pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.06568 · v1 · pith:ILC5IH7Mnew · submitted 2026-06-04 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Element-Specific Solute Trapping and Grain Structure Evolution during Laser Powder Bed Fusion of Multicomponent Alloys

Xinxin Yao , James Hanagan , Md Shafiqur Rahman Jame , Mallikharjun Marrey , Mohsen Taheri Andani , Raymundo Arr\'oyave , Veera Sundararaghavan , Lei Chen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 00:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords solute trappinglaser powder bed fusiongrain structuremulticomponent alloysphase-field modelingnonequilibrium solidificationSS316Lconstitutional undercooling
0
0 comments X

The pith

Element-specific solute trapping during rapid solidification governs nucleation and grain structure evolution in laser powder bed fusion of multicomponent alloys such as SS316L.

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

The paper shows that in laser powder bed fusion, solute trapping happens differently for each element under fast cooling, which changes how grains nucleate and grow in alloys like stainless steel 316L. This element-specific effect alters partitioning and undercooling, leading to a shift at higher solidification rates from diffusion-controlled nucleation to trapping-controlled growth that favors columnar grains over equiaxed ones. The authors use a phase-field model informed by CALPHAD data and Gaussian process regression to predict these changes across processing conditions, and they confirm the predictions with electron backscatter diffraction measurements. A sympathetic reader would care because the mechanism offers a way to understand and potentially control microstructures in additive manufacturing without relying solely on trial-and-error parameter tuning.

Core claim

Under the rapid solidification conditions of laser powder bed fusion (LPBF), solute trapping manifests in an element-specific manner, altering nonequilibrium partitioning, constitutional undercooling, and grain selection behavior in multicomponent alloys. This is demonstrated on SS316L through a CALPHAD-informed Gaussian Process Regression-assisted Phase-Field approach that quantifies nonequilibrium multicomponent thermodynamics and grain evolution. Increasing solidification rate drives a composition-dependent transition from solute diffusion-controlled nucleation to solute trapping-controlled grain growth, where nonequilibrium solute redistribution intensified by solute trapping suppresses

What carries the argument

Element-specific solute trapping, which produces nonequilibrium solute redistribution that affects constitutional undercooling and grain selection differently for each solute in the multicomponent alloy.

If this is right

  • Increasing solidification rate produces a transition to solute trapping-controlled grain growth rather than diffusion-controlled nucleation.
  • Nonequilibrium solute redistribution suppresses equiaxed grain formation even at high cooling rates.
  • C, Cr, and Mo continue to dominate overall undercooling while contributions from S and P are suppressed.
  • Element-specific trapping provides the mechanistic basis for grain selection in multicomponent alloys under nonequilibrium conditions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Alloy compositions might be adjusted by favoring or avoiding certain solutes to promote desired grain morphologies in LPBF without changing process parameters.
  • The same element-specific effects could appear in other rapid-solidification processes such as directed energy deposition.
  • Quantitative undercooling decomposition could be used to screen candidate alloys for LPBF before experimental trials.

Load-bearing premise

The CALPHAD-informed Gaussian Process Regression-assisted Phase-Field model accurately captures nonequilibrium multicomponent thermodynamics and grain evolution across the range of LPBF solidification conditions.

What would settle it

EBSD maps from SS316L samples processed at high solidification rates that show equiaxed grains forming in proportions inconsistent with the model's prediction of suppression by solute trapping.

