Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 9 minor 80 references

An efficient and energy stable framework for phase field simulations of grain growth in additive manufacturing

T0 review · 3 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A stabilized semi-implicit finite element scheme lets phase field simulations of grain growth in additive manufacturing use time steps at least two orders of magnitude larger than explicit schemes while still satisfying a revisited…

desk verdict Useful practical speed-up for phase-field AM simulations, but the strict energy-stability proof does not hold; the claim should be softened. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13492 v4 pith:KZYC7QTI submitted 2025-07-17 physics.comp-ph cs.NAmath.NA

Chaoqian Yuan , Chinnapat Panwisawas , Ye Lu This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phcs.NAmath.NA MSC 65M6065M1235K55 PACS 81.30.Fb02.70.Dh
keywords additivemanufacturingphasefieldsimulationstabilizedsemi-implicitschemeenergystabilitygraingrowthrapidsolidificationfiniteelementmethod316Lstainlesssteel
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 tries to establish that a stabilized semi-implicit finite element time integration scheme can accelerate phase field simulations of grain growth in additive manufacturing by allowing time steps at least two orders of magnitude larger than conventional explicit schemes, while preserving a discrete energy stability law. The authors derive a revisited energy law that accounts for the prescribed temperature field: $E(\{\phi^{k+1}\},T^{k+1})-E(\{\phi^{k}\},T^{k+1})\le 0$. They identify a simple stabilization coefficient $\alpha \ge W$, where $W$ is the multiwell potential height, and demonstrate in 2D and 3D simulations of 316L stainless steel that the scheme reproduces experimentally observed columnar grain growth and grain selection. If correct, this would reduce the computational cost of phase field simulations enough to make realistic 3D additive-manufacturing microstructure predictions practical.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the stabilized semi-implicit time integration (first- and second-order) with the stabilization coefficient $\alpha \ge W$, where $W$ is the height of the multiwell potential in the homogeneous free energy; the choice $\alpha = W$ follows from bounding the second derivative of the modified free energy using $\sum_j \phi_j^2 \le 1$ and $\gamma_{PF}=3/2$. The revisited discrete energy law $E(\{\phi^{k+1}\},T^{k+1})-E(\{\phi^{k}\},T^{k+1})\le 0$, evaluated with the temperature fixed at the new time step, supplies the stability criterion because the temperature is prescribed externally. The finite element weak form with phase-dependent mobilities, large in solid-liquid interfaces and small in bulk solid regions, carries the spatial discretization, and the Rosenthal moving-heat-source temperature field provides the thermal history.

What would settle it

Run the same stabilized scheme with a large time step or with initial conditions that cause the order parameters to overshoot so that $\sum_j \phi_j^2 > 1$ somewhere, and compute the discrete energy difference $E(\{\phi^{k+1}\},T^{k+1})-E(\{\phi^{k}\},T^{k+1})$; if it becomes positive during solidification, the claimed energy stability fails. Alternatively, reduce the thermal undercooling so that the multiwell and gradient terms are comparable to the driving force on the interface and check whether the energy still decreases; a violation would show that the interface-dominance assumption is load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the proposed first- and second-order stabilized semi-implicit schemes, with the stabilization coefficient chosen as $\alpha \ge W$, strictly enforce the revisited discrete energy law $E(\{\phi^{k+1}\},T^{k+1})-E(\{\phi^{k}\},T^{k+1})\le 0$ and permit time steps of order $10^{-7}$ seconds in 2D and 3D grain growth simulations, two orders of magnitude larger than the order $10^{-9}$ seconds needed by explicit Euler, without loss of accuracy. The paper argues that the acceleration is achieved without violating energy stability because on the solid-liquid interface the thermal driving force dominates the phase field equation, so the energy-decrease requirement reduces to controlling the solid-phase free energy through a suitable stabilization term.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that the interface contribution to the energy decreases assumes that on the solid-liquid interface the phase field equation is dominated by the thermal driving force term, so the multiwell and gradient contributions can be ignored, and it also assumes that the sum of the squared order parameters never exceeds 1; if either fails, the energy-decrease guarantee does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same $\alpha \ge W$ recipe extends the stabilized semi-implicit scheme to other phase field models whose free energy has a polynomial multiwell structure, preserving the revisited energy law.
  • The first-order stabilized scheme can serve as the default for production simulations, while the second-order version is available when accuracy at large time steps needs improvement.
  • The framework eliminates the initialization stage required by explicit schemes, because it can create diffuse interfaces directly from the initial grain structure.
  • Parametric 3D simulations reproduce known physical trends: kinetic anisotropy selects grains aligned with the heat flow, and higher scan speeds shrink the melt pool and weaken grain selection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because $\alpha \ge W$ is a global upper bound, an adaptive local stabilization coefficient based on the pointwise second derivative of the free energy could plausibly allow still larger time steps or better accuracy than the paper demonstrates, though the paper does not test this.
  • The energy-stability argument is tailored to regimes where the thermal driving force dominates the interface; for solidification at low undercooling or with strong capillarity, one would need to stabilize the multiwell and gradient terms explicitly, an extension the paper does not make.
  • The two-orders-of-magnitude time-step gain could be multiplied by spatial accelerations such as adaptive meshing or tensor-decomposed solvers, bringing full 3D melt-pool-scale simulations closer to reach, even though the paper does not couple these approaches.
  • Enforcing the constraint $\sum_j \phi_j^2 \le 1$ explicitly after each update would make the stability proof unconditional for the discrete solution and is a testable modification of the scheme.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 9 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a stabilized semi-implicit finite element framework for phase field simulations of grain growth during rapid solidification in additive manufacturing. The method is applied to a phase field model of 316L stainless steel with a Rosenthal temperature field. The main claims are that the stabilized scheme permits time steps two orders of magnitude larger than explicit schemes and that it strictly satisfies a revisited discrete energy law of the form E(φ^{k+1},T^{k+1}) - E(φ^k,T^{k+1}) ≤ 0. A stability analysis in Section 2.7 motivates the choice of stabilization coefficient α ≥ W, and 2D and 3D simulations, including parametric studies on kinetic anisotropy and scan speed, are presented.

