Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Response-function-optimized phase field modeling of solute trapping and solute drag in rapid alloy solidification

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a phase-field model with a deliberately enlarged diffuse interface can be made to quantitatively reproduce prescribed rapid-solidification kinetics by optimizing the interfacial solute diffusivity profile, and that in

desk verdict A genuinely useful inverse-calibration method for putting prescribed trapping/drag response functions into large-interface phase-field simulations, but the interface-concentration extraction convention is unvalidated and the 2D trends rest on single runs. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17370 v1 pith:DIRDPFXF submitted 2026-07-19 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.comp-ph

Joni Kaipainen , Tatu Pinomaa , Nikolas Provatas This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.comp-ph MSC 80A2274N05 PACS 81.30.Fb64.70.D
keywords rapidsolidificationphasefieldsolutetrappingdraginterfacialdiffusivityinterpolationcontinuousgrowthmodeldirectionalmulticomponentalloy
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 claims that a phase-field model with a computationally enlarged interface can be made to reproduce prescribed rapid-solidification kinetics by optimizing the interfacial solute diffusivity profile itself, rather than using a fixed interpolation. Using one-dimensional steady-state planar-interface solutions, the authors minimize the error between model predictions and continuous-growth-model targets for both the velocity-dependent partition coefficient and the drag-modified kinetic liquidus slope. They then show in dilute Al–Cu that, with all other conditions fixed, increasing only the prescribed solute-drag parameter changes simulated two-dimensional growth from dendritic to mixed dendritic–banded to predominantly banded. The same calibration extends to dilute multicomponent alloys by giving each solute an independent optimized diffusivity profile, avoiding a thermodynamic constraint that otherwise ties partition coefficients to liquidus slopes. If the approach holds, it provides a practical bridge from atomistic, experimental, or theoretical interface-kinetics data to phase-field simulations of rapid solidification microstructures.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the optimized interfacial diffusivity interpolation q_i(φ), written as the standard one-sided liquid diffusivity profile plus a (1−φ²) Chebyshev-polynomial correction that vanishes in the bulk phases. It is selected by minimizing a loss balancing relative errors in the predicted partition coefficient and kinetic liquidus response against a curvature regularization, with a tolerance-based rule choosing the smoothest profile that attains the accuracy target. The one-dimensional steady-state planar-interface equations, using the fixed equilibrium tanh phase-field profile, map candidate q_i(φ) to response functions, and the optimized profiles are then tabulated for mul

What would settle it

Run the same one-dimensional steady-state calibration at successively smaller interface widths W toward the sharp-interface limit, or against atomistic simulations, and compare the extracted solute-peak liquid concentration with the sharp-interface liquid composition; if the optimized q(φ) that matches k(V) and m(V;α) changes substantially with W or with the peak-extraction convention, the response matching is convention-dependent. Alternatively, use atomistically computed k(V) and m(V;α) as targets for Al–Cu and check whether the predicted dendritic-to-banded shift near α=0.5–0.7 reproduces e

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the interfacial diffusivity interpolation q_i(φ), which controls solute mobility across the diffuse solid–liquid interface, can serve as a calibration degree of freedom: choosing it by optimization lets an enlarged-interface phase-field model quantitatively emulate prescribed sharp-interface response functions k_i(V) and m_i(V;α). In binary Al–Cu, the optimized profiles reproduce the continuous-growth-model targets within a 1% root-mean-square tolerance over the calibrated velocity range. In two-dimensional directional solidification at fixed composition, thermal gradient, and pulling velocity, raising only the drag coefficient transforms dendritic growth into mixed

Load-bearing premise

The calibration assumes that, in the one-dimensional steady-state solution, the maximum of the solute concentration profile equals the sharp-interface liquid-side concentration and that the equilibrium tanh phase-field profile is a sufficient approximation for the moving interface; if that peak convention drifts from the true liquid concentration once interfacial diffusivity is enhanced, the matched k(V) and m(V;α) responses, and therefore the simulated morphology shift, coul