read the original abstract

Under the rapid solidification conditions of laser powder bed fusion (LPBF), solute trapping manifests in an element-specific manner, altering nonequilibrium partitioning, constitutional undercooling, and grain selection behavior in multicomponent alloys. Here, we elucidate the mechanisms by which element-specific solute trapping governs nucleation behavior and grain structure evolution during LPBF demonstrated on a SS316L. This requires quantitative description of nonequilibrium multicomponent thermodynamics and grain evolution across broad LPBF solidification conditions, which is achieved through a CALPHAD-informed Gaussian Process Regression (GPR)-assisted Phase-Field (PF) approach. The predicted transitions in grain morphology and grain size are validated against EBSD measurements under multiple LPBF processing conditions. Results demonstrate that increasing solidification rate drives a composition-dependent transition from solute diffusion-controlled nucleation to solute trapping-controlled grain growth, where nonequilibrium solute redistribution intensified by solute trapping suppresses equiaxed grain formation despite high cooling rates. Quantitative decomposition of multicomponent undercooling further reveals distinct element-specific sensitivities to solute trapping, where C, Cr, and Mo remain dominant contributors to the overall undercooling, while the undercooling contribution of low-partitioning elements such as S and P are strongly suppressed relative to their equilibrium values under rapid solidification conditions. These results reveal how element-specific solute trapping governs grain selection in multicomponent alloys, providing a mechanistic basis for alloy design under nonequilibrium solidification conditions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that element-specific solute trapping during LPBF of SS316L governs nucleation and grain evolution via a CALPHAD-informed GPR-assisted phase-field model. Increasing solidification rate induces a transition from diffusion-controlled nucleation to trapping-controlled growth, with nonequilibrium redistribution suppressing equiaxed grains; quantitative decomposition shows C/Cr/Mo dominate undercooling while S/P contributions are suppressed. Predictions of morphology and size transitions are asserted to match EBSD data across processing conditions.

Significance. If the element-specific partitioning predictions hold with independent validation, the work would provide a useful mechanistic framework for multicomponent alloy design under rapid solidification, clarifying how trapping alters constitutional undercooling and grain selection. The GPR-PF coupling for nonequilibrium thermodynamics is a potentially reusable approach, though its quantitative accuracy for per-element effects remains to be demonstrated beyond morphology.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Results (validation paragraphs)] The central mechanistic claim (element-specific trapping sensitivities and their effect on undercooling) rests on GPR predictions of k(V) and per-element undercooling, yet validation is limited to final grain morphology and size via EBSD. Direct comparison of predicted solute profiles, partition coefficients, or individual undercooling contributions against independent data (e.g., atom probe or in-situ measurements) is not shown, weakening the element-specific attribution.
  2. [Methods (GPR training and PF coupling)] Because the GPR surrogate is trained on equilibrium CALPHAD data and extended with trapping assumptions, the reported suppression of S/P undercooling contributions may partly reflect the training distribution rather than independent nonequilibrium physics. A sensitivity analysis or hold-out test on nonequilibrium partitioning data is needed to establish that the element-specific distinctions are not artifacts of the surrogate construction.
  3. [Results (grain morphology transitions)] The asserted transition from solute-diffusion-controlled nucleation to trapping-controlled growth is load-bearing for the composition-dependent claim, but the paper does not quantify the crossover velocity or demonstrate that the PF model reproduces it without post-hoc parameter adjustment for each element set.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Notation for the nonequilibrium partition coefficient k(V) and its element-specific implementation should be defined explicitly with reference to the trapping model used.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for EBSD comparisons should include quantitative metrics (e.g., grain size distributions or aspect ratios) alongside qualitative images to allow direct assessment of agreement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to clarify validation scope, add supporting analyses, and quantify key transitions where possible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Results (validation paragraphs)] The central mechanistic claim (element-specific trapping sensitivities and their effect on undercooling) rests on GPR predictions of k(V) and per-element undercooling, yet validation is limited to final grain morphology and size via EBSD. Direct comparison of predicted solute profiles, partition coefficients, or individual undercooling contributions against independent data (e.g., atom probe or in-situ measurements) is not shown, weakening the element-specific attribution.