Significance. The paper addresses a real computational bottleneck in phase field simulations of additive manufacturing, and the proposed scheme is simple and easy to implement. The numerical results, including the comparison with experimental observations reported in [33], demonstrate substantial practical improvements in allowable time step size. The framework is not specific to the particular phase field model and could therefore be useful to a broader community. The main limitation is that the theoretical energy-stability proof is not rigorous; the claim of 'strictly' satisfying the energy law is supported only by heuristic arguments and numerical examples, which matters because the energy stability argument is the central justification for advocating the method.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.7, Eq. (40)] The reduction of the governing equation on the solid-liquid interface to the temperature driving force alone is not justified. In a diffuse-interface model, the term κΔφ_i is precisely what balances the multiwell potential W ∂(φ_i^4/4 - φ_i^2/2)/∂φ_i in a steady interface profile, and its magnitude is of order W/ζ. For the parameters in Table 1, W = 6γ_SL/ζ ≈ 5.88×10^-12 J/μm^3 while the thermal driving force L(T_liq-T)/T_liq is much smaller when the interface is near the liquidus temperature. No estimate is given showing that the neglected terms are small. Consequently, the assertion that ∂φ_i/∂t ≥ 0 forces a decrease of the energy on Ω_sl is incomplete: even if h({φ}) decreases, the gradient energy (κ/2)|∇φ_i|^2 and the multiwell term can increase as the interface moves, so Eq. (39) is not proven.
  2. [§2.7, Eq. (45)] The bound α ≥ W is derived using the inequality Σ_j φ_j^2 ≤ 1, which is asserted on physical grounds but not proven for this multi-phase Allen-Cahn-type model. The model does not impose a constraint such as Σ_i φ_i = 1, and nothing in the evolution equations prevents the order parameters from overlapping, particularly near triple junctions or during rapid solidification. If the sum of squares exceeds 1 somewhere, the supremum of ∂²f/∂φ_i² can exceed 2W, and the proposed stabilizing coefficient may be insufficient. Since α is the key parameter that controls the energy stability, this is a load-bearing gap in the analysis.
  3. [§2.6–§2.7] The energy-stability analysis is carried out on the continuous PDE rather than on the discrete semi-implicit scheme. The scheme in Eq. (29) is not shown to satisfy a discrete analog of Eq. (27) by a direct calculation. The cited proofs in [55,54] apply to the Allen-Cahn equation with constant mobility and a simple polynomial free energy; here the mobility M_i({φ}) is non-constant (Eq. (12)) and the temperature field enters as an external forcing. The numerical checks in Figs. 4 and 10 are encouraging for the particular cases tested, but they do not replace the missing discrete estimate. The abstract and conclusions state that the scheme 'strictly' satisfies the energy law; this claim is stronger than what the analysis supports.
minor comments (9)
  1. [§1] The phrase 'To exam the performance' should read 'To examine the performance'.
  2. [§2.6] The sentence 'This semi-implicit time integration scheme could be used for phase field simulations. However, it does not grantee the energy stability' contains a typo: 'grantee' should be 'guarantee'.
  3. [§2.7] The sentence beginning 'The is obtained by following the proofs' is incomplete; it should be 'This is obtained by following the proofs'.
  4. [§2.5, Eqs. (24)–(26)] The notation in Eqs. (24)–(26) with the vertical-bar subscripts is confusing. Please clarify that the restriction is on the term ∂f/∂T ∂T/∂t being set to zero, and state explicitly that this defines the revisited energy law used for numerical stability rather than the physical free energy dissipation.
  5. [§3.1] The typo 'V oronoi' should be 'Voronoi'.
  6. [§3.2] The statement that the test mobility M_i = 6.34×10^15 μm^3/(J·s) corresponds to a representative value of L_s^b should be made precise: L_s^b is defined in Section 2.3 as μ0 T_Liq/(150 ζ L), which yields a specific value; please state it or clarify the correspondence.
  7. [§3.3] The error metric in Eq. (46) is reported only for the final time in one 2D configuration. Reporting the time evolution of the error, or results for additional configurations, would strengthen the accuracy claim.
  8. [Fig. 10] The caption of Figure 10 is too sparse. It should specify which time integration scheme (first- or second-order), the time step used, and the simulation parameters, so that the energy decrease can be independently interpreted.
  9. [§2.6] The statement that the stabilized scheme 'can enable arbitrarily large time steps' is too strong, since accuracy limits the usable time step, as the paper itself acknowledges later in the same paragraph. Please rephrase to indicate unconditional energy stability in the sense of Eq. (27), subject to accuracy constraints.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stabilization coefficient and energy law are derived from the model, and the speed-up claim is externally benchmarked.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the stabilized semi-implicit scheme permits two-orders-of-magnitude larger time steps while satisfying the revisited discrete energy law (27). This claim does not reduce to its inputs. The stabilization coefficient alpha >= W is obtained from the curvature bound of the modified multiwell potential f_tilde using the physical constraint sum_j phi_j^2 <= 1, not from fitting the target energy decrease or the speed-up. The revisited energy law (27) is deduced from the continuous gradient-flow identity (23) by setting dT/dt = 0, rather than being defined to match the scheme. The large-time-step performance is benchmarked against an explicit Euler scheme and against experimental microstructure trends [33], so it is externally anchored. The only self-citations (e.g., [54] for tensor decomposition and for the known limitation of unstabilized semi-implicit schemes) are background or future-work and are not load-bearing. Two assumptions in Section 2.7 should be flagged as correctness concerns, not circularity: Eq (40) drops the kappa Delta phi_i and multiwell terms on the solid-liquid interface based on an unquantified claim that the temperature driving force is dominant, and Eq (44)-(45) uses sum_j phi_j^2 <= 1 without proof. These gaps mean the interface part of the stability proof is not established by the text; however, the numerical energy-change check in Figure 10 is an independent verification, and no equation is shown to be equivalent to another by construction. Hence no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the adopted phase field model assumptions from [32] and on the new energy stability argument, which itself relies on a number of unproven bounds and approximations.