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rapid-solidification phase-field simulations with enlarged interfaces can be calibrated to reproduce prescribed trapping and drag kinetics to a stated tolerance, rather than only capturing qualitative trends.
  • Because the target partition coefficient is held fixed while only the drag-modified liquidus response is varied, the simulated morphology change isolates solute drag as a primary morphological selector under rapid-solidification conditions.
  • The dendritic-to-banded transition appears robust to reducing the interface upscaling factor from S=5 to S=3 with a re-optimized profile, indicating the banding is not simply an artifact of the enlarged diffuse interface.
  • Dilute multicomponent alloys can carry independent equilibrium partition coefficients, liquidus slopes, and diffusive speeds per solute, removing the universal-thermal-prefactor restriction and permitting species-specific segregation predictions in the same evolving morphology.
  • The calibration is response-function agnostic, so target functions obtained from experiments, atomistic simulations, or other nonequilibrium kinetic models can be embedded in the same framework as long as they are smooth and numerically stable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the peak-extraction convention is possible: compare the one-dimensional 'solute peak' liquid-side concentration with the sharp-interface liquid composition extrapolated as the interface width shrinks toward the physical value, since the paper itself notes weak shoulders near some ternary channel maxima that may be affected by enhanced interfacial transport.
  • The morphology trend predicts that, at fixed pulling velocity and thermal gradient, alloys whose atomistic or experimental response functions imply larger solute drag at the same trapping response should exhibit earlier banding or oscillatory growth; this is testable against phase-field runs using independently derived target functions.
  • If the fixed equilibrium tanh profile were replaced by fully relaxed moving-interface profiles during calibration, the optimized q_i(φ) could become velocity- or profile-dependent; comparing profiles calibrated with and without that relaxation would quantify the error introduced by the fixed-front approximation.
  • The reduced Q=0 diagnostic only captures the laterally averaged front response; a full finite-wavelength Mullins–Sekerka-style analysis using the same kinetic solidus and liquidus branches could determine whether the predicted banding threshold matches the simulated morphology boundary at finite wavenumbers.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an optimization-based calibration strategy for phase field models of rapid alloy solidification. The interfacial diffusivity interpolation q_i(φ) is expanded in endpoint-preserving Chebyshev polynomials and optimized so that one-dimensional steady planar-interface solutions, computed with a fixed tanh profile, reproduce prescribed continuous-growth-model target functions for the velocity-dependent partition coefficient k_i(V) and drag-modified kinetic liquidus m_i(V;α). The method is demonstrated for dilute Al–Cu, where RMS errors near 1% are achieved for intermediate drag coefficients, and for a dilute Al–Si–Cu ternary. Two-dimensional directional-solidification simulations using the calibrated q(φ) show a morphology transition from dendritic (α=0.3) to mixed (α=0.5) to banded (α=0.7) structures, interpreted through a reduced Q=0 kinetic-solidus diagnostic.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the framework is a useful step toward embedding physically or atomistically informed interface kinetics into enlarged-interface phase field simulations. The paper is transparent about its inverse-calibration nature: the Fig. 2 agreement is expected because the loss function (Eq. 61) directly minimizes the distance to the CGM targets. The main novelty is the systematic, tolerance-controlled construction of q_i(φ) as a response-matching degree of freedom, with regularized Chebyshev representation and a smoothness-selection rule. The dilute multicomponent extension that decouples k_i and m_i via component-specific susceptibilities is also a valuable contribution. However, the load-bearing morphology trend rests on two assumptions that are not fully validated: the peak-of-concentration extraction convention for the liquid-side interface concentration, and single deterministic 2D simulations per drag coefficient.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (57)] The definition of k_PF and the normalization of m_PF use the maximum of the steady concentration profile as the liquid-side interface concentration c_l^i. This identification is load-bearing because it enters both response functions and therefore the loss in Eq. (59). The paper does not validate this convention against sharp-interface asymptotics, S=1 direct phase field calculations, or atomistic data. The authors' own ternary run reports 'weak shoulders near some liquid-channel concentration maxima' (Sec. 4.4), which indicates that enhanced q can distort the profile near the interface. If the peak is not the sharp-interface liquid concentration, the optimized q matches a numerical diagnostic rather than the physical trapping/drag response, and the α-dependent morphology transition in Fig. 3 could be an artifact of the extraction convention. The fixed-profile check in Sec. 4.1 only repla
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 3] Each morphology in Fig. 3 is generated from a single deterministic simulation per α. The claim that increasing drag 'shifts the solidification morphology from dendritic/cellular to mixed dendritic-banded, and finally to predominantly banded' is based on one realization per parameter. The α=0.5 case is interpreted as close to a transition, but no ensemble, phase-space, or quantitative morphological metrics are reported. The classification could be sensitive to initial perturbations, domain size, simulation time, and the wavy-channel artifacts acknowledged later in the same section. Please provide either multiple realizations with different initial conditions/noise or quantitative descriptors (e.g., band spacing, interface roughness, tip undercooling) to support the trend.
  3. [Sec. 4.1 and Sec. 5] The calibration and the 2D validation use the fixed profile φ0 for the 1D inverse problem, while the 2D simulations use the full anisotropic, moving-interface phase field equations. The authors test S=3 banding and relaxed profiles, but they do not show that the extracted k_PF(V) and m_PF(V;α) from full 2D moving interfaces match the CGM targets. The mismatch between the calibration setting and the application setting is not discussed in detail. This gap weakens the claim that the optimized q functions 'reproduce' the prescribed response functions in the actual simulations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 1, Eq. (4)] The notation 'model interpolation functions at W=W0' is vague; clarify that q(φ) is the function that would preserve the response at the physical width.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (59)] The average ⟨·⟩_j over velocities is not explicitly defined with weights; the text later says 'logarithmically spaced' and equal weights, but stating this in the equation caption would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Sec. 4.4, Fig. 6] The concentration profiles show 'weak shoulders' near liquid-channel maxima; a brief explanation of their possible relation to enhanced interfacial diffusivity is given, but adding a zoom or an enlarged-interface control would help readers judge whether this is a numerical artifact.
  4. [General] The manuscript does not state whether the optimization code and data will be made available; for a calibration methodology, this would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Sec. 5, Discussion] The phrase 'tradeoffbetween' appears without a space; a final proofreading pass would catch such typos.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Fig. 2 response-function 'reproduction' is the minimized training loss of Eq. (59), so that part of the claimed validation is by construction; the 2D morphology transition is not directly fitted.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.1, Fig. 2 (objective in Sec. 3.3, Eq. (59))]
    "The coefficients are optimized by minimizing a loss function ... L(i)_km(ai) = <[(k_PF_i(V_j;a_i) - k_i,tar(V_j))/k_i,tar(V_j)]^2>_j + w_m <[(m_PF_i(V_j;a_i) - m_i,tar(V_j))/m_i,tar(V_j)]^2>_j ... The optimized response functions for the drag coefficients used in the binary simulations below are summarized in Fig. 2. ... The optimized phase field values collapse onto the same CGM curve for all drag coefficients with good agreement."

