact two-cylinder coalescence solution and with experimental data for two polymer powders, the model shows satisfactory agreement for contact-radius evolution under both constant temperature and linear heating. The paper also uses the model to show how size ratio, particle shape, and chain arrangement change strain and stress evolution during sintering.

Load-bearing premise

The model's predictions rely on a chosen formula that mixes particle and vapor viscosities across the fuzzy interface, with a fixed vapor-to-particle viscosity ratio of 0.001 and no sensitivity study; if that formula misstates how the two phases exchange momentum, every computed stress, velocity, and neck-growth curve would be off.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For two equal particles, the predicted normalized neck radius follows the exact analytical solution, giving a benchmark-grade description of early coalescence.
  • Under a linear temperature ramp, the model reproduces the experimental observation that faster heating accelerates sintering, because viscosity falls exponentially while surface tension falls only linearly.
  • Increasing the size ratio of two coalescing particles delays completion of sintering, with the influence of the ratio weakening as the larger particle increasingly controls the flow.
  • In multi-particle chains, longer chains show convergent strain evolution because interior particles see a nearly uniform mechanical environment.
  • Stress concentrates in the neck region at early times and homogenizes as sintering proceeds, linking local curvature gradients to densification.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if the effective-viscosity interpolation is the only closure between phase field and momentum balance, the model should be tested at viscosity contrasts below $\beta=10^{-3}$; a visible dependence of normalized neck growth on $\beta$ would locate the limit of the diffuse-interface approximation.
  • Editorial inference: the strain curves suggest that total sintering time for an aggregate could be predicted from its initial surface-energy deficit relative to the final compact, a quantity the model already computes.
  • Editorial inference: because the energy-variational derivation is dimension-independent, applying the same equations to three-dimensional powder beds and comparing porosity evolution with tomographic measurements would be a direct extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a thermodynamically consistent phase-field-micromechanics model for viscous sintering of amorphous particles with a large viscosity contrast between particle and surrounding vapor. The evolution of a phase-field variable is coupled to a Stokes flow problem with an effective viscosity interpolated across the diffuse interface. The model is validated against Hopper's analytical solution for two equal cylinders (isothermal, PA12), against published experimental neck-growth data for ABS under isothermal sintering at 240°C, and against non-isothermal ABS data at two heating rates. The paper then presents parametric studies of particle size ratio, particle-chain length, particle arrangement, particle shape, and stress distributions during sintering. The authors conclude that the model can accurately predict neck growth, strain, and stress evolution in viscous sintering.

Significance. Should the model operate as claimed, it would be a useful and relatively simple computational tool for simulating viscous sintering in polymer additive manufacturing, capturing both morphological evolution and mechanical fields without explicit interface tracking. The paper's strengths are the favorable comparison with Hopper's sharp-interface solution, the mesh-convergence study for two-particle PA12 sintering, and the breadth of parametric studies that qualitatively reproduce known sintering trends (e.g., delayed sintering with size mismatch and earlier completion for configurations closer to equilibrium). The use of the open-source FEniCS platform also aids reproducibility. The main limitations are that the key viscosity interpolation is unexamined, the non-isothermal validation is partially calibrated, and the quantitative experimental comparisons lack error metrics; these issues currently make the central predictive claim conditional rather than definitively established.