free parameters (1)
  • stabilization coefficient alpha = W (model parameter, not fitted)
    Chosen as W to guarantee energy stability; derived from the double-well free energy curvature, not calibrated against data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The phase field model assumes negligible composition variations and solidification near absolute stability.
    Section 2.1, assumptions 1 and 2; the model is from Chadwick & Voorhees [32].
  • domain assumption Grains grow only by epitaxial growth; no new nucleation occurs.
    Section 2.1, assumption 3.
  • domain assumption Solid-liquid interfacial energy is isotropic; kinetic anisotropy enters only through orientation-dependent mobility.
    Section 2.1, assumptions 4 and 5.
  • ad hoc to paper On the solid-liquid interface, the phase field equation can be approximated by the temperature driving force alone, and sum_j phi_j^2 <= 1 holds.
    Used in the energy stability proof in Section 2.7; not rigorously derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An efficient and energy stable framework for phase field simulations of grain growth in additive manufacturing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KZYC7QTI

@misc{pith2026250713492,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An efficient and energy stable framework for phase field simulations of grain growth in additive manufacturing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KZYC7QTI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13492}
}
read the original abstract

Phase field simulations play a key role in the understanding of microstructure evolution in additive manufacturing. However, they have been found extremely computationally expensive. One of the reasons is the small time step requirement to resolve the complex microstructure evolution during the rapid solidification process. This paper investigates the possibility of using a class of stabilized time integration algorithms to accelerate such phase field simulations by increasing the time steps, based on a phase field model dedicated to simulating the solidification of 316L stainless steel during additive manufacturing, particularly in a regime where the solid-liquid interface is moving fast and there is absolute interfacial stability with negligible composition variations. The specific computational framework, incorporating the finite element method and the stabilized time integration algorithms, was developed. A theoretical analysis on energy stability was conducted, based on a revisited energy law derived for the phase field model. The numerical results confirmed that the proposed framework can effectively enforce the numerical stability and a decreasing energy requirement for the phase field simulations with at least two orders-of-magnitude larger time steps over conventional explicit methods. 2D and 3D phase field simulations have been conducted with relevant physical and kinetic parameters for 316L stainless steel. This computational framework can be easily adapted for different phase field models and open numerous opportunities for efficient phase field simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13492 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The mesh size is 640 × 320. The characteristic length ζ = 0.204 µm, which is 1.7 times of the element size. Two different mobility values are selected in our tests: Mi = 6.34 × 1015 µm3 /(J.s) and Mi = 4.25 × 1017 µm3 /(J.s). The first one corresponds to a representative value of L s b , while the second one corresponds to a representative value of LAC calculated by Eq. (12). For each case, simulations are conducted… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Initial grain structure with 10 randomly assigned orientation IDs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) shows the reference phase field solution at 0.01 s obtained with a relatively small time step (∆t = 5 × 10−7 s) and the mobility Mi = 6.34 × 1015 µm3 /(J.s) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Grain structure for Mi = 4.25 × 1017 µm3 /(J.s). (b) (c): ∆t = 8 × 10−7 s, (d) (e): ∆t = 1.6 × 10−6 s. To further confirm the energy stability, we calculated the energy evolution in the above cases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energy evolution We compared the performance of the proposed stabilized semi-implicit schemes with the explicit Euler scheme under larger time steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: This implies a significant saving in terms of computational costs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reference