    The coefficients a_i of q_i(phi) are exactly the degrees of freedom minimized in Eq. (59), and the loss is the squared relative deviation of k_PF and m_PF from k_tar and m_tar. Thus the 'good agreement' shown in Fig. 2 is the minimized training objective, not an independent phase-field prediction of the CGM response. The paper is transparent that this is inverse calibration, so this is partial circularity: the central claim of reproducing the prescribed response functions reduces to the fit by construction. The 2D morphology simulations and multicomponent construction are not directly fitted and retain independent content.

full rationale

The clearest circular step is the use of Fig. 2 as a demonstration of accuracy: q(phi) is optimized against k_tar and m_tar through Eq. (59), so the agreement is the training error. This is a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, but it is explicit and only partially circular: the 2D directional-solidification morphology transition (Fig. 3) is an emergent simulation output and is supported by an S=3 re-optimization check, and the multicomponent construction is a model extension rather than a fit. The solute-peak extraction convention for c_l^i (Eq. 57) is a genuine validation risk, especially given the paper's own note of 'weak shoulders' in the ternary run (Sec. 4.4), but that is a correctness limitation rather than a circular reduction. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [22,24,34,37]) are present but not load-bearing as a uniqueness theorem or ansatz-smuggling chain; the core target functions come from CGM and an independent atomistic V_D value. Overall score 6 reflects that the headline 'reproducing prescribed response functions' is by construction, while the morphology and multicomponent claims are not.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calibration rests on fitted q(φ) coefficients and hand-chosen tolerances/weights, plus a series of modeling assumptions (CGM targets, diagonal dilute thermodynamics, peak-based interface extraction, frozen temperature). No new physical entities are introduced. The paper discloses most of these, but the number and opacity of the calibrated degrees of freedom are the main source of uncertainty.