major comments (3)
  1. [2.1, Eq. (8)] The effective viscosity interpolation N(C) = C^2[1 + 2(1 - C) + ω(1 - C)^2] with ω > 3 and β = 0.001 is introduced without derivation, physical motivation, or sensitivity analysis. Because this interpolation controls the momentum balance inside the diffuse interface at the large viscosity contrast (β = 0.001), different choices of ω and β will shift the effective hydrodynamic interface and the capillary stress distribution, directly affecting neck growth, strain, and stress predictions. The Hopper benchmark in Section 3.2 is a sharp-interface solution with no outer fluid, so it cannot certify the interpolation's behavior in the finite-contrast diffuse model. Please provide a derivation or careful physical justification for the specific form of N(C), and report a sensitivity sweep over ω and β (at least over a plausible range) to demonstrate that the validation results are robust to these choices.
  2. [3.4, Fig. 7] The non-isothermal validation sets the initial dimensionless neck radius to 0.3 explicitly to align with the experimental starting point. This makes the comparison in Fig. 7 a post-calibration test rather than a full prediction, because the initial condition is fitted to the data. The authors should report how the predicted curves change with respect to the prescribed initial neck radius, or alternatively start from a physical initial contact condition and discuss the discrepancy. As written, the agreement in Fig. 7 does not constitute an independent predictive validation.
  3. [3.3, Fig. 6; 3.4, Fig. 7] The quantitative experimental comparisons in Figs. 6 and 7 are described as 'satisfactory' and 'reasonable' without any quantitative error measure. Please report error metrics (e.g., normalized RMS error or mean absolute deviation between the model curve and the experimental data points) and, if possible, include error bars or uncertainty estimates for the experimental measurements. Without such metrics, the strength of the claimed quantitative validation is not fully established.
minor comments (6)
  1. [4.2, p. 18] The statement that 'the design d in Fig. 12 is closer to the final equilibrium state' appears inconsistent with the earlier statement that design d has the slowest sintering speed; a configuration closer to equilibrium should have a smaller driving force and thus slower evolution. Please clarify which design is meant or rephrase the energy-dissipation argument.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The color descriptions in the Fig. 4 caption conflict with the text: the text says the analytical result is the black line and the model is the red line, while the caption says 'Hopper's solution (the red curve) and the proposed phase-field-micromechanics model (the blue curve)'. Please correct the caption or the text.
  3. [3.2, ref. [68]] Reference [68] in Section 3.2 is cited as 'Hopper's analytical results' but the reference is Balemans et al., 'Sintering of Two Viscoelastic Particles'. If the comparison is to Hopper's exact solution, please cite the original Hopper reference [21] or an appropriate source that presents it; the current citation is misleading.
  4. [4.1, p. 17] The text 'Taking PA12 (T=240°C) as an example' contradicts Table 1, which lists PA12 at T=175°C. If the example uses ABS at 240°C, please correct the material designation.
  5. [2.1] The model derivation is not self-contained: Eq. (2) is said to be derived in [56] and the governing equations are attributed to [65]. Please briefly restate the key assumptions of the energy-variational derivation, or clearly separate new contributions (including the interpolation N(C)) from prior work, so that reviewers and readers can verify the model without accessing the earlier papers.
  6. [Fig. 1 caption] The phrase 'An schematic representation' should be 'A schematic representation'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Non-isothermal validation is initialized from the experimental curve; the rest of the model is checked against independent Hopper and ABS benchmarks.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.4 (paragraph before Table 5, see also Fig. 7)]
    "The initial dimensionless neck radius was set to 0.3 in the simulation in order to align with the initially observed experimental data [67]."

    This is the paper's non-isothermal validation. The simulation is started from the first measured neck radius, so the initial point of the predicted curve is matched to the experimental data by construction. The comparison in Fig. 7 therefore tests post-calibration evolution from a fitted initial state rather than a fully out-of-sample prediction of absolute neck growth. This partial anchoring makes the reported 'reasonable agreement' less independent than the isothermal and Hopper comparisons, although the dynamics after the initial point are still determined by the model.

full rationale

The core model equations (3)-(9) and the parameter map (2) are taken from the authors' earlier papers ([56], [65]) via self-citation, and the viscosity interpolation N(C) in Eq. (8) is asserted with omega > 3 and beta = 0.001 without derivation or sensitivity analysis. However, these are not circular in themselves: they are inputs, not outputs of the validation. The isothermal comparison with Hopper's exact solution and the isothermal ABS data use material parameters from independent sources and do not depend on the fitted non-isothermal initial condition, so the central quantitative claims have genuine external checkpoints. The only concrete reduction to its own input is the non-isothermal initial neck radius chosen to match the first experimental point, which partially compromises that particular validation but does not force the whole derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities. Its central assumptions are the surface-energy-only free energy, incompressibility, the prescribed temperature dependence in non-isothermal runs, and an ad hoc viscosity interpolation function with parameters beta and omega. The calibrated initial neck radius is a fitted quantity.