temperature field and grain structure at different time instances (a) ∆t = 5 × 10−9 s (b) ∆t = 1 × 10−8 s (c) ∆t = 2 × 10−8 s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Final grain structures obtained by the explicit scheme (a) ∆t = 5 × 10−9 s (b) ∆t = 1 × 10−8 s (c) ∆t = 1 × 10−7 s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Final grain structures obtained by the stabilized first-order semi-implicit scheme (a) ∆t = 5 × 10−9 s (b) ∆t = 1 × 10−8 s (c) ∆t = 1 × 10−7 s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Final grain structures obtained by the stabilized second-order semi-implicit scheme 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Error analysis consistent with our theoretical analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Energy change ∆E = E({ϕ k+1 }, T k+1 ) − E({ϕ k }, T k+1 ) Finally, we wanted to confirm that the stabilized semi-implicit schemes can outperform the conventional unsta￾bilized schemes for the grain growth simulations. To this end, we conducted the simulations with a …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: 2D grain growth simulations using a large time step: ∆t = 3 × 10−7 s semi-implicit scheme and a time step of O(10−7 ). Again, this time step is impossible for explicit schemes and, unlike explicit schemes, we do not need to conduct an initialization stage before runni…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: 3D grain growth under the given temperature evolution at a laser scan speed Vp = 1.0 m/s. (a) (c) (e): temperature profiles; (b) (d) (f): grain structures 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Growing shape of two competing grains at a solidification rate ≈ 0.7 m/s (a) µ/µ0, ϵ4 = 0, t = 10 µs (b) µ/µ0, ϵ4 = 0.3, t = 10 µs (c) Grains, ϵ4 = 0, t = 100 µs (d) Grains, ϵ4 = 0.3, t = 100 µs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Effect of kinetic anisotropy. (a) (b): Mobility coefficient µ/µ0, (c) (d): Final grain structure, ϵ4 = 0 (isotropy) and ϵ4 = 0.3 (anisotropy) (a) Vp = 1.0 m/s (b) Vp = 1.5 m/s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Top surface of grain structures under different scan speeds with ϵ4 = 0.11 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Central cross section of grain structures under different scan speeds (a) Major axis length (µm) (b) Median axis length (µm) (c) Minor axis length (µm) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Empirical cumulative distribution functions of the (a) major, (b) median, and (c) minor axis lengths for the simulated grain structures under different scan speeds 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    A. F. Chadwick, J. G. S. Macías, A. Samaei, G. J. Wagner, M. V . Upadhyay, P. W. V oorhees, On microstructure development during laser melting and resolidification: An experimentally validated simulation study, Acta Materialia 282 (2025) 120482. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2023.120482

    work page arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    W. E. Frazier, Metal additive manufacturing: A review, Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance 23 (2014) 1917–1928. doi:10.1007/s11665-014-0958-z

    doi:10.1007/s11665-014-0958-z 2014

  3. [2]

    Gibson, D

    I. Gibson, D. W. Rosen, B. Stucker, Additive Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing, 2nd ed., Springer, New York, 2015. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2113-3

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2113-3 2015

  4. [3]

    Herzog, V

    D. Herzog, V . Seyda, E. Wycisk, C. Emmelmann, Additive manufacturing of metals, Acta Materialia 117 (2016) 371–392. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2016.07.019

    doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2016.07.019 2016

  5. [4]

    Y . M. Wang, T. V oisin, J. T. McKeown, J. Ye, N. P. Calta, Z. Li, Z. Zeng, Y . Zhang, W. Chen, T. T. Roehling, R. T. Ott, M. K. Santala, P. J. Depond, M. J. Matthews, A. V . Hamza, T. Zhu, Additively manufactured hierarchical stainless steels with high strength and ductility, Nature Materials 17 (2018) 63–71. doi:10.1038/nmat5021, epub 2017 Oct 30

    work page doi:10.1038/nmat5021 2018

  6. [5]

    Bajaj, A

    P. Bajaj, A. Hariharan, A. Kini, P. Kürnsteiner, D. Raabe, E. A. Jägle, Steels in additive manufacturing: A review of their microstructure and properties, Materials Science and Engineering: A 772 (2020) 138633. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2019.138633

    work page arXiv 2020

  7. [6]