free parameters (7)
  • Chebyshev coefficients a_{i,n} for q_i(φ) = not reported (N=8 per solute; only q(φ) curves shown)
    These are the actual fitted degrees of freedom; the optimization adjusts them to match k(V) and m(V) targets. Their absence from the paper is the main reproducibility gap.
  • solute drag coefficient α = 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8 in demonstrations
    Chosen from a physically expected partial-drag range, not fitted to data; it controls the m(V;α) target and is the parameter swept to produce the morphology trend. The optimizer is reported to fail outside this range.
  • RMS tolerance ε_RMS = 1%
    Set by hand as the acceptance threshold for candidate interpolations; tighter tolerances give sharper q(φ) profiles.
  • regularization strengths λ_curv = candidate sweep; values not listed
    A set of candidate strengths is considered and filtered by tolerance; the selected values are not reported.
  • response-error weight w_m = 1
    Equal weight assigned to k(V) and m(V) misfit; chosen by hand.
  • number of Chebyshev basis functions N = 8
    Chosen to represent target response functions; larger N increases flexibility.
  • interface upscaling factor S = 5 (S=3 in one check)
    Computational parameter that defines the enlarged interface width; q(φ) compensates its effect. Not fitted but load-bearing for the compensation problem.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The continuous growth model response functions (Eqs. 1 and 3) are acceptable targets for solute trapping and drag-modified kinetic liquidus.
    The framework is response-function agnostic, but all demonstrations use CGM targets; the paper itself notes CGM may be incomplete at high velocity and local-nonequilibrium models differ.
  • domain assumption Dilute independent-solute thermodynamics: diagonal susceptibility matrix X^α_ij ≈ X^α_i δ_ij, no cross-diffusion or solute-solute coupling.
    Introduced in Sec. 2 (Eq. 9); enables component-specific (k_i,m_i) but excludes concentrated/interacting alloys, which the discussion flags as a limitation.
  • ad hoc to paper The calibration can use the fixed equilibrium tanh profile φ0(ξ)=−tanh(ξ/√2) to represent moving-interface concentration profiles.
    Eq. (54) is used in Eqs. (55)–(58); authors checked representative relaxed-profile optimizations and report essentially unchanged results, but this check is not shown in detail.
  • ad hoc to paper The liquid-side concentration at the interface equals the maximum of the steady concentration profile.
    Invoked after Eq. (57) to define k_PF and m_PF; not validated against sharp-interface asymptotics.
  • domain assumption Frozen-temperature approximation and neglect of latent-heat diffusion in 2D simulations.
    Eq. (68); paper lists thermal diffusion as needed for quantitative banding predictions.
  • domain assumption One-sided solute transport with no solid diffusion: q_i(−1)=1, q_i(+1)=0.
    Standard one-sided model assumption; sets endpoint constraints for q_i(φ).
  • domain assumption The reduced Q=0 growth-rate diagnostic σ_0=G/(dT_S^∞/dV) captures the drag dependence relevant to banding.
    Sec. 4.3/Fig. 5; authors explicitly call it a reduced diagnostic, not a finite-wavelength stability theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Response-function-optimized phase field modeling of solute trapping and solute drag in rapid alloy solidification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DIRDPFXF

@misc{pith2026260717370,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Response-function-optimized phase field modeling of solute trapping and solute drag in rapid alloy solidification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DIRDPFXF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17370}
}
read the original abstract

Quantitative prediction of rapid solidification microstructures requires phase field models that represent the velocity dependence of interfacial properties, including solute partitioning, kinetic liquidus response, solute drag, and kinetic undercooling. These response functions control both microsegregation and morphology selection, but are difficult to prescribe accurately in phase field simulations that employ large interfaces for numerical efficiency. We introduce an optimization-based calibration strategy that embeds target sharp-interface response functions into a dilute alloy phase field formulation by treating the interfacial diffusivity interpolation function as a response-matching degree of freedom. The optimized diffusivity functions are obtained from one-dimensional steady-state phase field solutions, constrained to reproduce prescribed continuous-growth-model targets for velocity-dependent solute trapping and drag-modified liquidus kinetics. We demonstrate the calibrated model's accuracy and versatility in dilute Al-Cu by reproducing the prescribed response functions for intermediate solute drag coefficients relevant to rapid solidification. Two-dimensional directional-solidification simulations are conducted to isolate the effect of drag at fixed composition, thermal gradient, and pulling velocity. We show that increasing solute drag shifts the solidification morphology from dendritic/cellular growth to mixed dendritic-banded structures, and finally to predominantly banded growth. We extend the formulation to dilute multicomponent alloys, enabling independent specification of equilibrium partition coefficients and liquidus slopes for multiple solute species. The framework provides a route for incorporating experimentally, theoretically, or atomistically informed nonequilibrium interface kinetics into quantitative phase field simulations of rapidly solidified alloys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17370 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Effect of the response-function tolerance on the optimized interfacial diffusivity for the binary Al–Cu calibration with α = 0.3. The optimized q(ϕ) profiles are compared with the linear interpolation qlin(ϕ). gives approximately equal weight to each decade in velocity and therefore places a denser set of points at low velocities when viewed on a linear velocity scale. This is useful because the transition away from… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Binary Al–Cu response-function matching for optimized additive-linear Chebyshev interpolations with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effect of solute drag parameter in two-dimensional Al–Cu solidification simulations at pulling speed Vpull = 0.12 m s−1 and thermal gradient G = 5×106 K m−1 . The α = 0.3 case in (a) develops a dendritic morphology, the α = 0.5 case in (b) shows coexistence of banded and dendritic features, and the α = 0.7 case in (c) forms a predominantly banded structure. The solid black line denotes the ϕ = 0 contour. kinetic pha… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Drag-dependent kinetic phase-boundary context for the binary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dilute ternary Al–Si–Cu directional-solidification demonstration. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Herzog, V