free parameters (5)
  • viscosity ratio beta = 0.001
    Chosen value for the ratio of vapor/medium viscosity to particle viscosity in Eq. (8); no sensitivity study provided.
  • interpolation exponent omega = not specified (omega > 3)
    Parameter in N(C) controlling the shape of the viscosity interpolation in Eq. (8); value used in simulations is not reported.
  • surface thickness delta_sf = 3h (h = mesh spacing)
    Interface thickness set to three times the mesh spacing (Section 3.1); affects alpha and kappa via Eq. (2).
  • Cahn-Hilliard mobility M = not specified
    Relaxation parameter in the modified Cahn-Hilliard equation (Eq. 3); value is not given.
  • initial dimensionless neck radius = 0.3
    Set to align the non-isothermal simulation with the initial experimental data (Section 3.4); this calibrates the prediction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Energy variational principle yields the governing equations
    The conservation and force-balance equations (Eqs. 3-9) are stated to follow from an energy variational formulation, cited to the authors' prior work [65] without derivation here.
  • domain assumption Total free energy contains only surface energy
    Eq. (1) defines F as surface energy only; elastic, thermal, and gravitational contributions are neglected even in the non-isothermal simulations.
  • domain assumption Particles are incompressible
    Eq. (4) imposes divergence-free velocity; viscous sintering of amorphous particles is modeled as incompressible Newtonian flow.
  • ad hoc to paper Non-isothermal behavior is captured by a prescribed temperature ramp in material parameters
    Section 3.4 uses a linear temperature increase and temperature-dependent viscosity/surface tension from the literature; no heat equation or thermal stress coupling is solved.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective viscosity interpolation N(C) faithfully represents the two-phase momentum balance
    Eq. (8) introduces a constructed interpolation with beta=0.001 and omega>3; no physical derivation or convergence study for this form.
  • standard math The alpha-kappa to gamma-delta mapping in Eq. (2) is valid
    The relation between surface tension, interface thickness, and double-well parameters is cited to ref. [56] and is consistent with standard diffuse-interface theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Phase-Field-Micromechanics Study on the Microstructural Evolution during Viscous Sintering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZQBCOIRK

@misc{pith2026241204050,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Phase-Field-Micromechanics Study on the Microstructural Evolution during Viscous Sintering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZQBCOIRK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04050}
}
read the original abstract

In the manufacturing process of high-performance particulate materials, viscous sintering plays a crucial role, particularly in fields such as polymer processing and additive manufacturing. The interactions between microscopic particles, their flow behavior, and the evolution of porosity during the viscous sintering process directly influence the material's density and mechanical properties. Therefore, developing efficient modeling techniques to simulate the viscous sintering process is essential for optimizing sintering technology. However, the large deformations and dynamic surface evolution inherent in the viscous sintering of particulate materials present challenges to traditional methods based on the sharp interface model. To address these challenges, we propose a thermodynamically consistent diffusion interface model, referred to as the phase-field-micromechanics model, to analyze the evolution of various physical quantities throughout the viscous sintering process. This model implicitly describes the evolution of particle morphology through an introduced phase-field variable. Through comparisons with analytical solutions and experimental data, we rigorously validate the correctness of the proposed model qualitatively and quantitatively under both isothermal and non-isothermal conditions. Using the proposed model, we explore the development of strain and stress during the sintering process, as well as the effects of particle size, shape and arrangement on the overall sintering behavior. The evolution of these characteristic indicators allows for a clear observation of the viscous sintering process, which is vital for understanding the mechanisms behind viscous sintering and for guiding industrial production.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04050 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Definition of the introduced phase-field variable C: (a) An schematic representation of the phase-field variable C; (b) Spatial distribution of the phase-field variable C (red line) along the x-axis connecting the particle centers. For viscous sintering, we introduce a phase-field variable C to distinguish the particle phase from the surrounding vapor medium (as shown in Fig. 1a), where C=1 within the particles and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The evolution of the normalized neck length as a function of normalized time during the sintering of the employed two-particle model with three different mesh resolutions. 3.2. Comparison to analytical results Employing the material PA12, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. illustrates the two-dimensional microstructural evolution of two equally sized circular particles. As the sintering process advances, the particles progressively draw closer and fused to form a larger circular structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The contact radius evolution from the respective Hopper's solution (the red curve) and the proposed phase-field-micromechanics model (the blue curve) for the sintering of the employed two PA12 particles. 3.3. Qualitative and quantitative experimental validation Using A…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Microstructure evolution during viscous sintering of two extruded ABS filaments at T=200℃ from experimental observations (a) and the proposed phase-field￾micromechanics model (b). (a) Experiment (b) Phase Field-Micromechanics Model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The dimensionless contact radius growth profile of two ABS particles during isothermal sintering at 240°C from experimental measurements (blue dots) and the proposed phase-field-micromechanics model (the red curve). 3.4. Quantitative experimental validation under non-i…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: compares the predictions from the proposed phase-field-micromechanics model with the corresponding experimental measurements, where a reasonable agreement is reached in general. On the one hand, the reduction in surface tension at higher temperature reduces the driving…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Schematic diagram of the two unequally sized circles As time progresses, a neck with a radius of x forms at the intersection of the two particles. During the sintering process, these particles gradually coalesce, and we characterize the influence of size ratio b on sin…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a)The evolution of normalized contact radius as a function of normalized time under different size ratios b; (b)The x-strain evolution during the sintering of two particles with different size ratios. In the early stages of sintering (t*≤0.5), the impact of unequal si…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The microstructural evolution of the chain model consisting of four equally￾sized particles at different times: (a) t*=0, (b) t*=0.4,(c) t*=0.8, and (d) t*=7.2. (a) (b) (c) (d) t*=0.8 t*=7.2 t*=0 t*=0.4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The strain evolutions of the chain models consisting of different numbers of equally sized particles. To further investigate the impact of particle size and arrangement on viscous sintering, the 4-particle chain model with two different particle sizes and four differe…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: exhibits the fastest sintering speed, followed by designs a and c, while the design d shows the slowest sintering speed. This is due to that although all the four designs in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The morphologies of the four-particle models of different arrangements when the normalized time t*= 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The x-strain (a) and total free energy (b) evolutions as a function of normalized time for the four-particle models with different arrangements. 4.3. Particle shape effect To investigate the influence of particle shapes on the sintering process, we implemented viscous…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The initial shapes of the ellipse models for different values of λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The morphologies for the four models with different λ values when the normalized time t*= 3. The x-Strain and total free energy evolutions of different ellipse models with different λ values are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The x-strain (a) and total free energy (b) evolutions as a function of normalized time for the models with different λ values. 4.4. Stress distribution This study examines the stress distribution during the viscous sintering process of linear chains composed of partic…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The distribution of Frobenius norm of stress within different particle systems at different times: (a) the two-particle model; (b) the chain model consisting of three identical particles; (c) the chain model consisting of three particles with varying sizes; t* represe…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [68]

