Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 43 references

An adaptive phase field framework for large-scale interface evolution problems using a strong-form gradient smoothing approach

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read An adaptive gradient-smoothing solver keeps second-order accuracy on thin interfaces while scaling as O(N) instead of O(N²).

desk verdict Solid adaptive strong-form phase-field methods paper: GSM + layered hierarchical triangles delivers practical O(N) 2D scaling and recovered second-order interface accuracy on the tests they ran; the bulk-μ coarsening caveat is real but not a desk-reject issue. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25142 v1 pith:UAOFQDDX submitted 2026-07-27 math.NA cs.NAmath-phmath.MP

Zirui Mao , Alice Xu , Shenyang Hu , Panos Stinis , Yuyan Shao , Ang Li , Yulan Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAmath-phmath.MP MSC 65M5065M0635K5574N20
keywords phasefieldmethodAllen-CahnequationCahn-HilliardgradientsmoothingadaptivemeshhierarchicalAMRstrong-formdiscretization
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

Phase-field models track moving interfaces by spreading them into thin diffuse bands, but resolving those bands everywhere on a uniform grid quickly becomes too expensive for large domains or very thin interfaces. This paper couples a strong-form Gradient Smoothing Method with a hierarchical adaptive triangular mesh that keeps fine, uniform resolution only inside the interfacial band and leaves the bulk coarse. A layered refinement rule confines mesh irregularity to a narrow transition zone where the order parameter is nearly constant, so the method still shows overall second-order accuracy. Because the work then grows with interface length rather than domain area, runtime scales near-linearly in system size, beating both uniform finite-difference grids and adaptive weak-form finite-element solvers on the Allen–Cahn and Cahn–Hilliard problems once the grid is large enough or the interface is thin enough.

What carries the argument

Hierarchical Adaptive Mesh Refinement (HAMR) with longest-edge bisection on right-isosceles triangles, driven by an element-average indicator that forces a prescribed number of uniform fine layers across the interface; this mesh supplies the GSM Laplace operator (with directional correction) so that second-order accuracy is retained where gradients matter.

What would settle it

Measure global convergence rates on a problem whose bulk fields have strong gradients or whose interface topology changes rapidly; if the observed order drops from two to one, or if mass/energy drifts appear after repeated coarsening, the accuracy claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Coupling the Gradient Smoothing Method to a hierarchical adaptive moving structured triangular mesh that enforces locally uniform fine layers across the diffuse interface yields overall second-order accuracy for Allen–Cahn and Cahn–Hilliard evolution while reducing computational complexity from the O(N²) of uniform grids to O(N), making the solver markedly cheaper for large-scale problems whose interfacial area fraction is small.

Load-bearing premise

The first-order truncation error that GSM suffers on non-uniform stencils stays negligible because those stencils sit only in bulk regions where the order parameter is nearly flat.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For thin-interface or large-domain phase-field runs the dominant cost becomes proportional to interfacial length rather than domain area.
  • Memory footprint shrinks with the number of adaptive elements, enabling larger three-dimensional simulations on the same hardware.
  • The same layered-refinement idea can be reused for any strong-form stencil method that loses order on irregular meshes.
  • Explicit time-step limits remain the same as finite differences, so the efficiency gain is purely spatial until implicit schemes are added.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Once GPU-parallelized, the local node-wise GSM and tree-based remeshing should map cleanly onto thousands of cores, potentially pushing the practical crossover well below the reported 400×400 threshold.
  • The same framework could be tested on coupled phase-field/elasticity or fluid problems where bulk gradients are no longer negligible, directly probing the load-bearing bulk-flatness assumption.
  • If the O(N) scaling survives topology changes and three dimensions, adaptive GSM becomes a competitive matrix-free alternative to existing block-structured AMR codes for microstructure evolution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a strong-form phase-field solver coupling the Gradient Smoothing Method (GSM) with a hierarchical adaptive structured triangular mesh (HAMR) based on longest-edge bisection. The key design is a layered refinement strategy that keeps the interfacial band uniformly fine while confining mesh non-uniformity to a narrow transition band in the bulk, with the aim of preserving global second-order accuracy despite GSM being only first-order on non-uniform stencils. The authors validate the GSM Laplacian on uniform meshes (second-order, matching central-difference FDM), document first-order degradation on six representative non-uniform stencils, and present adaptive Allen–Cahn and Cahn–Hilliard benchmarks (equilibrium interface relaxation, curvature-driven shrinkage/relaxation, and layer retraction with concentration-dependent mobility) showing agreement with FDM and the analytical tanh profile. Timing studies report O(N) per-step cost for the adaptive GSM versus O(N²) for uniform FDM, with a crossover near N≈400, and faster runtimes than MOOSE/FEM under matched conditions. A fully vectorized triangle-wise assembly of the GSM Laplacian is described in algorithmic detail.

