Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 71 references

Mapping of Microstructure Transitions during Rapid Alloy Solidification Using Bayesian-Guided Phase-Field Simulations

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The classical KGT analytical model accurately predicts the temperature gradient above which a planar solid-liquid interface is stable at any growth velocity during rapid solidification, matching expensive phase-field simulations in a…

desk verdict A useful demonstration of Bayesian-guided phase-field mapping for rapid solidification in Fe-Cr, but the paper's claim of a precise PF/KGT match on G_max overstates what a factor-of-two bracket can establish. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07752 v4 pith:HOOD6TU4 submitted 2025-05-12 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

José Mancias , Brent Vela , Juan Flórez-Coronel , Rouhollah Tavakoli , Douglas Allaire , Raymundo Arróyave , Damien Tourret This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords rapidsolidificationmicrostructureselectionphase-fieldmodelingKGTmodelabsolutestabilityBayesianactivelearningGaussianprocessclassificationFe-Cralloy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to establish that microstructure selection in rapid solidification can be predicted without running expensive simulations: the classical KGT analytical model gives the value of the thermal gradient above which planar growth is stable for every growth velocity. Comparing with Bayesian-guided phase-field simulations in a Fe-Cr surrogate of 316L stainless steel, the paper finds KGT's $G_{\max}\approx 3.16\times 10^7$ K/m lies between the simulation bracket of $2\times 10^7$ and $4\times 10^7$ K/m. It also claims that the absolute stability velocity depends on the gradient, contrary to the usual $G$-independent formula, and that a shifted KGT limit using the maximum of the solidus temperature $T_S(V)$ is a simple and accurate estimate. If true, process windows for fully planar solidification in additive manufacturing could be set by a cheap analytical calculation, with the phase-field and Bayesian machinery used to refine details such as cells versus dendrites and unstable intermediate patterns.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by four objects: the KGT dendrite-tip model, an analytical marginal-stability calculation of tip radius and temperature as functions of $V$ and $G$; an upscaled quantitative phase-field model of rapid solidification with an enhanced interface diffusivity, run in 2D with interface-width scaling $S=5$ and diffusion coefficient $A=11$; the frozen-temperature approximation, which imposes a moving linear thermal profile and neglects latent-heat release; and a Gaussian-process classifier with an informative prior based on the maximum of the solidus temperature $T_S(V)$, which actively selects new simulation points. The factor $V_{\max\{T_S\}}/V_a$ is the device that converts the $G$-independent classical absolute-stability velocity into a $G$-dependent boundary that matches the simulations.