    Villanueva, K

    W. Villanueva, K. Grönhagen, G. Amberg, J. Ågren, Multicomponent and 31 multiphase simulation of liquid -phase sinteri ng, Comput. Mater. Sci. 47 (2009) 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2009.09.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2009.09.018 2009

  2. [22]

    Hopper, Plane Stokes flow driven by capillarity on a free surface, J

    R.W. Hopper, Plane Stokes flow driven by capillarity on a free surface, J. Fluid Mech. 213 (1990) 349. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002211209000235X

    work page doi:10.1017/s002211209000235x 1990

  3. [56]

    Q. Yang, Y . Gao, A. Kirshtein, Q. Zhen, C. Liu, A free -energy-based and interfacially consistent phase-field model for solid-state sintering without artificial void generation, Comput. Mater. Sci. 229 (2023) 112387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2023.112387

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [65]

    Q. Yang, A. Kirshtein, A thermodynamically consistent phase -field- micromechanics model of sintering with coupled diffusion and grain motion, J Am Ceram (2024). https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.20279

    work page doi:10.1111/jace.20279 2024

  5. [1]

    Walker, Mechanism of Material Transport During Sintering, J

    R.F. Walker, Mechanism of Material Transport During Sintering, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 38 (1955) 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1955.tb14928.x

    work page arXiv 1955

  6. [2]

    Bordia, S.L

    R.K. Bordia, S.L. Kang, E.A. Olevsky, Current understanding and future research directions at the onset of the next century of sintering science and technology, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 100 (2017) 2314–2352. https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.14919

    work page doi:10.1111/jace.14919 2017

  7. [3]

    Wadsworth, J

    F.B. Wadsworth, J. Vasseur, F.W. V on Aulock, K. Hess, B. Scheu, Y . Lavallée, D.B. Dingwell, Nonisothermal viscous sintering of volcanic ash, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 119 (2014) 8792–8804. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JB011453

    work page doi:10.1002/2014jb011453 2014

  8. [4]