Significance. If the accuracy-restoration claim holds in the regimes the method targets, the contribution is practically significant: a matrix-free, strong-form adaptive solver with conservation-by-construction fluxes (the antisymmetric edge-coefficient argument in §3), a reproducible vectorized implementation (Eqs. 24–42), and per-step cost growing with interfacial length rather than domain area would be genuinely useful for large-scale thin-interface phase-field work. The mesh-quality parameter study (§4.5, Figs. 8–10) tying n̄_level and u_thr to the analytical interface thickness (Eq. 9) is a concrete, transferable design rule, and the directional-correction checkerboard demonstration (Fig. 20) is instructive. The validation is against independent references (analytical profiles, FDM, MOOSE), not circular. The main gap is that the headline accuracy claim is demonstrated only in flat-bulk configurations, and the efficiency claim is stated per fixed step count under explicit time stepping; both need qualification or additional evidence before the O(N)/second-order conclusions can be taken as general.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2–5.4, §6 (accuracy restoration argument)] The central accuracy claim — that the HAMR design restores global second-order accuracy because mesh non-uniformity sits in a transition band where the order parameter is nearly constant — is validated only on benchmarks whose bulk is essentially flat (single shrinking square for A–C, single relaxing rectangle for C–H, Figs. 17, 19). For the C–H coarsening regime the paper itself identifies as the primary target (§5.4: 'practical demand for aggressive acceleration is generally more critical for C–H modeling'), interface motion is driven by bulk diffusion: the chemical potential μ is smooth, extended, and non-constant in the bulk (Gibbs–Thomson boundary values, O(1/R) gradients). The refinement indicator |η_K| < u_thr acts on c, so the μ-gradient region in the bulk is never refined, and ∇²μ there is computed on the coarsest 21×21 mesh, partly with the locally first-order stencils of §5.2.
  2. [§3 (conservation claim), §4.3 Eq. (47), §4.4] The antisymmetry argument after Eq. (21) establishes exact flux conservation for the GSM operator on a fixed mesh, and the text claims 'strict concentration conservation in GSM simulations.' However, every remeshing event (every 100 steps for C–H) inserts/removes nodes with field values assigned by linear interpolation (Eq. 47) and deletes mid-edge nodes on coarsening; neither operation conserves the discrete integral of c. Over a long C–H coarsening run with many remesh cycles, cumulative mass drift is possible and would directly undermine the use of the method for conservation-sensitive coarsening. No mass time series is reported for any adaptive C–H run. Please report the evolution of total mass error for the Fig. 19(b) and Fig. 24 cases, and state whether a conservative remapping (or a correction step) is needed.
  3. [Abstract, §5.4 Figs. 21–23 (complexity claim)] The O(N) complexity claim is measured over a fixed count of 10,000 time steps. With explicit integration, Eq. (23) gives Δt_CH = O(h⁴/κ), so the number of steps to reach a fixed physical time grows as N⁴; time-to-solution therefore scales roughly as O(N⁵) for GSM versus O(N⁶) for FDM, not O(N) versus O(N²). The relative advantage survives, but the abstract's unqualified 'O(N)' overstates it. Relatedly, the MOOSE comparison is performed at the same time-step size and remeshing frequency as GSM, which strips MOOSE of its main practical advantage (implicit stepping with much larger Δt); the conclusion that GSM beats FEM 'under the same conditions' should be explicitly scoped to explicit/matched-step conditions, as §6 partially acknowledges. Please qualify the complexity statements in the abstract and §5.4 accordingly.
  4. [Table 1, case V] Case V appears internally inconsistent. With N0=21 and n̄_level=10, the finest grid size per the paper's own level-size relation (grandchild = half grid size at +2 levels, §4.2) is (1/20)/2⁵ = 1/640, not the stated h=1/1280. Separately, with κ=1.5625×10⁻⁷, Eq. (9) gives δ≈2.05×10⁻³, i.e., only ~2.6 grid layers across the interface at h=1/1280 — below the 4–5 layers the paper itself requires (§4.5). The pattern of cases I–IV (κ quartered each time, δ/h≈8.3 throughout) suggests κ for case V should be 1.5625×10⁻⁶ and/or n̄_level=12. Since case V is the extreme thin-interface case featured in Fig. 18 and underpins the 'very thin interface' selling point, please verify and correct the table and, if case V was actually run under-resolved, re-examine the associated accuracy/efficiency statements.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Eq. (42)] The Laplacian is written as ∂²u/∂x² + ∂²u/∂x²; the second term should be ∂²u/∂y².