    Authors: We agree that direct experimental validation of per-element solute profiles and partition coefficients under LPBF conditions would provide stronger support for the element-specific claims. Such independent datasets (e.g., atom probe tomography across relevant solidification velocities) are not available for SS316L in the literature. Our validation is therefore based on the integrated outcome of grain morphology and size, which are the direct consequences of the predicted undercooling. We have revised the manuscript to explicitly discuss this limitation of the validation strategy and to frame the element-specific contributions as model-derived predictions from the CALPHAD-GPR framework. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods (GPR training and PF coupling)] Because the GPR surrogate is trained on equilibrium CALPHAD data and extended with trapping assumptions, the reported suppression of S/P undercooling contributions may partly reflect the training distribution rather than independent nonequilibrium physics. A sensitivity analysis or hold-out test on nonequilibrium partitioning data is needed to establish that the element-specific distinctions are not artifacts of the surrogate construction.

    Authors: The GPR serves as an efficient surrogate for the equilibrium multicomponent CALPHAD thermodynamics, with nonequilibrium trapping incorporated via established velocity-dependent partitioning models. To address the concern regarding potential artifacts, we have added a sensitivity analysis in the revised Methods section. This analysis varies key trapping parameters and subsets of the training data, confirming that the strong suppression of S and P undercooling contributions arises primarily from their low equilibrium partition coefficients and is robust to the surrogate construction. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results (grain morphology transitions)] The asserted transition from solute-diffusion-controlled nucleation to trapping-controlled growth is load-bearing for the composition-dependent claim, but the paper does not quantify the crossover velocity or demonstrate that the PF model reproduces it without post-hoc parameter adjustment for each element set.

    Authors: The transition is captured by the consistent application of the GPR-assisted PF model across solidification rates, with predictions matching EBSD data under multiple LPBF conditions. Model parameters are derived uniformly from the CALPHAD-GPR framework and literature trapping relations, without element-specific post-hoc tuning. We have revised the Results section to quantify the crossover velocity for the SS316L composition and to demonstrate that the same model setup reproduces the morphology transition without additional adjustments. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; model uses external CALPHAD database with independent EBSD validation

full rationale

The derivation relies on a CALPHAD-informed GPR surrogate within a phase-field model to simulate nonequilibrium solute trapping and grain evolution. GPR interpolates established external thermodynamic data rather than fitting directly to the LPBF experiments or target predictions. Central results on element-specific undercooling and morphology transitions are obtained from the physics-based PF simulations and validated against independent EBSD grain size/morphology measurements. No quoted steps reduce claims to self-definitions, fitted inputs called predictions, or self-citation chains; the approach remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only view limits visibility into exact parameters; the modeling chain rests on the unverified accuracy of the GPR surrogate for multicomponent nonequilibrium thermodynamics and the assumption that phase-field captures the dominant grain selection physics.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption CALPHAD databases remain valid when extrapolated to the rapid solidification regime of LPBF
    Invoked to inform the GPR and PF model for nonequilibrium partitioning.
  • domain assumption The GPR surrogate accurately reproduces CALPHAD thermodynamics across the full range of LPBF cooling rates and compositions
    Central to the quantitative description claimed in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5828 in / 1440 out tokens · 27623 ms · 2026-06-28T00:29:26.952847+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Todaro, M.A

    C.J. Todaro, M.A. Easton, D. Qiu, D. Zhang, M.J. Bermingham, E.W. Lui, M. Brandt, D.H. StJohn, M. Qian, Grain structure control during metal 3D printing by high-intensity ultrasound, Nat Commun 11(1) (2020) 142

    2020

  2. [2]

    DebRoy, H.L

    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

    2018

  3. [3]

    DebRoy, T

    T. DebRoy, T. Mukherjee, J.O. Milewski, J.W. Elmer, B. Ribic, J.J. Blecher, W. Zhang, Scientific, technological and economic issues in metal printing and their solutions, Nature Materials 18(10) (2019) 1026-1032

    2019

  4. [4]

    Zhang, D

    D. Zhang, D. Qiu, M.A. Gibson, Y. Zheng, H.L. Fraser, D.H. StJohn, M.A. Easton, Additive manufacturing of ultrafine-grained high-strength titanium alloys, Nature 576(7785) (2019) 91- 95

    2019

  5. [5]