What would settle it

Rerun the same Fe-Cr simulations at $S=3$ or $S=1$ for the points near $G=2\times 10^7$ K/m and $V=0.3$ m/s; if cellular patterns persist where $S=5$ produced planar growth, then the KGT $G_{\max}$ agreement is a numerical artifact rather than a physical prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the classical KGT analytical model, used with a 2D tip solution, predicts the value of the thermal gradient $G$ above which a planar interface is stable across the entire growth-velocity range, and that an upscaled phase-field model confirms it: KGT gives $G_{\max}\approx 3.16\times 10^7$ K/m while the simulations put cells at $2\times 10^7$ K/m and full planarity at $4\times 10^7$ K/m. A second claim is that the absolute-stability velocity is not independent of $G$: the simulations and KGT both show the boundary moving to lower $V$ as $G$ rises, and a simple shift of the KGT limit by the ratio $V_{\max\{T_S\}}/V_a$ captures the boundary better than the classical $V_a$ formula. Third, the transition from dendritic to cellular morphology with increasing $G$ near this limit is a genuine feature, and in the low-$G$ dendritic regime there is no steady cellular-dendritic intermediate: the interface goes through an unstable 'wavy' structure that never stabilizes, which the authors interpret as the Fe-Cr counterpart of the banding instability seen in other alloys.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the upscaled phase-field model with $S=5$ is converged enough near absolute stability; the paper itself reports that at $S=8$ the predicted planar transition at $V=0.3$ m/s and $G=10^7$ K/m disappears, so if $S=5$ is not the limiting behavior, the KGT agreement could be numerical.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Process engineers can use KGT alone to set a safe planar-growth window by choosing $G$ above $G_{\max}$, without running phase-field simulations for every velocity.
  • The transition from dendrites to cells with increasing $G$ near the planar limit is a real feature, so rapid-solidification maps should show a cellular regime only there, not as a stable band between dendritic and planar at low $G$.
  • The absolute stability velocity depends on $G$, so the common practice of treating $V_a$ as a constant will misplace the boundary at high thermal gradients.
  • A Bayesian-guided phase-field campaign of roughly one hundred simulations can map a three-dimensional selection diagram in composition, velocity, and gradient, a budget too small for a comparable full factorial study.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This is an inference, not a paper claim: if the $S$-dependence reported in Section 4.1.5 is generic, convergence studies at $S=3$ or $S=1$ should become standard before any upscaled phase-field map near absolute stability is used quantitatively.
  • Inference: the wavy 'intermediate' structures may be the Fe-based analogue of banding, the same instability expressed without periodic bands, so time-resolved experiments on rapidly solidified steels could look for lateral interface motion instead of banded solute layers.
  • Inference: the same Gaussian-process classifier with a $T_S(V)$-based prior could be run in reverse to locate banding onset in alloys that do band, searching the region where $dT_S/dV>0$ as an inexpensive pre-screening step before phase-field runs.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper combines high-fidelity phase-field (PF) simulations with a Gaussian-process Bayesian active-learning framework to map solidification microstructure selection in the (c∞, G, V) space for a binary Fe-Cr alloy as a surrogate for 316L stainless steel, focusing on the dendritic/cellular-to-planar transition near absolute stability. The central physical claim is that the classical KGT model accurately predicts the maximum temperature gradient Gmax above which planar growth is stable across the entire velocity range, with KGT giving Gmax ≈ 3.16×10^7 K/m in 2D and the PF simulations bracketing it between 2×10^7 and 4×10^7 K/m. The paper also reports an unstable 'intermediate' microstructure regime at low G and proposes a simple velocity-shifted KGT limit as a computationally cheap approximation of the PF stability boundary. The Bayesian active-learning methodology is demonstrated to refine the decision boundary efficiently, and the paper includes a retrospective comparison of acquisition strategies.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper offers a practical and computationally cheap route to identify safe process windows for rapid solidification in additive manufacturing, and it advances the use of Bayesian-guided phase-field exploration in higher-dimensional parameter spaces. The paper provides a large, carefully classified dataset of PF simulations (54 full-factorial cases plus 50 Bayesian-selected cases, with an additional S=8 series), and the KGT comparison is an independent analytical benchmark rather than a fit to the PF output. The identification of an unstable intermediate regime in a non-banding alloy is a novel and interesting physical observation. However, the strength of the central quantitative claim (exact KGT match for Gmax) is currently not commensurate with the supporting evidence, which is only a factor-of-two bracket obtained with a single upscaled interface width.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1.1, Conclusions, and Figs. 4, 6, 8] The conclusion that 'the calculated value of G above which planar growth is stable across the entire V range is precisely matched between PF and KGT models' is an overstatement of the evidence. The PF determination of Gmax rests entirely on the S=5, A=11 series: cells/dendrites persist at G=2×10^7 K/m, while all interfaces are planar at G=4×10^7 K/m (Fig. 4; Section 4.1.1). This is a factor-of-two bracket enclosing the KGT value of 3.16×10^7 K/m, not a 'precise match.' More importantly, the only interface-width test, the S=8 series in §4.1.5 and Fig. 6, shows that increasing S from 5 to 8 at G=10^7 K/m and V=0.3 m/s changes the classification from planar to cellular, shifting the planar boundary in the direction of suppressing planar growth. Because the S=8 series only covers G≤10^7 K/m, neither bracket point (2×10^7 or 4×10^7) nor any intermediate G has been tested at S=8 or at S<5 (except one S=3 run for a different artifact). The observed S-dependence implies that the converged Gmax could lie above the S=5 bracket; if it exceeded 4×10^7 K/m, the KGT value would fall outside the PF bounds and the central claim would fail. I request either an explicit S-convergence study at the bracket points (and ideally at intermediate G values), or a substantial softening of the claim to state that the PF results bracket the KGT prediction within a factor of two for a single, unverified interface width.
  2. [§4.1.4 and Eq. (14)] The frozen temperature approximation, Eq. (14), is a second load-bearing assumption for the Gmax claim. The authors acknowledge in §4.1.4 that latent heat release at high V can strongly affect banding instability and microstructural length scales, and they argue that the Fe-Cr alloy's absence of banding mitigates the effect, with G interpretable as an effective gradient. However, the quantitative comparison with KGT is a sharp numerical statement: a shift in the effective gradient due to latent heat could change Gmax enough to alter the agreement. The manuscript itself notes that 'a deeper quantitative study of the effect of latent heat release on the present results remain needed in the future,' which is appropriate for a limitation, but the Conclusions then state the match is 'precise' without flagging this condition. I request that the conclusions explicitly condition the KGT agreement on the frozen-temperature approximation, or provide an order-of-magnitude estimate of the latent-heat correction to Gmax.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 8 caption and Section 4.1.1] The notation 'V→V*[max{TS(V)}/V a]' in Fig. 8 is difficult to parse; please define the shifted velocity variable explicitly in the caption or text.
  2. [§2.3.2 and Fig. 12] The manual fixing of kernel length scales in the final iteration is mentioned in the caption of Fig. 12 and in §2.3.2, but the consequence—a slight increase in entropy between iterations 4 and 5—is only discussed in the figure caption. Please move this into the main text for clarity.
  3. [Appendix A] Equations (A.1) and (A.2) have slightly inconsistent notation (e.g., 'c' and 'ϕ' are used without explicit definitions in this appendix); please make the notation self-consistent with the main text.
  4. [Throughout] The paper repeats the phrase 'precisely matched' in the Abstract, §4.1.1, and Conclusions; given Major Comment 1, this wording should be revised to reflect the actual bracket-based evidence.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