  2. [Eq. (31)] V_e = (h_c²/6) × 2^{l_e} grows with refinement level, whereas element area should halve per level; presumably this should be 2^{−l_e}. Please check.
  3. [Keywords, §4.1, §4.4, §4.5, Fig. 15 caption] Typos: 'Allan–Cahn' and 'Cahn–Hillard' in keywords; 'Intial mesh' (§4.1 heading); 'tra ks' (§4.5); 'where is far from the evolving interface' (missing 'the element', §4.4 after Eq. 48); Fig. 15 caption says 'compared with GDM' — should be FDM. Several lines in §5.1–5.2 contain garbled characters (e.g., ' he performan e'), apparently from a font/encoding problem; please proofread the final typeset file.
  4. [CRediT statement] Zhijie (Jay) Xu is listed in the CRediT contributions but does not appear in the author list on the title page; please reconcile.
  5. [§5.4, Fig. 19] 'The results obtained from GSM and FDM agree exactly' overstates it for two distinct discretizations on different meshes; 'agree closely' or a quantitative discrepancy measure (e.g., interface position error vs. time) would be more accurate and more informative.
  6. [Reproducibility] No code or data availability statement is given. Given that the vectorized assembly (Eqs. 24–42) and the HAMR algorithms (Figs. 6–7) are described in near-implementable detail, releasing the GSM/HAMR code and benchmark inputs would materially increase the paper's impact; please add an availability statement.
  7. [§5.4, Fig. 21(b)] The growing remeshing share at large N is acknowledged, but since remeshing is the non-vectorized component, some discussion of its asymptotic cost (and whether it eventually dominates the O(N) scaling) would help readers extrapolate to the 'hundreds of millions of elements' regime mentioned in §6.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: adaptive accuracy and O(N) scaling are independently validated against analytics and external solvers, not forced by definition or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing claims—that layered HAMR restores overall second-order GSM accuracy and that adaptive GSM attains O(N) complexity versus O(N²) uniform FDM—are supported by direct numerical evidence, not by construction from inputs. Laplacian accuracy is re-measured against manufactured solutions and central-difference FDM on uniform meshes (§5.1); non-uniform stencil degradation to first order is shown explicitly (§5.2, Figs. 14–15); adaptive second-order rates are measured against the analytical tanh equilibrium profile and against independent FDM on the same A–C/C–H problems (§5.3, Fig. 17); interface evolution is cross-checked against FDM and MOOSE (§5.4, Figs. 19, 21). Free parameters (u_thr, n̄_level, remesh stride) are mesh-quality knobs chosen from resolution studies (§4.5), not quantities fitted to force the reported RMSE slopes or runtime scalings. Self-citations to prior GSM monographs/papers supply the baseline operator and the known uniform/non-uniform orders; those orders are re-verified in-paper and are not used as an unverified uniqueness theorem that forbids alternatives. The geometric argument that element count scales with interfacial length times a fixed number of fine layers (hence O(N)) is an empirical observation from the mesh construction, not a renaming of a fitted target. Concerns that bulk chemical-potential gradients on coarse transition stencils may corrupt multi-interface C–H coarsening rates are generalization/correctness risks, not circular reductions of claim to input. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The work sits on standard phase-field free-energy models, prior GSM operator theory, and classical explicit stability heuristics transferred from FDM. Load-bearing modeling choices are the double-well potential, constant or |1−c²| mobility, the interface-thickness relation δ≈5.18√κ, and several hand-chosen mesh-control parameters. No new physical entities are postulated; the “invented” pieces are algorithmic constructs (HAMR tree, layered refinement indicator).