    Armstrong, H

    M. Armstrong, H. Mehrabi, N. Naveed, An overview of modern metal additive manufacturing technology, Manufacturing Letters 32 (2022) 32–36. doi:10.1016/j.mfglet.2022.02.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mfglet.2022.02.003 2022

  8. [7]

    DebRoy, H

    T. DebRoy, H. L. Wei, J. S. Zuback, T. Mukherjee, J. W. Elmer, J. O. Milewski, A. M. Beese, A. Wilson-Heid, A. De, W. Zhang, Additive manufacturing of metallic components - process, structure and properties, Progress in Materials Science 92 (2018) 112–224. doi:10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.10.001

    doi:10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.10.001 2018

Show all 80 references
  1. [8]

    B. Song, X. Zhao, S. Li, C. Han, Q. Wei, S. Wen, J. Liu, Y . Shi, Differences in microstructure and properties between selective laser melting and traditional manufacturing for fabrication of metal parts: a review, Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering 10 (2015) 111–125. doi:10....

    2015 doi

  2. [9]

    Z. Wang, T. A. Palmer, A. M. Beese, Effect of processing parameters on microstructure and tensile properties of austenitic stainless steel 304l made by directed energy deposition additive manufacturing, Acta Materialia 110 (2016) 226–235. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2016.03.019

    2016 doi

  3. [10]

    Y . Kok, X. Tan, P. Wang, M. Nai, N. Loh, E. Liu, S. Tor, Anisotropy and heterogeneity of microstructure and mechanical properties in metal additive manufacturing: a critical review, Materials & Design 139 (2018) 565–586. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2017.11.021

    2018 doi

  4. [11]

    Kurose, Y

    T. Kurose, Y . Abe, M. Santos, Y . Kanaya, A. Ishigami, S. Tanaka, H. Ito, Influence of the layer directions on the properties of 316l stainless steel parts fabricated through fused deposition of metals, Materials 13 (2020) 2493. doi:10.3390/ma13112493

    2020 doi

  5. [12]

    C. Guo, S. Li, S. Shi, X. Li, X. Hu, Q. Zhu, R. Ward, Effect of processing parameters on surface roughness, porosity and cracking of as-built in738lc parts fabricated by laser powder bed fusion, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 285 (2020) 116788. doi:10.1016/j.jmatpr...

    2020

  6. [13]

    M. Li, Y . Bai, X. Gao, L. Cui, Q. Zhou, J. Zhang, M. Zhang, Microstructure and mechanical properties of 308l stainless steel fabricated by laminar plasma additive manufacturing, Materials Science and Engineering: A 770 (2020) 138523. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2019.138523

    2020

  7. [14]

    Henry, M

    T. Henry, M. Morales, D. Cole, C. Shumeyko, J. Riddick, Mechanical behavior of 17–4 ph stainless steel processed by atomic diffusion additive manufacturing, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2021). doi:10.1007/s00170-021-06785-1

    2021 doi

  8. [15]

    W. Kurz, M. Rappaz, R. Trivedi, Progress in modelling solidification microstructures in metals and alloys. part ii: Dendrites from 2001 to 2018, International Materials Reviews (2020) 1–47. doi:10.1080/09506608.2020.1757894. 21

    2020

  9. [16]

    GANDIN, J.-L

    C.-A. GANDIN, J.-L. DESBIOLLES, M. RAPPAZ, P. THEVOZ, A three-dimensional cellular automation-finite element model for the prediction of solidification grain structures, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A 30 (1999) 3153–3165. doi:10.1007/s11661-999-0226-2

    1999 doi

  10. [17]

    Zinovieva, A

    O. Zinovieva, A. Zinoviev, V . Ploshikhin, Three-dimensional modeling of the microstructure evo- lution during metal additive manufacturing, Computational Materials Science 141 (2018) 207–220. doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2017.09.018

    2018 doi

  11. [18]

    Y . Lian, Z. Gan, C. Yu, D. Kats, W. Liu, G. Wagner, A cellular automaton finite volume method for microstructure evolution during additive manufacturing, Materials & Design 169 (2019) 107672. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2019.107672

    2019

  12. [19]

    Y . Yu, Y . Li, F. Lin, W. Yan, A multi-grid cellular automaton model for simulating dendrite growth and its appli- cation in additive manufacturing, Additive Manufacturing 47 (2023) 102284. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2021.102284

    2023

  13. [20]

    Q. Xie, X. Yan, S. Yin, X. Li, M. Liu, Y . Wang, L. Zhuang, An extended version of cellular automata model for powder bed fusion to unravel the dependence of microstructure on printing areas for inconel 625, Additive Manufacturing 73 (2023) 103676. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2023.103676

    2023

  14. [21]

    C. C. Battaile, The kinetic monte carlo method: Foundation, implementation, and application, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 197 (2008) 3386–3398. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2008.03.010

    2008 doi

  15. [22]