    Chaunier, G.D

    L. Chaunier, G.D. Valle, D. Lourdin, A.-L. Réguerre, K. Cochet, E. Leroy, Viscous sintering kinetics of biopolymer filaments extruded for 3D printing, Polym. Test. 77 (2019) 105873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.04.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.04.020 2019

Show all 72 references
  1. [5]

    Kamyabi, R

    M. Kamyabi, R. Sotudeh-Gharebagh, R. Zarghami, K. Saleh, Principles of viscous sintering in amorphous powders: A critical review, Chemical Engineering Research and Design 125 (2017) 328–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2017.06.009

    2017 doi

  2. [6]

    P. Tan, M. Zhou, C. T ang, Y . Su, H.J. Qi, K. Zhou, Multiphysics modelling of powder bed fusion for polymers, Virtual and Physical Prototyping 18 (2023) e2257191. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2023.2257191

    2023

  3. [7]

    X. Xiao, Y . Jin, R. Peng, S. Jiang, X. Huang, L. Zhao, J. Gao, J. Peng, Microscale viscous sintering model application to the preparation of metal bonded diamond grinding wheels, Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater 114 (2023) 106242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmhm.2023.106242

    2023

  4. [8]

    Beall, Milestones in Glass ‐Ceramics: A Personal Perspective, Int

    G.H. Beall, Milestones in Glass ‐Ceramics: A Personal Perspective, Int. J. Appl. Glass Sci. 5 (2014) 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijag.12063

    2014 doi

  5. [9]

    Nicolas, M

    M.F. Nicolas, M. Vlasova, P.A.M. Aguilar, M. Kakazey, M.M.C. Cano, R.A. Matus, T.P. Puig, Development of an energy-saving technology for sintering of bricks from high-siliceous clay by the plastic molding method, Constr. Build. Mater. 242 (2020) 118142. https://doi.org/10.1016...

    2020

  6. [10]

    Nagata, T

    K. Nagata, T. Nanno, All solid battery with phosphate compounds made through sintering proces s, J. Power Sources 174 (2007) 832–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.06.227

    2007 doi

  7. [11]

    A. Awad, F. Fina, A. Goyanes, S. Gaisford, A.W. Basit, 3D printing: Principles and pharmaceutical applications of selective laser sintering, Int. J. Pharm. 586 (20 20) 26 119594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.119594

    2020

  8. [12]

    Fujii, R

    T. Fujii, R. Murakami, N. Kobayashi, K. Tohgo, Y . Shimamura, Uniform porous and functionally graded porous titanium fabricated via space holder technique with spark plasma sintering for biomed ical applications, Adv. Powder Technol. 33 (2022) 103598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j...

    2022

  9. [13]

    A. Bhat, S. Budholiya, S. Aravind Raj, M.T.H. Sultan, D. Hui, A.U. Md Shah, S.N.A. Safri, Review on nanocomposites based on aerospace applications, Nanotechnology Reviews 10 (2021) 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1515/ntrev-2021- 0018

    2021 doi

  10. [14]

    Brighenti, M.P

    R. Brighenti, M.P. Cosma, L. Marsavina, A. Spagnoli, M. Terzano, Laser -based additively manufactured polymers: a review on processes and mechanical models, J. Mater. Sci. 56 (2021) 961–998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-020-05254-6

    2021 doi

  11. [15]

    Schmid, A

    M. Schmid, A. Amado, K. Wegener, Materials perspective of polymers for additive manufacturing with selective laser sintering, J. Mater. Res. 29 (2014) 1824–1832. https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2014.138

    2014 doi

  12. [16]

    Serdeczny, R

    M.P. Serdeczny, R. Comminal, D.B. Pedersen, J. Spangenberg, Numerical simulations of the mesostructure formation in material extrusion additive manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 28 (2019) 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.05.024

    2019 doi

  13. [17]

    Z. Zhu, C. Majewski, Understanding pore formation and the effect on mechanical properties of High Speed Sintered polyamide -12 parts: A focus on energy input, Mater. Design 194 (2020) 108937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108937

    2020

  14. [18]

    Ristic, S.Dj

    M. Ristic, S.Dj. Milosevic, Frenkel’s theory of sintering, Sci. Sinter. 38 (2006) 7–

    2006

  15. [19]

    https://doi.org/10.2298/SOS0601007R

    doi

  16. [20]