free parameters (5)
  • u_thr (refinement/coarsening threshold) = 0.925 (default in tests)
    User tolerance defining the interfacial band via |η_K|<u_thr; chosen as 0.925 after parametric mesh-quality studies (§4.5, Fig. 9), not derived from a uniqueness principle.
  • n̄_level (maximum refinement depth) = 4–10 depending on case
    Sets finest h relative to coarsest N0 so that ~4–5 layers span the diffuse interface; selected from κ via δ≈5.18√κ and NI≈5, then confirmed by mesh experiments (§4.5, Table 1).
  • Remeshing stride = 100 (C–H) / 40 (A–C)
    Mesh updated every 100 (C–H) or 40 (A–C) time steps by numerical experiment to cut overhead with “negligible” accuracy loss (§4.5); hand-tuned schedule.
  • N0 coarsest bulk resolution = 21
    Fixed at 21×21 nodal coarsest mesh in scaling studies (Table 1); arbitrary bulk baseline that affects absolute DOF counts and crossover vs FDM.
  • NI (target grid layers across interface) = ~5
    Design target “at least three to four,” operationally ~5 layers used to pick Δh_fin from κ (§4.5); engineering choice, not a theorem.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption GSM gradient/Laplace with constant smoothing kernel and one-point nGSD quadrature is second-order on uniform meshes and first-order on general non-uniform meshes.
    Invoked from prior GSM theory [24,26] and verified numerically in §5.1–5.2; underpins the layered-mesh accuracy argument.
  • domain assumption Allen–Cahn and Cahn–Hilliard with f=(φ²−1)²/4 (f0=1) and constant or interfacial mobility are adequate model problems for solver assessment.
    §2 explicitly restricts scope to these general forms rather than a specific materials application.
  • standard math Equilibrium planar interface is c(x)=tanh(d/√(2κ)) with effective thickness δ≈5.18√κ for |c|<0.95.
    Classical Cahn–Hilliard 1D solution used to size meshes and benchmark errors (Eqs. 8–9).
  • domain assumption Explicit stability limits Δt_AC≤h²/(4κ) and Δt_CH≤h²/(4+32κ/h²) carry over from FDM to GSM.
    Stated in §3 citing [41,42]; not re-derived for irregular adaptive stencils.
  • ad hoc to paper Conforming meshes without hanging nodes are required for unbiased GSM boundary integrals on shared edges.
    Motivates triangular longest-edge bisection HAMR in §4 opening; design constraint of this framework.
  • ad hoc to paper Element indicator η_K=average of vertex order-parameter values with threshold u_thr adequately marks the interfacial band and yields symmetric uniform fine layers.
    §4.3 deliberately prefers this over gradient-variation indicators to protect GSM high-order accuracy.
invented entities (2)
  • HAMR hierarchical parent–child–sister–neighbor triangular mesh with layered interface-uniform refinement
    purpose: Localize DOFs to the diffuse interface, enforce conformity, enable cheap coarsening rollback, and keep GSM stencils uniform across the interface band.
    Algorithmic construct introduced in §4; not a physical entity. Independent evidence is only the numerical tests in this paper.
  • Fully vectorized triangle-wise GSM Laplacian assembly on adaptive structured triangles
    purpose: Remove element loops and make adaptive GSM competitive per operator evaluation (§3).
    Implementation device; correctness judged by Laplacian and phase-field tests, not external measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An adaptive phase field framework for large-scale interface evolution problems using a strong-form gradient smoothing approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UAOFQDDX