    T. M. Rodgers, J. D. Madison, V . Tikare, Simulation of metal additive manufacturing microstructures using kinetic monte carlo, Computational Materials Science 135 (2017) 78–89. doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2017.03.053

    2017 doi

  16. [23]

    T. M. Rodgers, J. E. Bishop, J. D. Madison, Direct numerical simulation of mechanical response in synthetic additively manufactured microstructures, Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering 26 (2018). doi:10.1088/1361-651X/aac616

    2018 doi

  17. [24]

    K. L. Johnson, T. M. Rodgers, O. D. Underwood, J. D. Madison, K. R. Ford, S. R. Whetten, D. J. Dagel, J. E. Bishop, Simulation and experimental comparison of the thermo-mechanical history and 3d microstructure evolution of 304l stainless steel tubes manufactured using lens, Co...

    2018 doi

  18. [25]

    T. R. Rodgers, D. M. Moser, F. Abdeljawad, O. D. U. Jackson, J. D. Carroll, B. H. Jared, D. S. Bolin- tineanu, J. A. Mitchell, J. D. Madison, Simulation of powder bed metal additive manufacturing mi- crostructures with coupled finite difference–monte carlo method, Additive Man...

    2021

  19. [26]

    Chen, Phase-field models for microstructure evolution, Annual review of materials research 32 (2002) 113–140

    L.-Q. Chen, Phase-field models for microstructure evolution, Annual review of materials research 32 (2002) 113–140

    2002

  20. [27]

    Boettinger, J

    W. Boettinger, J. Warren, C. Beckermann, A. Karma, Phase-field simulation of solidification, Annual Review of Materials Research 32 (2002) 163–194

    2002

  21. [28]

    Keller, G

    T. Keller, G. Lindwall, S. Ghosh, L. Ma, B. Lane, F. Zhang, U. Kattner, E. Lass, J. Heigel, Y . Idell, M. Williams, A. Allen, J. Guyer, L. Levine, Application of finite element, phase-field, and calphad- based methods to additive manufacturing of ni-based superalloys, Acta Mat...

    2017 doi

  22. [29]

    Y . Ji, L. Chen, L.-Q. Chen, Understanding microstructure evolution during additive manufacturing of metallic alloys using phase-field modeling, in: Thermo-mechanical modeling of additive manufacturing, 2018, pp. 93– 116

    2018

  23. [30]

    A. V . Dubrov, F. K. Mirzade, V . D. Dubrov, On modeling of heat transfer and molten pool behavior in multi- layer and multi-track laser additive manufacturing process, in: B. Bodermann, K. Frenner, R. M. Silver (Eds.), Modeling Aspects in Optical Metrology VII, SPIE, Munich, ...

    2019 doi

  24. [31]

    M. Yang, L. Wang, W. Yan, Phase-field modeling of grain evolutions in additive manufacturing from nucleation, growth, to coarsening, npj Computational Materials 7 (2021) 56. doi:10.1038/s41524-021-00524-6

    2021 doi

  25. [32]

    A. F. Chadwick, P. W. V oorhees, The development of grain structure during additive manufacturing, Acta Materialia 211 (2021) 116862

    2021

  26. [34]

    Rappaz, C.-A

    M. Rappaz, C.-A. Gandin, Probabilistic modelling of microstructure formation in solidification processes, Acta Metallurgica et Materialia 41 (1993) 345–360. doi:10.1016/0956-7151(93)90065-Z

    1993 doi

  27. [35]

    Gandin, M

    C.-A. Gandin, M. Rappaz, A coupled finite element-cellular automaton model for the prediction of den- dritic grain structures in solidification processes, Acta Metallurgica et Materialia 42 (1994) 2233–2246. doi:10.1016/0956-7151(94)90302-6

    1994 doi

  28. [36]

    G. J. Merchant, S. H. Davis, Morphological instability in rapid directional solidification, Acta Metallurgica et Materialia 38 (1990) 2683–2693

    1990

  29. [37]

    L. X. Lu, N. Sridhar, Y . W. Zhang, Phase field simulation of powder bed-based additive manufacturing, Acta Materialia 144 (2018) 801–809. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2017.11.033

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    P. W. Liu, et al., Investigation on evolution mechanisms of site-specific grain structures dur- ing metal additive manufacturing, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 257 (2018) 191–202. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.02.042

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    P. Liu, Z. Wang, Y . Xiao, ..., Insight into the mechanisms of columnar to equiaxed grain transition during metallic additive manufacturing, Additive Manufacturing 26 (2019) 22–29. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.12.019

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    Provatas, N

    N. Provatas, N. Goldenfeld, J. Dantzig, Efficient computation of dendritic microstructures using adaptive mesh refinement, Physical Review Letters 80 (1998) 3308

    1998

  33. [41]

    C.-s. Zhu, S. Xu, L. Feng, D. Han, K.-m. Wang, Phase-field model simulations of alloy directional solidification and seaweed-like microstructure evolution based on adaptive finite element method, Computational Materials Science 160 (2019) 53–61