KGT 'prediction' of G_max is partly a self-consistency check: the CGM kinetics used in KGT are explicitly set to match the phase-field model, and the S=8 width test is not extended to the bracket points.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1, Eqs. (1)-(3); comparison in Section 4.1.1 and Fig. 8]
    "Here, for the sake of consistency with the chosen phase-field model (presented later) [39], the solute drag coefficient is considered as α = 0.645, and the diffusion velocity Vd≈0.356 ln(1/ke)/(1−ke) V0_d"

    The KGT model used for the central 'prediction' is not parameter-free: its k_V and m_V come from the CGM expressions (Eqs. 1-2), and the paper explicitly chooses α and V_d 'for the sake of consistency with the chosen phase-field model.' Thus the analytical KGT input is calibrated to the same PF model whose 2D simulations are later compared against it. Because G_max from KGT (Eq. 8) is controlled by these calibrated kinetic functions, the agreement at G≈3.16×10^7 K/m is substantially a self-consistency check of the PF model's 1D kinetics rather than an independent analytical prediction. The remaining independent content is the marginal-stability/tip-selection structure of KGT and the full 2D nonlinear PF morphology, so the circularity is partial rather than complete.

full rationale

The paper's headline physical claim—that classical KGT accurately predicts the maximum gradient G_max above which planar growth is stable across all V—is weakened by the paper's own parameter choice. In Section 2.1, the CGM's solute drag coefficient and diffusion velocity are adopted 'for the sake of consistency with the chosen phase-field model [39]', meaning the KGT model's k_V and m_V are not an independent source of rapid-solidification kinetics; they are the PF model's interface kinetics expressed in CGM form. The agreement in Section 4.1.1 between KGT G_max≈3.16×10^7 K/m and the PF bracket (cells at 2×10^7 K/m, planar at 4×10^7 K/m) therefore validates the tip-selection/marginal-stability part of KGT, but it is not a parameter-free first-principles prediction of the PF map. This is partial circularity: the PF runs are full 2D nonlinear simulations and could in principle disagree, and the underlying PF model has external validation via Al and Mg banding simulations. The paper's own S=8 interface-width test, which flips a planar classification at G=10^7 K/m, V=0.3 m/s to cellular, is a numerical-convergence risk rather than a circular step and is not counted here. Minor self-citations ([17], [23], [64]) are not load-bearing for the central physical map. The retrospective Bayesian evaluation explicitly uses the trained GP classifier as ground truth; this limits the strength of the efficiency comparison but is disclosed and does not feed into the physical microstructure-selection derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the quantitative fidelity of the adopted phase-field model, the pseudo-binary and 2D modeling assumptions, the frozen-temperature approximation, and a subjective classification of simulated microstructures. No new physical entities are introduced. The few tuned parameters (A and GP length scales) are chosen for model consistency and map smoothing rather than fitted to experimental data, but they do affect the reported boundaries.