    Zhang, Y

    J. Zhang, Y. Liu, M. Bayat, Q. Tan, Y. Yin, Z. Fan, S. Liu, J.H. Hattel, M. Dargusch, M. - X. Zhang, Achieving high ductility in a selectively laser melted commercial pure-titanium via in-situ grain refinement, Scripta Materialia 191 (2021) 155-160

    2021

  6. [6]

    Y. Xiao, Z. Wan, P. Liu, Z. Wang, J. Li, L. Chen, Quantitative simulations of grain nucleation and growth at additively manufactured bimetallic interfaces of SS316L and IN625, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 302 (2022) 117506

    2022

  7. [7]

    Roy, A.K

    A. Roy, A.K. Singh, A. Arora, B.A. McWilliams, C. Mock, K.C. Cho, R.S. Mishra, Columnar-to-equiaxed transition in laser fusion additive manufacturing, Scripta Materialia 259 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    M. Yang, L. Wang, W. Yan, Phase -field modeling of grain evolutions in additive manufacturing from nucleation, growth, to coarsening, npj Computational Materials 7(1) (2021) 56

    2021

  9. [9]

    Mohebbi, V

    M.S. Mohebbi, V. Ploshikhin, Implementation of nucleation in cellular automaton simulation of microstructural evolution during additive manufacturing of Al alloys, Additive Manufacturing 36 (2020) 101726

    2020

  10. [10]

    Zhang, F

    J.W. Zhang, F. Liou, W. Seufzer, K. Taminger, A coupled finite element cellular automaton model to predict thermal history and grain morphology of Ti-6Al-4V during direct metal deposition (DMD), Additive Manufacturing 11 (2016) 32-39

    2016

  11. [11]

    X. Li, W. Tan, Numerical investigation of effects of nucleation mechanisms on grain structure in metal additive manufacturing, Computational Materials Science 153 (2018) 159 - 169

    2018

  12. [12]

    W. Yan, Y. Lian, C. Yu, O.L. Kafka, Z. Liu, W.K. Liu, G.J. Wagner, An integrated process–structure–property modeling framework for additive manufacturing, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 339 (2018) 184-204

    2018

  13. [13]

    P. Liu, Z. Wang, Y. Xiao, M.F. Horstemeyer, X. Cui, L. Chen, Insight into the mechanisms of columnar to equiaxed grain transition during metallic additive manufacturing, Additive Manufacturing 26 (2019) 22-29

    2019

  14. [14]

    Shi, S.A

    R. Shi, S.A. Khairallah, T.T. Roehling, T.W. Heo, J.T. McKeown, M.J. Matthews, Microstructural control in metal laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing using laser beam shaping strategy, Acta Materialia 184 (2020) 284-305. 24

    2020

  15. [15]

    X.X. Yao, X. Gao, Z. Zhang, Three-dimensional microstructure evolution of Ti–6Al–4V during multi -layer printing: a phase -field simulation, Journal of Materials Research and Technology 20 (2022) 934-949

    2022

  16. [16]

    Zinovieva, A

    O. Zinovieva, A. Zinoviev, M.N. Patel, A. Molotnikov, M.A. Easton, Modelling grain refinement under additive manufacturing solidification conditions using high performance cellular automata, Materials & Design 245 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    DebRoy, T

    T. DebRoy, T. Mukherjee, H.L. Wei, J.W. Elmer, J.O. Milewski, Metallurgy, mechanistic models and machine learning in metal printing, Nature Reviews Materials 6(1) (2020) 48-68

    2020

  18. [18]

    Dezfoli, W.S

    A.R. Dezfoli, W.S. Hwang, W.C. Huang, T.W. Tsai, Determination and controlling of grain structure of metals after laser incidence: Theoretical approach, Scientific Reports 7(1) (2017) 41527

    2017

  19. [19]

    Mancias, B

    J. Mancias, B. Vela, J. Fló rez-Coronel, R. Tavakoli, D. Allaire, R. Arró yave, D. Tourret, Mapping of microstructure transitions during rapid alloy solidification using Bayesian-guided phase-field simulations, Acta Materialia 297 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    Pinomaa, A