@misc{pith2026260725142,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An adaptive phase field framework for large-scale interface evolution problems using a strong-form gradient smoothing approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UAOFQDDX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25142}
}
read the original abstract

Multiscale problems with evolving interfaces are ubiquitous in science and engineering. Phase-field models are a powerful tool for simulating interface-dominated phenomena in computational mechanics and materials modeling, but their application to large-scale problems is often constrained by the high computational cost of resolving thin diffuse interfaces over the entire domain. This paper presents an efficient strong-form phase-field solver that couples the Gradient Smoothing Method (GSM) with a hierarchical adaptive and moving structured mesh, enabling automatic localization of resolution within a narrow interfacial region while retaining coarse discretization in bulk domains. A layered refinement design is introduced to preserve locally uniform resolution across the interface, allowing the GSM discretization to maintain overall second-order accuracy despite strong mesh non-uniformity away from the interface. Although GSM incurs a higher per-degree-of-freedom cost than standard finite-difference schemes, the adaptive framework substantially reduces the total number of degrees of freedom, resulting in near-linear computational scaling compared with the quadratic scaling of uniform-grid approaches. Numerical examples based on the Allen-Cahn and Cahn-Hilliard equations demonstrate that the proposed adaptive GSM solver delivers desired accuracy for interface evolution while attaining more favorable computational complexity, O(N), than existing weak-form and strong-form solvers, becoming significantly more efficient for large-scale problems with thin interfaces or a small interfacial area fraction relative to the whole domain.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2023/06/01

    Saberi, H., et al., A multi-level adaptive mesh refinement method for phase -field fracture problems. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2023/06/01. 125

    2023

  2. [2]

    Guo, and Z.X

    Yang, X.L., N. Guo, and Z.X. Yang, A finite-volume implementation of the phase-field model for brittle fracture with adaptive mesh refinement. Computers and Geotechnics, 2024/01/01. 165

    2024

  3. [3]

    Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering 2018 13:2, 2018-06-04

    Hirshikesh, et al., A FEniCS implementation of the phase field method for quasi -static brittle fracture. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering 2018 13:2, 2018-06-04. 13(2)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Engineering with Computers 2023 39:4, 2023-06-14

    Rahimi, M.N., et al., An SPH -based FSI framework for phase -field modeling of brittle fracture under extreme hydrodynamic events. Engineering with Computers 2023 39:4, 2023-06-14. 39(4)

    2023

  5. [5]

    V., E.B.D. and S.H. Davis, On the motion of a fluid-fluid interface along a solid surface | Journal of Fluid Mechanics | Cambridge Core. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1974/08. 65(1)

    1974

  6. [6]

    Craster, R.V. and O.K. Matar, Dynamics and stability of thin liquid films. Reviews of Modern Physics, 2009 -08-05. 81(3)

    2009

  7. [7]

    and L.-Q

    Chen, L.-Q. and L.-Q. Chen, Phase-Field Models for Microstructure Evolution. Annual Review of Materials Research, 2002/08/01. 32(Volume 32, 2002)

    2002

  8. [8]

    Liu, and J

    Tourret, D., H. Liu, and J. LLorca, Phase-field modeling of microstructure evolution: Recent applications, perspectives and challenges. Progress in Materials Science, 2022/01/01. 123