    Jagota, P.R

    A. Jagota, P.R. Dawson, Micromechanical modeling of powder compacts—I. Unit problems for sintering and traction induced deformation, Act a Metall. 36 (1988) 2551–2561. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6160(88)90200-3

    1988 doi

  17. [21]

    Pokluda, C.T

    O. Pokluda, C.T. Bellehumeur, J. Vlachopoulos, Modification of Frenkel’s model for sintering, Aiche J. 43 (1997) 3253–3256. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690431213

    1997 doi

  18. [24]

    Djohari, J.I

    H. Djohari, J.I. Martínez -Herrera, J.J. Derby, Transport mechanisms and densification during sintering: I. Viscous flow versus vacancy diffusion, Chem. Eng. Sci. 64 (2009) 3799–3809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2009.05.018

    2009 doi

  19. [25]

    Polychronopoulos, I.E

    N.D. Polychronopoulos, I.E. Sarris, J. Vlachopoulos, A viscous sintering model for pore shrinkage in packings of cylinders, Rheol. Acta 60 (2021) 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00397-021-01279-z

    2021 doi

  20. [26]

    Wakai, K

    F. Wakai, K. Katsura, S. Kanchika, Y . Shinoda, T. Akatsu, K. Shinagawa, Sintering force behind the viscous sintering of two particles, Acta Mater. 109 (2016) 292–

    2016

  21. [27]

    L. Yu, X. Sun, Y . Jin, W. Zhang, R. Long, Mechanics of vitrimer par ticle compression and fusion under heat press, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 201 (2021) 106466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2021.106466

    2021

  22. [28]

    Wakai, Y

    F. Wakai, Y . Numanami, T. Sekiya, N. Nishiyama, Mechanics of shape evolution of particle aggregates in viscous sintering, Journal of the European Ceramic Society 41 (2021) 797–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2020.08.054

    2021 doi

  23. [29]

    Bordère, D

    S. Bordère, D. Gendron, J. ‐M. Heintz, D. Bernard, Monte Carlo Prediction of Non‐ Newtonian Viscous Sintering: Experimental Validation for the Two‐Glass‐Cylinder System, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 88 (2005) 2071–2078. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551- 2916.2005.00413.x

    2005

  24. [30]

    Bordère, D

    S. Bordère, D. Bernard, Full resolution of the Monte Carlo time scale demonstrated through the modelling of two -amorphous-particles sintering, Comput. Mater. Sci. 43 (2008) 1074–1080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2008.03.001

    2008 doi

  25. [31]

    Nosewicz, J

    S. Nosewicz, J. Rojek, K. Pietrzak, M. Chmielewski, Viscoelastic discrete element model of powder sintering, Powder Technol. 246 (2013) 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2013.05.020

    2013 doi

  26. [32]

    Alvarez, H

    J.E. Alvarez, H. Snijder, T. Vaneker, H. Cheng, A.R. Thornton, S. Luding, T. Weinhart, Visco-elastic sintering kinetics in virgi n and aged polymer powders, Powder Technology 397 (2022) 117000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2021.11.044

    2022 doi

  27. [33]

    Van De V orst, Numerical simulation of axisymmetric viscous sintering, 28 Eng

    G.A.L. Van De V orst, Numerical simulation of axisymmetric viscous sintering, 28 Eng. Anal. Bound. Elem. 14 (1994) 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/0955- 7997(94)90096-5

    1994 doi

  28. [34]

    Kuiken, Viscous sintering: the surface -tension-driven flow of a liquid form under the influence of curvature gradients at its surface, J

    H.K. Kuiken, Viscous sintering: the surface -tension-driven flow of a liquid form under the influence of curvature gradients at its surface, J. Fluid Mech. 214 (1990)

    1990

  29. [35]

    Varnik, A

    F. Varnik, A. Rios, M. Gross, I. Steinbach, Simulation of viscous sintering using the lattice Boltzmann method, Model. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 21 (2013) 025003. https://doi.org/10.1088/0965-0393/21/2/025003

    2013 doi

  30. [36]

    Q. Yang, A. Kirshtein, Y . Ji, C. Liu, J. Shen, L. Chen, A thermodynamically consistent phase‐field model for viscous sintering, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 102 (2019) 674–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.16021

    2019 doi

  31. [37]