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

    doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2016.07.019 2016

  2. [2]

    C. Tang, H. Du, Phase field modelling of dendritic solidification under additive manufacturing conditions, JOM 74 (8) (2022) 2996–3009.doi:10.1007/ s11837-022-05310-3. 16

    2022

  3. [3]

    Pinomaa, A

    T. Pinomaa, A. Eres-Castellanos, P. Thome, J. Kaipainen, I.-T. Ho, S. Hunter, J. Squier, K. Fezzaa, A. Biswas, S. Tin, N. Provatas, A. Clarke, J. McKeown, T. V oisin, Multi-scale in situ experiment/simulation integration to predict rapid solidification microstructures in additively manufactured Alcu, SSRN preprint (01 2025).doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5402093

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.5402093 2025

  4. [4]

    Chang, D

    M. Chang, D. Gu, K. Shi, Y . Zhao, Y . Li, H. Zhang, L. Hu, J. Xing, Crystallographic orientation-dependent grain evolution in laser powder bed fusion of nickel-based superalloys: A multi-phase and multi-orientation phase field (mmpf) method, Addit. Manuf. 121 (2026) 105173. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2026.105173

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    J. T. McKeown, K. Zweiacker, C. Liu, D. R. Coughlin, A. J. Clarke, J. K. Baldwin, J. W. Gibbs, J. D. Roehling, S. D. Imhoff, P. J. Gibbs, D. Tourret, J. M. K. Wiezorek, G. H. Campbell, Time-resolved in situ measurements dur- ing rapid alloy solidification: Experimental insight for ad- ditive manufacturing, JOM 68 (3) (2016) 985–999.doi: 10.1007/s11837-015-1793-x

    doi:10.1007/s11837-015-1793-x 2016

  6. [6]

    Gianoglio, S

    D. Gianoglio, S. Marola, L. Battezzati, A. Aversa, F. Bo- sio, M. Lombardi, D. Manfredi, M. Lorusso, Banded microstructures in rapidly solidified Al-3 wt% Er, In- termetallics 119 (2020) 106724.doi:10.1016/j. intermet.2020.106724

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    K. Ji, A. J. Clarke, J. T. McKeown, A. Karma, Mi- crostructure development during rapid alloy solidifica- tion, MRS Bull. 49 (6) (2024) 556–567.doi:10.1557/ s43577-024-00717-6

    2024

  8. [8]

    Zhong, A

    M. Zhong, A. Eres-Castellanos, K. Ji, A. I. Saville, B. Rodgers, D. R. Coughlin, J. W. Gibbs, J. D. Roehling, J. T. McKeown, A. J. Clarke, A. Karma, Quantification and prediction of solidification textures under additive manufacturing conditions, Nat. Commun. 16 (1) (2025) 11698.doi:10.1038/s41467-025-66655-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-66655-2 2025

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    W. Kurz, B. Giovanola, R. Trivedi, Theory of microstruc- tural development during rapid solidification, Acta Metall. 34 (5) (1986) 823–830.doi:10.1016/0001-6160(86) 90056-8

    1986 doi

  2. [10]

    Karma, A

    A. Karma, A. Sarkissian, Interface dynamics and banding in rapid solidification, Phys. Rev. E 47 (1993) 513–533. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.47.513

    1993 doi

  3. [11]

    Tourret, J

    D. Tourret, J. Klemm-Toole, A. E. Castellanos, B. Rodgers, G. Becker, A. Saville, B. Ellyson, C. Johnson, B. Milligan, J. Copley, R. Ochoa, A. Polonsky, K. Pusch, M. Haines, K. Fezzaa, T. Sun, K. Clarke, S. Babu, T. Pol- lock, A. Karma, A. Clarke, Morphological stability of so...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Pinomaa, M