    2022

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Provatas, N. and K. Elder, Phase‐Field Methods in Materials Science and Engineering . 2010: Wiley ‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA

    2010

  2. [10]

    The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 2021-11

    Zhang, W., et al., AMReX: Block-structured adaptive mesh refinement for multiphysics applications. The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 2021-11. 35(6)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Berger, M.J. and J. Oliger, Adaptive mesh refinement for hyperbolic partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 1984/03/01. 53(3)

    1984

  4. [12]

    Berger, M.J. and P. Colella, Local adaptive mesh refinement for shock hydrodynamics. Journal of Computational Physics, 1989/05/01. 82(1)

    1989

  5. [13]

    SoftwareX, 2020/01/01

    Permann, C.J., et al., MOOSE: Enabling massively parallel multiphysics simulation. SoftwareX, 2020/01/01. 11

    2020

  6. [14]

    Freddi, F. and L. Mingazzi, Adaptive mesh refinement for the phase field method: A FEniCS implementation. Applications in Engineering Science, 2023/06/01. 14

    2023

  7. [15]

    Agrawal, and M

    Runnels, B., V. Agrawal, and M. Meier, The Alamo multiphysics solver for phase field simulations with strong -form mechanics and block structured adaptive mesh refinement. Journal of Open Source Software, 2025/12/02. 10(116)

    2025

  8. [16]

    npj Computational Materials 2020 6:1, 2020-03-26

    DeWitt, S., et al., PRISMS-PF: A general framework for phase -field modeling with a matrix -free finite element method. npj Computational Materials 2020 6:1, 2020-03-26. 6(1)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Materials Theory 2021 6:1, 2022-01-06

    Sakane, S., et al., Parallel-GPU-accelerated adaptive mesh refinement for three -dimensional phase-field simulation of dendritic growth during solidification of binary alloy. Materials Theory 2021 6:1, 2022-01-06. 6(1)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Journal of Computational Physics, 2021/02/15

    Runnels, B., et al., Massively parallel finite difference elasticity using block-structured adaptive mesh refinement with a geometric multigrid solver. Journal of Computational Physics, 2021/02/15. 427. Z. Mao et al 36

    2021

  11. [19]

    Computational Mechanics 2025, 2025-12-19

    Yang, X.L., et al., Phase-field modeling of hydraulic fracturing in porous media using the finite volume method with adaptive mesh refinement. Computational Mechanics 2025, 2025-12-19

    2025

  12. [20]

    Guo, Z. and S.M. Xiong, On solving the 3-D phase field equations by employing a parallel-adaptive mesh refinement (Para-AMR) algorithm. Computer Physics Communications, 2015/05/01. 190

    2015

  13. [21]

    Braun, R.J. and B.T. Murray, Adaptive phase -field computations of dendritic crystal growth. Journal of Crystal Growth, 1997/04/02. 174(1-4)

    1997

  14. [22]

    Agrawal, V. and B. Runnels, Block structured adaptive mesh refinement and strong form elasticity approach to phase field fracture with applications to delamination, crack branching and crack deflection. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2021/11/01. 385

    2021

  15. [23]

    Liu, G.R. and N.T. Trung, Smoothed Finite Element Methods. 2010: CRC Press

    2010

  16. [24]

    Liu, G.R. and Z. Mao, Gradient Smoothing Methods with Programming: Applications to Fluids and Landslides. 2024: World Scientific Inc

    2024

  17. [25]

    Mao, Z. and G.R. Liu, A 3D Lagrangian gradient smoothing method framework with an adaptable gradient smoothing domain ‐ constructing algorithm for simulating large deformation free surface flows. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2020/03/30. 121(6)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Mao, Z. and G.R. Liu, A Lagrangian gradient smoothing method for solid ‐flow problems using simplicial mesh. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2018/02/03. 113(5)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Journal of Computational Physics, 2013/09/01