    Gross, I

    M. Gross, I. Steinbach, D. Raabe, F. Varnik, Viscous coalescence o f droplets: A lattice Boltzmann study, Phys. Fluids 25 (2013) 052101. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4803178

    2013 doi

  32. [38]

    Po lychronopoulos, J

    N.D. Po lychronopoulos, J. Vlachopoulos, The role of heating and cooling in viscous sintering of pairs of spheres and pairs of cylinders, Rapid Prototyping J. 26 (2020) 719–726. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-06-2019-0162

    2020 doi

  33. [39]

    Balemans, Temperature -dependent sint ering of two viscous particles, Addit

    C. Balemans, Temperature -dependent sint ering of two viscous particles, Addit. Manuf. (2018)

    2018

  34. [40]

    Polychronopoulos, L.Th

    N.D. Polychronopoulos, L.Th. Benos, C.I. Stergiou, I.E. Sarris, J. Vlachopoulos, Viscous coalescence of unequally sized spherical and cylindrical doublets, Soft Matter 18 (2022) 4017–4029. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2SM00129B

    2022 doi

  35. [41]

    Biswas, D

    S. Biswas, D. Schwen, H. Wang, M. Okuniewski, V . Tomar, Phase field modeling of sintering: Role of grain orientation and anisotropic properties, Computational Materials Science 148 (2018) 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2018.02.057

    2018 doi

  36. [42]

    Chockalingam, V .G

    K. Chockalingam, V .G. Kouznetsova, O. Van Der Sluis, M.G.D. Geers, 2D Phase field modeling of sintering of silver nanoparticles, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 312 (2016) 492–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2016.07.002

    2016 doi

  37. [43]

    Biswas, D

    S. Biswas, D. Schwen, J. Singh, V . Tomar, A study of the evolution of microstructure and consolidation kinetics during sintering using a phase field modeling based approach, Extreme Mech. Lett. 7 ( 2016) 78 –89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eml.2016.02.017

    2016 doi

  38. [44]

    Greenquist, M.R

    I. Greenquist, M.R. Tonks, L.K. Aagesen, Y . Zhang, Development of a 29 microstructural grand potential -based sintering model, Computational Materials Science 172 (2020) 109288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2019.109288

    2020

  39. [45]

    Hötzer, M

    J. Hötzer, M. Seiz, M. Kellner, W. Rheinheimer, B. Nestler, Phase-field simulation of solid state sintering, Acta Mater. 164 (2019) 184–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2018.10.021

    2019 doi

  40. [46]

    Dzepina, D

    B. Dzepina, D. Balint, D. Dini, A phase field model of pressure-assisted sintering, Journal of the European Ceramic Society 39 (2019) 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2018.09.014

    2019 doi

  41. [47]

    Kumar, Z.Z

    V . Kumar, Z.Z. Fang, P.C. Fife, Phase field simulations of grain growth during sintering of two unequal-sized particles, Materials Science and Engineering: A 528 (2010) 254–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2010.08.061

    2010 doi

  42. [48]

    W. Ma, Y . Shen, A phase field model for the solid-state sintering with parametric proper generalized decomposition, Powder Technol. 419 (2023) 118345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2023.118345

    2023

  43. [49]

    Ivannikov, F

    V . Ivannikov, F. Thomsen, T. Ebel, R. Willumeit-Römer, Capturing shrinkage and neck growth with phase field simulations of the solid state sintering, Model. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 29 (2021) 075008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-651X/ac1f87

    2021 doi

  44. [50]

    M. Seiz, H. Hierl, B. Nestler, An improved grand -potential phase-field model of solid-state sintering for many particles, Model. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 31 (2023) 055006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-651X/acd56d

    2023 doi

  45. [51]

    Shinagawa, Simulation of grain growth and sintering process by combined phase-field/discrete-element method, Acta Mater

    K. Shinagawa, Simulation of grain growth and sintering process by combined phase-field/discrete-element method, Acta Mater. 66 (2014) 360–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2013.11.023

    2014 doi

  46. [52]

    Munch, V

    P. Munch, V . Ivannikov, C. Cyron, M. Kronbichler, On the construction of an efficient finite-element solver for phase -field simulations of many -particle solid- state-sintering processes, Comput. Mater. Sci. 231 (2024) 112589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2023.112589

    2024

  47. [53]