free parameters (3)
  • Interface diffusivity coefficient A = 11 for S=5; 18 for S=8
    Chosen by minimizing deviations of k_V and m_V from the S=1 phase-field reference across the velocity range (Appendix A). The S=8 variant changes the predicted planar transition at G=1e7 K/m, V=0.3 m/s, so the central map depends on this choice.
  • GP kernel length scales l_V, l_G, l_c = 0.18, 0.4, 0.3
    Fixed manually in the final iteration to prevent overfitting and smooth the probability map (Section 2.3.2). These tuned values affect the width and location of boundaries in the final selection maps.
  • Prior class probability p_p in retrospective campaigns = 0.9/0.1 for planar/non-planar
    Set to amplify the CGM prior in the active-learning benchmark (Section 4.2.2). Influences the F1 and log-loss comparison but not the underlying PF physics.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Ji et al. phase-field model quantitatively captures solute trapping and kinetic undercooling across the full velocity range.
    Adopted from Refs [38,39], with prior validation against banding experiments in Al and Mg; not independently revalidated here for Fe-Cr.
  • domain assumption The frozen temperature approximation (Eq. 14), which imposes a linear thermal field and neglects latent heat release, is valid for the relevant conditions.
    Stated in Section 4.1.4 as a limitation; the authors treat G as an effective gradient. The central microstructure map relies on this approximation.
  • domain assumption The pseudo-binary Fe-Cr approximation of 316L stainless steel, with Cr as the only active solute, is adequate.
    Borrowed from Pinomaa et al. [61]; the freezing range matches CalPhaD within about 4 percent, but the simplification is not rederived.
  • domain assumption Two-dimensional phase-field and 2D KGT models capture the relevant morphological transitions.
    All simulations are 2D; the paper notes that doublons may be promoted by 2D (Section 4.1.4), and 3D effects on spacing and stability could differ.
  • standard math The continuous growth model (CGM) equations for k_V and m_V with alpha=0.645 and the V_d relation (Eqs. 1-3) are valid for Fe-Cr.
    Classical rapid solidification theory used for the KGT comparison and the GP prior; parameter values are taken from prior literature and are not fitted in this paper.
  • domain assumption Microstructure classification by visual inspection and by measurability of primary spacing is reliable.
    The 'intermediate' class is defined by the absence of a clear steady spacing (Section 2.3.3); this subjective classification provides the training labels for the GP.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mapping of Microstructure Transitions during Rapid Alloy Solidification Using Bayesian-Guided Phase-Field Simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HOOD6TU4

@misc{pith2026250507752,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mapping of Microstructure Transitions during Rapid Alloy Solidification Using Bayesian-Guided Phase-Field Simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HOOD6TU4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07752}
}
abstract

This study addresses microstructure selection mechanisms in rapid solidification, specifically targeting the transition from cellular/dendritic to planar interface morphologies under conditions relevant to additive manufacturing. We use a phase-field model that quantitatively captures solute trapping, kinetic undercooling, and morphological instabilities across a broad range of growth velocities ($V$) and thermal gradients ($G$), and apply it to a binary Fe-Cr alloy, as a surrogate for 316L stainless steel. By combining high-fidelity phase-field simulations with a Gaussian Process-based Bayesian active learning approach, we efficiently map the microstructure transitions in the multi-dimensional space of composition, growth velocity, and temperature gradient. We compare our PF results to classical theories for rapid solidification. The classical KGT model yields an accurate prediction of the value of $G$ above which the interface is planar for any growth velocity. Microstructures transition from dendrites to cells as the temperature gradient increases close to this value of $G$. We also identify the occurrence of unstable "intermediate" microstructures at the border between dendritic and planar at low $G$, in the absence of banding instability in this Fe-Cr alloy. Our results highlight the capabilities of Bayesian-guided PF approaches in exploring complex microstructural transitions in multidimensional parameters spaces, thereby providing a robust computational tool for designing process parameters to achieve targeted microstructures and properties in rapidly solidified metallic alloys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07752 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. At low-to-moderate solid-liquid interface ve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Typical microstructure selection map in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a) The latent GP trained on binary class observations. If a particular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Final state of solute concentration field (color maps) and solid-liquid interface (black line) for various ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Final state of solute concentration field (color maps) and solid-liquid interface (black line) for various ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Final state of solute concentration field (color maps) and solid-liquid interface (black line) for various ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Final state of solute concentration field (color maps) and solid-liquid interface (black line) for various ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Map comparing classical theories (lines) and PF re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of PF predictions (symbols) with clas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Microstructure selection map in the (G, V, c∞) space from the Gaussian process map, exhibiting planar (p = 1, green), cellular (p = 0, purple), and intermediate (p = 0.5, white) regions, highlighting (a) 15, (b) 17, and (c) 19 wt% Cr planes. Microstruc￾tures are illust…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of the microstructure selection map in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Average square width y 2 of cellular/dendritic fea￾tures, calculated as y(x) = R {(1 + ϕ(x, y))/2}dy/N, with N the number of cells or dendrites in the simulation, as a func￾tion of the distance to the tip, x ∗ − x, for all non-planar PF cases at V = 0.012 m/s and c∞ =…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Violin plots showing the distribution and median [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Results of retrospective performance analysis of different sampling and learning strategies. a) The F1 score distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    König, N