    Dumbser, M., et al., ADER-WENO finite volume schemes with space –time adaptive mesh refinement. Journal of Computational Physics, 2013/09/01. 248

    2013

  20. [28]

    Berger, M.J. and R.J. LeVeque, Adaptive Mesh Refinement Using Wave -Propagation Algorithms for Hyperbolic Systems. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 2006-07-25. 35(6)

    2006

  21. [29]

    SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 2006-07-25

    Saas, L., et al., Finite Volume Methods for Domain Decomposition on Nonmatching Grids with Arbitrary Interface Conditions. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 2006-07-25. 43(2)

    2006

  22. [30]

    Annual Review of Materials Research, 2002

    Chen, L.Q., Phase-field models for microstructure evolution. Annual Review of Materials Research, 2002. 32: p. 113- 140

    2002

  23. [31]

    Materials & Design, 2016/10/05

    Zhu, J., et al., Modelling and numerical simulation of phase separation in polymer modified bitumen by phase -field method. Materials & Design, 2016/10/05. 107

    2016

  24. [32]

    Journal of Membrane Science, 2015/06/01

    Mino, Y., et al., Three-dimensional phase -field simulations of membrane porous structure formation by thermally induced phase separation in polymer solutions. Journal of Membrane Science, 2015/06/01. 483

    2015

  25. [33]

    Construction and Building Materials, 2019/04/20

    Liang, M., et al., Phase field simulation and microscopic observation of phase separation and thermal stability of polymer modified asphalt. Construction and Building Materials, 2019/04/20. 204

    2019

  26. [34]

    Rätz, and A

    Lowengrub, J.S., A. Rätz, and A. Voigt, Phase-field modeling of the dynamics of multicomponent vesicles: Spinodal decomposition, coarsening, budding, and fission. Physical Review E, 2009-03-31. 79(3)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Ågren, and M

    Grönhagen, K., J. Ågren, and M. Odén, Phase-field modelling of spinodal decomposition in TiAlN including the effect of metal vacancies. Scripta Materialia, 2015/01/15. 95

    2015

  28. [36]

    npj Computational Materials 2021 7:1, 2021-04-28

    Yang, M., et al., Phase-field modeling of grain evolutions in additive manufacturing from nucleation, growth, to coarsening. npj Computational Materials 2021 7:1, 2021-04-28. 7(1)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Acta Materialia, 1998/12/11

    Tikare, V., et al., Comparison of phase-field and Potts models for coarsening processes. Acta Materialia, 1998/12/11. 47(1)

    1998

  30. [38]

    Cahn, J.W. and J. E. Hilliard, Free Energy of a Nonuniform System. I. Interfacial Free Energy. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 1958. 28: p. 258-267

    1958

  31. [39]

    Liu, M.B.L., Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics

    G.R. Liu, M.B.L., Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics. 2003: World Scientific

    2003

  32. [40]

    and Maruszewski JP, Implicit solution of the Navier -Stokes equations on unstructured meshes | Fluid Dynamics and Co-located Conferences

    JM, W. and Maruszewski JP, Implicit solution of the Navier -Stokes equations on unstructured meshes | Fluid Dynamics and Co-located Conferences. AIAA J, 1999. 37: p. 29-36

    1999

  33. [41]

    2017: Springer Cham

    Biner, S.B., Programming Phase-Field Modeling. 2017: Springer Cham. 400

    2017

  34. [42]

    Liu, and M.J

    Mao, Z., G.R. Liu, and M.J. Demkowicz, An Efficient Finite Difference -based Implicit Solver for Phase -Field Equations with Spatially and Temporally Varying Parameters. Preprinted: arXiv, 2024: p. math.NA. arXiv:2401.12147

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Elliott, and A

    Cahn, J.W., C.M. Elliott, and A. Novick-Cohen, The Cahn–Hilliard equation with a concentration dependent mobility: motion by minus the Laplacian of the mean curvature | European Journal of Applied Mathematics | Cambridge Core. European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 1996/06. 7(3)

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.