    T. Pinomaa, M. Lindroos, M. Walbrühl, N. Provatas, A. Laukkanen, The significance of spatial length scales and solute segregation in strengthening rapid solidifica- tion microstructures of 316L stainless steel, Acta Mater. 184 (2020) 1–16.doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2019.10. 044

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    E. P. George, D. Raabe, R. O. Ritchie, High-entropy al- loys, Nat. Rev. Mater. 4 (8) (2019) 515–534.doi:10. 1038/s41578-019-0121-4

    2019

  6. [14]

    Tahkola, L

    M. Tahkola, L. Linnala, T. Blackburn, S. Savukoski, V . Gagneur, J. Kaipainen, K. Ma, A. J. Knowles, A. Laukkanen, T. Pinomaa, Accelerated discovery of Cr- based A2+B2 superalloys across 11 elements with a deep- learning CALPHAD surrogate, npj Comput. Mater. (May 2026).doi:10....

    2026 doi

  7. [15]

    M. J. Aziz, Model for solute redistribution during rapid solidification, J. Appl. Phys. 53 (2) (1982) 1158–1168. doi:10.1063/1.329867

    1982 doi

  8. [16]

    M. J. Aziz, T. Kaplan, Continuous growth model for inter- face motion during alloy solidification, Acta Metall. 36 (8) (1988) 2335–2347.doi:10.1016/0001-6160(88) 90333-1

    1988 doi

  9. [17]

    M. Aziz, W. Boettinger, On the transition from short- range diffusion-limited to collision-limited growth in al- loy solidification, Acta Metall. Mater. 42 (2) (1994) 527– 537.doi:10.1016/0956-7151(94)90507-X

    1994 doi

  10. [18]

    Ludwig, The interface response-functions in multi- componental alloy solidification, Phys

    A. Ludwig, The interface response-functions in multi- componental alloy solidification, Phys. D: Nonlinear Phenom. 124 (1) (1998) 271–284.doi:10.1016/ S0167-2789(98)00202-4

    1998

  11. [19]

    P. M. Smith, M. Aziz, Solute trapping in aluminum alloys, Acta Metall. Mater. 42 (10) (1994) 3515–3525.doi:10. 1016/0956-7151(94)90483-9

    1994

  12. [20]

    Kittl, P

    J. Kittl, P. Sanders, M. Aziz, D. Brunco, M. Thompson, Complete experimental test of kinetic models for rapid al- loy solidification, Acta Mater. 48 (20) (2000) 4797–4811. doi:10.1016/S1359-6454(00)00276-7

    2000 doi

  13. [21]

    Y . Yang, H. Humadi, D. Buta, B. B. Laird, D. Sun, J. Hoyt, M. Asta, Atomistic simulations of nonequilibrium crystal-growth kinetics from alloy melts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 025505.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107. 025505

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    Haapalehto, T

    M. Haapalehto, T. Pinomaa, L. Wang, A. Laukkanen, An atomistic simulation study of rapid solidification kinetics and crystal defects in dilute Al–Cu alloys, Comput. Mater. Sci. 209 (2022) 111356.doi:10.1016/j.commatsci. 2022.111356

    2022

  15. [23]

    J. W. Cahn, The impurity-drag effect in grain boundary motion, Acta Metall. 10 (9) (1962) 789–798.doi:10. 1016/0001-6160(62)90092-5. 17

    1962

  16. [24]

    Pinomaa, A

    T. Pinomaa, A. Laukkanen, N. Provatas, Solute trapping in rapid solidification, MRS Bull. 45 (11) (2020) 910–915. doi:10.1557/mrs.2020.274

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    N. A. Ahmad, A. A. Wheeler, W. J. Boettinger, G. B. McFadden, Solute trapping and solute drag in a phase- field model of rapid solidification, Phys. Rev. E 58 (1998) 3436–3450.doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.58.3436

    1998 doi

  18. [26]

    Kavousi, B

    S. Kavousi, B. R. Novak, J. Hoyt, D. Moldovan, Inter- face kinetics of rapid solidification of binary alloys by atomistic simulations: Application to Ti-Ni alloys, Com- put. Mater. Sci. 184 (2020) 109854.doi:10.1016/j. commatsci.2020.109854

    2020

  19. [27]

    C. A. Hareland, G. Guillemot, C.-A. Gandin, P. W. V oorhees, The thermodynamics of non-equilibrium inter- faces during phase transformations in concentrated multi- component alloys, Acta Mater. 241 (2022) 118407.doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2022.118407