    H.-H. König, N. H. Pettersson, A. Durga, S. Van Petegem, D. Grolimund, A. C. Chuang, Q.Guo, L.Chen, C.Oikonomou, F.Zhang, etal., Solidification modes during additive manufactur- ing of steel revealed by high-speed x-ray diffrac- tion, Acta Materialia 246 (2023) 118713

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Z. Wang, T. A. Palmer, A. M. Beese, Effect of processing parameters on microstructure and tensile properties of austenitic stainless steel 304l made by directed energy deposition addi- tive manufacturing, Acta Materialia 110 (2016) 226–235

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

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

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Z. Liu, D. Zhao, P. Wang, M. Yan, C. Yang, Z. Chen, J. Lu, Z. Lu, Additive manufacturing of metals: Microstructure evolution and multistage 21 Figure A.1: Results from preliminary PF calibration and verification steps, using a 1D formulation considering a steady-state profile ϕ0(x). Plots of (a) partition coefficient and (b) liquidus slope as a function o...

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    J. A. Dantzig, M. Rappaz, Solidification: - Revised & Expanded, EPFL press, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    W. Kurz, D. Fisher, M. Rappaz, Fundamentals of solidification, trans tech publications ltd, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    W. A. Tiller, K. A. Jackson, J. W. Rutter, B. Chalmers, The redistribution of solute atoms during the solidification of metals, Acta Metal- lurgica 1 (4) (1953) 428–437

    work page 1953

  8. [8]

    W. W. Mullins, R. F. Sekerka, Stability of a Pla- nar Interface During Solidification of a Dilute Bi- nary Alloy, Journal of Applied Physics 35 (2) (1964) 444–451

    work page 1964

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Jackson, J

    K. Jackson, J. Hunt, Transparent compounds that freeze like metals, Acta Metallurgica 13 (11) (1965) 1212–1215

    1965

  2. [10]

    Losert, B

    W. Losert, B. Shi, H. Cummins, Evolution of dendritic patterns during alloy solidification: On- set of the initial instability, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (2) (1998) 431– 438

    1998

  3. [11]

    Akamatsu, H

    S. Akamatsu, H. Nguyen-Thi, In situ observation of solidification patterns in diffusive conditions, Acta Materialia 108 (2016) 325–346

    2016

  4. [12]

    F. Mo, T. Weitkamp, A. Snigirev, Time resolved x-ray imaging of dendritic growth in binary al- loys, Physical Review Letters 83 (24) (1999) 5062

    1999

  5. [13]

    Yasuda, I

    H. Yasuda, I. Ohnaka, K. Kawasaki, A. Sugiyama, T. Ohmichi, J. Iwane, K. Umetani, Direct observation of stray crystal formation in unidirectional solidification of sn–bi alloy by x-ray imaging, Journal of Crystal Growth 262 (1-4) (2004) 645–652

    2004

  6. [14]

    Nguyen-Thi, L

    H. Nguyen-Thi, L. Salvo, R. H. Mathiesen, L. Arnberg, B. Billia, M. Suery, G. Reinhart, On the interest of synchrotron x-ray imaging for the study of solidification in metallic alloys, Comptes Rendus. Physique 13 (3) (2012) 237–245

    2012

  7. [15]

    Clarke, D

    A. Clarke, D. Tourret, Y. Song, S. Imhoff, P. Gibbs, J. Gibbs, K. Fezzaa, A. Karma, Mi- crostructure selection in thin-sample directional solidification of an al-cu alloy: In situ x-ray imag- ing and phase-field simulations, Acta Materialia 129 (2017) 203–216

    2017

  8. [16]

    Trivedi, J

    R. Trivedi, J. Sekhar, V. Seetharaman, Solidifi- cation microstructures near the limit of absolute stability, Metallurgical Transactions A 20 (1989) 769–777

    1989

  9. [17]