    T. Pinomaa, A. Laukkanen, N. Provatas, Solute trapping in rapid solidification, MRS Bulletin 45(11) (2020) 910-915

    2020

  21. [21]

    N. Ren, J. Li, R. Zhang, C. Panwisawas, M. Xia, H. Dong, J. Li, Solute trapping and non- equilibrium microstructure during rapid solidification of additive manufacturing, Nat Commun 14(1) (2023) 7990

    2023

  22. [22]

    Andersson, J

    J.-O. Andersson, J. Ågren, Models for numerical treatment of multicomponent diffusion in simple phases, Journal of Applied Physics 72(4) (1992) 1350-1355

    1992

  23. [23]

    Kattner, C.E

    U.R. Kattner, C.E. Campbell, Invited review: Modelling of thermodynamics and diffusion in multicomponent systems, Materials Science and Technology 25(4) (2009) 443-459

    2009

  24. [24]

    Hunt, Steady state columnar and equiaxed growth of dendrites and eutectic, Materials science and engineering 65 (1984) 75-83

    J.D. Hunt, Steady state columnar and equiaxed growth of dendrites and eutectic, Materials science and engineering 65 (1984) 75-83

    1984

  25. [25]

    W. Kurz, B. Giovanola, R. Trivedi, Theory of microstructural development during rapid solidification, Acta metallurgica 34 (1986) 823-830

    1986

  26. [26]

    W. Kurz, M. Gä umann, C. Bezenç on, Columnar to equiaxed transition in solidification processing, Science and technology of advanced materials 2 (2001) 185

    2001

  27. [27]

    Liu, Y.Z

    P.W. Liu, Y.Z. Ji, Z. Wang, C.L. Qiu, A.A. Antonysamy, L.Q. Chen, X.Y. Cui, L. Chen, Investigation on evolution mechanisms of site -specific grain structures during metal additive manufacturing, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 257 (2018) 191-202

    2018

  28. [28]

    Zhang, K

    M. Zhang, K. Tantratian, S. -Y. Ham, Z. Wang, M. Chouchane, R. Shimizu, S. Bai, H. Yang, Z. Liu, L. Li, A. Avishai, L. Chen, Y.S. Meng, Grain selection growth of soft metal in electrochemical processes, Joule (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    X.X. Yao, P. Ge, J.Y. Li, Y.F. Wang, T. Li, W.W. Liu, Z. Zhang, Controlling the solidification process parameters of direct energy deposition additive manufacturing considering laser and powder properties, Computational Materials Science 182 (2020) 109788

    2020

  30. [30]

    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 laser sintering additive manufacturing, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 166 (2020) 105230

    2020

  31. [31]

    Durga, G

    A. Durga, G. Lindwall, Modelling columnar -to-equiaxed transition during fusion -based metal additive manufacturing, Additive Manufacturing 78 (2023). 25

    2023

  32. [32]

    K. Ji, A.J. Clarke, J.T. McKeown, A. Karma, Microstructure development during rapid alloy solidification, MRS Bulletin 49(6) (2024) 556-567

    2024

  33. [33]

    D. Yang, Y. Yin, X. Kan, Y. Zhao, Z. Zhao, J. Sun, The mechanism of substructure formation and grain growth 316L stainless steel by selective laser melting, Materials Research Express 8(9) (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    Britt, C.J

    C. Britt, C.J. Montgomery, M.J. Brand, Z. -K. Liu, J.S. Carpenter, A.M. Beese, Effect of processing parameters and strut dimensions on the microstructures and hardness of stainless steel 316L lattice -emulating structures made by powder bed fusion, Addi tive Manufacturing 40 (2021)

    2021

  35. [35]

    Durga, N.H

    A. Durga, N.H. Pettersson, S.B.A. Malladi, Z. Chen, S. Guo, L. Nyborg, G. Lindwall, Grain refinement in additively manufactured ferritic stainless steel by in situ inoculation using pre-alloyed powder, Scripta Materialia 194 (2021)

    2021