    2022

  20. [28]

    E. A. Antillon, C. A. Hareland, P. W. V oorhees, Solute trapping and solute drag during non-equilibrium solidifi- cation of Fe–Cr alloys, Acta Mater. 248 (2023) 118769. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2023.118769

    2023

  21. [29]

    Tourret, A

    D. Tourret, A. Karma, Growth competition of colum- nar dendritic grains: A phase-field study, Acta Mater. 82 (2015) 64–83.doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2014.08. 049

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    L. Wang, H. Li, Y . Song, J. Ding, R. Cai, Y . Peng, Y . Huang, K. Wang, Investigation of dendrite growth, Nb segregation during laser IN718 deposition via volume of fluid-phase field modeling, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 21 (2022) 404–415.doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2022.09.036

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    K. Ji, E. Dorari, A. J. Clarke, A. Karma, Microstructural pattern formation during far-from-equilibrium alloy so- lidification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 026203.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.026203

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    K. Ji, M. Zhong, A. Karma, Phase-field model of alloy solidification far from chemical equilibrium at the solid- liquid interface, Phys. Rev. Res. 7 (2025) 033128.doi: 10.1103/vyd6-nj4h

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    Echebarria, R

    B. Echebarria, R. Folch, A. Karma, M. Plapp, Quantitative phase-field model of alloy solidification, Phys. Rev. E 70 (2004) 061604.doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.70.061604

    2004 doi

  26. [34]

    Provatas, T

    N. Provatas, T. Pinomaa, N. Ofori-Opoku, Quantitative Phase Field Modelling of Solidification, CRC Press, 2021. doi:10.1201/9781003204312

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    A. A. Wheeler, W. J. Boettinger, G. B. McFadden, Phase- field model of solute trapping during solidification, Phys. Rev. E 47 (1993) 1893–1909.doi:10.1103/PhysRevE. 47.1893

    1993 doi

  28. [36]

    Danilov, B

    D. Danilov, B. Nestler, Phase-field modelling of solute trapping during rapid solidification of a Si–As alloy, Acta Mater. 54 (18) (2006) 4659–4664.doi:10.1016/j. actamat.2006.05.045

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    Pinomaa, N

    T. Pinomaa, N. Provatas, Quantitative phase field model- ing of solute trapping and continuous growth kinetics in quasi-rapid solidification, Acta Mater. 168 (2019) 167– 177.doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2019.02.009

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Kavousi, M

    S. Kavousi, M. Asle Zaeem, Quantitative phase-field modeling of solute trapping in rapid solidification, Acta Mater. 205 (2021) 116562.doi:10.1016/j.actamat. 2020.116562

    2021

  31. [39]

    Tourret, R

    D. Tourret, R. Tavakoli, A. D. Boccardo, A. K. Boukel- lal, M. Li, J. Molina-Aldareguia, Emergence of rapid so- lidification microstructure in additive manufacturing of a magnesium alloy, Model. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 32 (5) (2024) 055012.doi:10.1088/1361-651X/ad4576

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Mancias, B

    J. Mancias, B. Vela, J. Flórez-Coronel, R. Tavakoli, D. Al- laire, R. Arróyave, D. Tourret, Mapping of microstruc- ture transitions during rapid alloy solidification using Bayesian-guided phase-field simulations, Acta Mater. 297 (2025) 121354.doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2025. 121354

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    Y . Li, L. Wang, J. Li, J. Wang, Z. Wang, A thermodynamic and analytical description on the quantitative phase-field model with enhanced interface diffusivity (2024).arXiv: 2405.11568,doi:10.48550/arXiv.2405.11568

    2024 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    Y . Li, L. Wang, Z. Wang, J. Li, J. Wang, A phase- field model bridging near-equilibrium and far-from- equilibrium alloy solidification, Acta Mater. 284 (2025) 120596.doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2024.120596

    2025

  35. [43]

    S. G. Kim, W. T. Kim, T. Suzuki, Phase-field model for binary alloys, Phys. Rev. E 60 (1999) 7186–7197.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.60.7186

    1999 doi

  36. [44]

    Steinbach, L

    I. Steinbach, L. Zhang, M. Plapp, Phase-field model with finite interface dissipation, Acta Mater. 60 (6) (2012) 2689–2701.doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2012.01.035