    2019

  34. [42]

    DeWitt, S

    S. DeWitt, S. Rudraraju, D. Montiel, W. B. Andrews, K. Thornton, Prisms-pf: A general framework for phase- field modeling with a matrix-free finite element method, npj Computational Materials 6 (2020) 29

    2020

  35. [43]

    W. Feng, P. Yu, S. Hu, Z.-K. Liu, Q. Du, L.-Q. Chen, Spectral implementation of an adaptive moving mesh method for phase-field equations, Journal of Computational Physics 220 (2006) 498–510

    2006

  36. [44]

    R. Li, Y . Gao, Z. Chen, Adaptive discontinuous galerkin finite element methods for the allen-cahn equation on polygonal meshes, Numerical Algorithms 95 (2024) 1981–2014

    2024

  37. [45]

    D. Liu, Y . Wang, Multi-fidelity physics-constrained neural network and its application in materials modeling, Journal of Mechanical Design 141 (2019) 121403

    2019

  38. [46]

    Montes de Oca Zapiain, J

    D. Montes de Oca Zapiain, J. A. Stewart, R. Dingreville, Accelerating phase-field-based microstructure evolution predictions via surrogate models trained by machine learning methods, npj Computational Materials 7 (2021) 3

    2021

  39. [47]

    Peivaste, N

    I. Peivaste, N. H. Siboni, G. Alahyarizadeh, R. Ghaderi, B. Svendsen, D. Raabe, J. R. Mianroodi, Machine- learning-based surrogate modeling of microstructure evolution using phase-field, Computational Materials Sci- ence 214 (2022) 111750

    2022

  40. [48]

    T. Xue, Z. Gan, S. Liao, J. Cao, Physics-embedded graph network for accelerating phase-field simulation of microstructure evolution in additive manufacturing, npj Computational Materials 8 (2022) 201. 23

    2022

  41. [49]

    C. Hu, S. Martin, R. Dingreville, Accelerating phase-field predictions via recurrent neural networks learning the microstructure evolution in latent space, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 397 (2022) 115128

    2022

  42. [50]

    J. Y . Choi, T. Xue, S. Liao, J. Cao, Accelerating phase-field simulation of three-dimensional microstructure evolution in laser powder bed fusion with composable machine learning predictions, Additive Manufacturing 79 (2024) 103938

    2024

  43. [51]

    H. Song, L. Jiang, Q. Li, A reduced order method for Allen–Cahn equations, Journal of computational and applied mathematics 292 (2016) 213–229

    2016

  44. [52]

    X. Zhou, M. Azaiez, C. Xu, Reduced-order modelling for the Allen–Cahn equation based on scalar auxiliary variable approaches, J. Math. Study 52 (2019) 258–276

    2019

  45. [53]

    Tyrylgin, Y

    A. Tyrylgin, Y . Chen, M. Vasilyeva, E. T. Chung, Multiscale model reduction for the Allen–Cahn problem in perforated domains, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 381 (2021) 113010

    2021

  46. [54]

    Y . Lu, C. Yuan, H. Guo, Convolution tensor decomposition for efficient high-resolution solutions to the allen– cahn equation, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 433 (2025) 117507

    2025

  47. [55]

    J. Shen, X. Yang, Numerical approximations of allen–cahn and cahn–hilliard equations, Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - Series B 28 (2010) 1669–1691

    2010

  48. [56]

    S. M. Wise, C. Wang, J. S. Lowengrub, An energy-stable and convergent finite-difference scheme for the phase field crystal equation, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 47 (2009) 2269–2288. doi:10.1137/080738143

    2009 doi

  49. [57]

    Z. Hu, S. M. Wise, C. Wang, J. S. Lowengrub, Stable and efficient finite-difference nonlinear-multigrid schemes for the phase field crystal equation, Journal of Computational Physics 228 (2009) 5323–5339. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2009.04.020

    2009 doi

  50. [58]

    X. Yang, L. Ju, Efficient linear schemes with unconditional energy stability for the phase field elastic bending energy model, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 315 (2017) 691–712. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2016.10.041

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    J. Zhao, Q. Wang, X. Yang, Numerical approximations for a phase field dendritic crystal growth model based on the invariant energy quadratization approach, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 110 (2017) 279–300. doi:10.1002/nme.5372

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    J. Shen, X. Yang, H. Yu, Efficient energy stable numerical schemes for a phase field moving contact line model, Journal of Computational Physics 284 (2015) 617–630. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2014.12.046

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    Gomez, Y

    H. Gomez, Y . Leng, T. Hu, S. Mukherjee, V . Calo, Phase-field modeling for flow simulation, in: Frontiers in Computational Fluid-Structure Interaction and Flow Simulation: Research from Lead Investigators Under Forty-2023, 2023, pp. 79–117

    2023

  54. [62]