    Termuhlen, X

    R. Termuhlen, X. Chatzistavrou, J.D. Nicholas, H.-C. Yu, Three-dimensional phase field sintering simulations accounting for the rigid -body motion of individual grains, Comput. Mater. Sci. 186 (2021) 109963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2020.109963

    2021

  48. [54]

    X. Wang, Y . Liu, L. Li, Caleb.O. Yenusah, Y . Xiao, L. Chen, Multi-scale phase- field modeling of layer -by-layer powder compact densification during solid -state direct metal laser sintering, Mater. Design 203 (2021) 109615. 30 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109615

    2021

  49. [55]

    Shulin, Z

    T. Shulin, Z. Xiaomin, Z. Zhip eng, W. Zhouzhi, Driving force evolution in solid - state sintering with coupling multiphysical fields, Ceramics International 46 (2020) 11584–11592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.01.187

    2020 doi

  50. [57]

    Y . Yang, O. Ragnvaldsen, Y . Bai, M. Yi, B.-X. Xu, 3D non-isothermal phase-field simulation of microstructure evolution during selective laser sintering, Npj Comput. Mater. 5 (2019) 81. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-019-0219-7

    2019 doi

  51. [58]

    Wang, Computer modeling and simulation of solid-state sintering: A phase field approach, Acta Mater

    Y .U. Wang, Computer modeling and simulation of solid-state sintering: A phase field approach, Acta Mater. 54 (2006) 953–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2005.10.032

    2006 doi

  52. [59]

    Zhang, X.X

    Z. Zhang, X.X. Yao, P. Ge, Phase -field-model-based analysis of the effects of powder particle on porosities and densities in selective l aser sintering additive manufacturing, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 166 (2020) 105230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2019.105230

    2020

  53. [60]

    Z. Zhao, X. Zhang, H. Zhang, H. Tang, Y . Liang, Numerical investigation into pressure-assisted sintering using fully coupled m echano-diffusional phase -field model, Int. J. Solids Structures 234–235 (2022) 111253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2021.111253

    2022

  54. [61]

    Zhang, Y

    X. Zhang, Y . Liao, A phase-field model for solid -state selective laser sintering of metallic materials, Powder Technol. 339 (2018) 677–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2018.08.025

    2018 doi

  55. [62]

    Ravash, L

    H. Ravash, L. Vanherpe, J. Vleugels, N. Moelans, Three -dimensional phase-field study of grain coarsening and g rain shape accommodation in the final stage of liquid-phase sintering, Journal of the European Ceramic Society 37 (2017) 2265–

    2017

  56. [63]

    Shinagawa, Analysis of initial stage of liquid -phase sintering b y combined multi-phase-field/discrete-element method, Ceram

    K. Shinagawa, Analysis of initial stage of liquid -phase sintering b y combined multi-phase-field/discrete-element method, Ceram. Int. 50 (2024) 37300–37307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.03.341

    2024 doi

  57. [64]

    Ishii, T

    A. Ishii, T. Koyama, T. Abe, M. Ode, Multi -phase-field modeling of sintering applicable to solid -state and liquid -phase sintering in multiphase and multicomponent systems, Mater. Today Commun. 40 (2024) 110116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2024.110116

    2024

  58. [66]

    Haworth, N

    B. Haworth, N. Hopkinson, D. Hitt, X. Zhong, Shear viscosity measurements on Polyamide‐12 polymers for laser sintering, Rapid Prototyping Journal 19 (2013) 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552541311292709

    2013 doi

  59. [67]

    R. Lou, H. Li, J. Zhong, C. Zhang, D. Fang, A transient updated Lagrangian finite element formulation for bond formation in fused deposition modeling process, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 152 (2021) 104450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2021.104450

    2021

  60. [69]

    Bellehumeur, L

    C. Bellehumeur, L. Li, Q. Sun, P. Gu, Modeling of Bond Formation Between Polymer Filaments in the Fused Deposition Modeling Process, J. Manuf. Processes 6 (2004) 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1526-6125(04)70071-7

    2004 doi

  61. [72]

    Balemans, M

    C. Balemans, M. Hulsen, P. Anderson, Sintering of Two Viscoelastic Particles: A Computational Approach, Applied Sciences 7 (2017) 516. https://doi.org/10.3390/app7050516

    2017 doi

  62. [299]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2016.03.006

    2016 doi

  63. [503]

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112090000234

    doi

  64. [2275]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2017.01.001

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.