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    L. K. Aagesen, Y . Gao, D. Schwen, K. Ahmed, Grand- potential-based phase-field model for multiple phases, grains, and chemical components, Phys. Rev. E 98 (2018) 023309.doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.98.023309

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    Plapp, Unified derivation of phase-field models for al- loy solidification from a grand-potential functional, Phys

    M. Plapp, Unified derivation of phase-field models for al- loy solidification from a grand-potential functional, Phys. Rev. E 84 (2011) 031601.doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.84. 031601

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    K. Ji, A. Molavi Tabrizi, A. Karma, Isotropic finite- difference approximations for phase-field simulations of polycrystalline alloy solidification, J. Comput. Phys. 457 (2022) 111069.doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111069. 18

    2022

  40. [48]

    W. W. Mullins, R. F. Sekerka, Stability of a planar in- terface during solidification of a dilute binary alloy, J. Appl. Phys. 35 (2) (1964) 444–451.doi:10.1063/1. 1713333

    1964 doi

  41. [49]

    Kropotin, Y

    N. Kropotin, Y . Fang, C. Yu, M. Seyring, K. Freiberg, S. Lippmann, T. Pinomaa, A. Laukkanen, N. Provatas, P. Galenko, Modelling of the solidifying microstructure of Inconel 718: Quasi-binary approximation, Modelling 4 (2023) 323–335.doi:10.3390/modelling4030018

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    Humadi, J

    H. Humadi, J. Hoyt, N. Provatas, Microscopic treatment of solute trapping and drag, Phys. Rev. E 93 (2016) 010801(R).doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.93.010801

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    Hillert, B

    M. Hillert, B. Sundman, A solute-drag treatment of the transition from diffusion-controlled to diffusionless so- lidification, Acta Metall. 25 (1) (1977) 11–18.doi: 10.1016/0001-6160(77)90240-1

    1977 doi

  44. [52]

    Hillert, Solute drag, solute trapping and diffusional dissipation of Gibbs energy, Acta Mater

    M. Hillert, Solute drag, solute trapping and diffusional dissipation of Gibbs energy, Acta Mater. 47 (18) (1999) 4481–4505.doi:10.1016/S1359-6454(99)00336-5

    1999 doi

  45. [53]

    D. Cui, J. Qu, Z. Pu, J. Zhang, Y . Yang, H. Wang, Non-uniform solute drag in rapid alloy solidification, Scr. Mater. 280 (2026) 117327.doi:10.1016/j. scriptamat.2026.117327

    2026

  46. [54]

    D. Cui, Z. Pu, J. Qu, J. Zhang, Y . Yang, H. Wang, A full non-equilibrium partial solute drag model for rapid solidi- fication of a binary alloy: modeling and verification, Acta Mater. 316 (2026) 122472.doi:10.1016/j.actamat. 2026.122472

    2026

  47. [55]

    Sobolev, Local-nonequilibrium model for rapid solidifi- cation of undercooled melts, Phys

    S. Sobolev, Local-nonequilibrium model for rapid solidifi- cation of undercooled melts, Phys. Lett. A. 199 (5) (1995) 383–386.doi:10.1016/0375-9601(95)00084-G

    1995 doi

  48. [56]

    S. L. Sobolev, Rapid solidification under local nonequi- librium conditions, Phys. Rev. E 55 (1997) 6845–6854. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.55.6845

    1997 doi

  49. [57]

    Galenko, Solute trapping and diffusionless solidifica- tion in a binary system, Phys

    P. Galenko, Solute trapping and diffusionless solidifica- tion in a binary system, Phys. Rev. E 76 (2007) 031606. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.76.031606

    2007 doi

  50. [58]

    Y . Wang, D. Tourret, F. Abdeljawad, A computational study of solidification kinetics in multicomponent alloys, Comput. Mater. Sci. 244 (2024) 113161.doi:10.1016/ j.commatsci.2024.113161

    2024

  51. [59]

    Martin, G

    P. Martin, G. Guillemot, C. A. Hareland, P. W. V oorhees, C.-A. Gandin, Kinetic effects during the plane-front and dendritic solidification of multicomponent alloys, Acta Mater. 263 (2024) 119473.doi:10.1016/j.actamat. 2023.119473

    2024

  52. [60]

    Y . Song, D. Tourret, F. Mota, J. Pereda, B. Billia, N. Bergeon, R. Trivedi, A. Karma, Thermal-field effects on interface dynamics and microstructure selection dur- ing alloy directional solidification, Acta Mater. 150 (2018) 139–152.doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2018.03.012. 19 Suppl...

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.