    A. F. Chadwick, P. W. V oorhees, Recursive grain remapping scheme for phase-field models of additive manufacturing, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 123 (2022) 3093–3110. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nme.6966. doi:10.1002/nme.6966

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    S. M. Allen, J. W. Cahn, A microscopic theory for antiphase boundary motion and its application to antiphase domain coarsening, Acta Metall. 27 (1979) 1085–1095

    1979

  56. [64]

    Pinomaa, M

    T. Pinomaa, M. Lindroos, M. Walbrühl, N. Provatas, A. Laukkanen, The significance of spatial length scales and solute segregation in strengthening rapid solidification microstructures of 316l stainless steel, Acta Materialia 184 (2020) 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2019.10.044. 24

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    Karayagiz, L

    K. Karayagiz, L. Johnson, R. Seede, V . Attari, B. Zhang, X. Huang, S. Ghosh, T. Duong, I. Karaman, A. Elwany, et al., Finite interface dissipation phase field modeling of ni–nb under additive manufacturing conditions, Acta Materialia 185 (2020) 320–339

    2020

  58. [66]

    Rosenthal, The theory of moving sources of heat and its application to metal treatments, Transactions of the ASME 68 (1946) 849–866

    D. Rosenthal, The theory of moving sources of heat and its application to metal treatments, Transactions of the ASME 68 (1946) 849–866

    1946

  59. [67]

    Steinbach, Phase-field models in materials science, Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering 17 (2009) 073001

    I. Steinbach, Phase-field models in materials science, Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering 17 (2009) 073001. doi:10.1088/0965-0393/17/7/073001

    2009 doi

  60. [68]

    S. Wang, R. Sekerka, A. Wheeler, B. Murray, S. Coriell, R. Braun, G. McFadden, Thermodynamically-consistent phase-field models for solidification, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 69 (1993) 189–200

    1993

  61. [69]

    Moelans, A quantitative and thermodynamically consistent phase-field interpolation function for multi-phase systems, Acta Materialia 59 (2011) 1077–1086

    N. Moelans, A quantitative and thermodynamically consistent phase-field interpolation function for multi-phase systems, Acta Materialia 59 (2011) 1077–1086. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2010.10.038

    2011 doi

  62. [70]

    Moelans, B

    N. Moelans, B. Blanpain, P. Wollants, Quantitative analysis of grain boundary properties in a general- ized phase field model for grain growth in anisotropic systems, Physical Review B 78 (2008) 024113. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.78.024113

    2008 doi

  63. [71]

    Rowenhorst, A

    D. Rowenhorst, A. Rollett, G. Rohrer, M. Groeber, M. Jackson, P. J. Konijnenberg, M. De Graef, Consistent representations of and conversions between 3d rotations, Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering 23 (2015) 083501

    2015

  64. [72]

    Q. Du, V . Faber, M. Gunzburger, Centroidal voronoi tessellations: Applications and algorithms, SIAM Review 41 (1999) 637–676. doi:10.1137/S0036144599352836

    1999 doi

  65. [73]

    Lloyd, Least squares quantization in pcm, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 28 (1982) 129–137

    S. Lloyd, Least squares quantization in pcm, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 28 (1982) 129–137. doi:10.1109/TIT.1982.1056489

    1982

  66. [74]

    D. Sun, M. Asta, J. Hoyt, Crystal-melt interfacial free energies and mobilities in fcc and bcc fe, Physical Review B 69 (2004) 174103. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.69.174103

    2004 doi

  67. [75]

    Kim, Thermophysical Properties of Stainless Steels, Technical Report, Argonne National Laboratory, Ar- gonne, IL, 1975

    C. Kim, Thermophysical Properties of Stainless Steels, Technical Report, Argonne National Laboratory, Ar- gonne, IL, 1975

    1975

  68. [76]

    URL:https://www.python.org

    Python, Version 3.X, Python Software Foundation, 2026. URL:https://www.python.org

    2026

  69. [77]

    J. P. MacSleyne, J. P. Simmons, M. D. Graef, On the use of moment invariants for the automated analysis of 3d particle shapes, Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering 16 (2008) 045008. doi:10.1088/0965-0393/16/4/045008

    2008 doi

  70. [78]

    Berghaus, S

    M. Berghaus, S. Florian, K. Solanki, C. Zinn, H. Wang, B. Butz, H. Apmann, A. von Hehl, Effect of high laser scanning speed on microstructure and mechanical properties of additively manufactured 316l, Progress in Additive Manufacturing 10 (2024) 1119–1132. doi:10.1007/s40964-0...

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    U. S. Bertoli, B. E. MacDonald, J. M. Schoenung, Stability of cellular microstructure in laser pow- der bed fusion of 316l stainless steel, Materials Science and Engineering: A 739 (2019) 109–117. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2018.10.051

    2019 doi

  72. [80]

    D. J. Pearce, An Improved Algorithm for Finding the Strongly Connected Components of a Directed Graph, Technical Report, Victoria University of Wellington, 2005. 25

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.