    Tourret, J

    D. Tourret, J. Klemm-Toole, A. E. Castellanos, B. Rodgers, G. Becker, A. Saville, B. Ellyson, C. Johnson, B. Milligan, J. Copley, et al., Mor- phological stability of solid-liquid interfaces un- der additive manufacturing conditions, Acta Ma- terialia 250 (2023) 118858

    2023

  10. [18]

    Karma, A

    A. Karma, A. Sarkissian, Interface dynamics and banding in rapid solidification, Physical Review E 47 (1) (1993) 513

    1993

  11. [19]

    W. Kurz, R. Trivedi, Banded solidification mi- crostructures, Metallurgical and Materials Trans- actions A 27 (1996) 625–634. 22

    1996

  12. [20]

    Carrard, M

    M. Carrard, M. Gremaud, M. Zimmermann, W. Kurz, About the banded structure in rapidly solidified dendritic and eutectic alloys, Acta Met- allurgica et Materialia 40 (5) (1992) 983–996

    1992

  13. [21]

    S. Gill, W. Kurz, Laser rapid solidification of al- cu alloys: banded and plane front growth, Mate- rials Science and Engineering: A 173 (1-2) (1993) 335–338

    1993

  14. [22]

    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, et al., Time-resolved in situ measurements dur- ing rapid alloy solidification: Experimental in- sight for additive manufacturing, Jom 68 (...

    2016

  15. [23]

    Tourret, R

    D. Tourret, R. Tavakoli, A. D. Boccardo, A. K. Boukellal, M. Li, J. Molina-Aldareguia, Emer- gence of rapid solidification microstructure in ad- ditive manufacturing of a magnesium alloy, Mod- elling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering 32 (5) (2024) 055012

    2024

  16. [24]

    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, Physical Review E 58 (3) (1998) 3436–3450, pub- lisher: American Physical Society

    1998

  17. [25]

    Danilov, B

    D. Danilov, B. Nestler, Phase-field modelling of solute trapping during rapid solidification of a Si–As alloy, Acta Materialia 54 (18) (2006) 4659– 4664

    2006

  18. [26]

    P. K. Galenko, E. V. Abramova, D. Jou, D. A. Danilov, V. G. Lebedev, D. M. Herlach, Solute trapping in rapid solidification of a binary dilute system: A phase-field study, Physical Review E 84 (4) (2011) 041143

    2011

  19. [27]

    Karma, W.-J

    A. Karma, W.-J. Rappel, Quantitative phase- field modeling of dendritic growth in two and three dimensions, Physical review E 57 (4) (1998) 4323

    1998

  20. [28]

    Echebarria, R

    B. Echebarria, R. Folch, A. Karma, M. Plapp, Quantitative phase-field model of alloy solidifica- tion, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 70 (6) (2004) 061604

    2004

  21. [29]

    Steinbach, L

    I. Steinbach, L. Zhang, M. Plapp, Phase-field model with finite interface dissipation, Acta Ma- terialia 60 (6-7) (2012) 2689–2701

    2012

  22. [30]

    Karayagiz, L

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

    2020

  23. [31]

    Reuther, S

    K. Reuther, S. Hubig, I. Steinbach, M. Retten- mayr, Solute trapping in non-equilibrium solidi- fication: a comparative model study, Materialia 6 (2019) 100256

    2019

  24. [32]

    Pinomaa, N

    T. Pinomaa, N. Provatas, Quantitative phase field modeling of solute trapping and continuous growth kinetics in quasi-rapid solidification, Acta Materialia 168 (2019) 167–177

    2019

  25. [33]

    Kavousi, M

    S. Kavousi, M. A. Zaeem, Quantitative phase- field modeling of solute trapping in rapid solidi- fication, Acta Materialia 205 (2021) 116562

    2021

  26. [34]

    Karma, Phase-field formulation for quantita- tive modeling of alloy solidification, Physical re- view letters 87 (11) (2001) 115701

    A. Karma, Phase-field formulation for quantita- tive modeling of alloy solidification, Physical re- view letters 87 (11) (2001) 115701

    2001

  27. [35]

    M. J. Aziz, Model for solute redistribution during rapid solidification, Journal of Applied Physics 53 (2) (1982) 1158–1168

    1982

  28. [36]

    M. J. Aziz, T. Kaplan, Continuous growth model for interface motion during alloy solidification, Acta metallurgica 36 (8) (1988) 2335–2347

    1988

  29. [37]

    Boettinger, Science and technology of the un- dercooled melt, NATO ASI Series E-No

    W. Boettinger, Science and technology of the un- dercooled melt, NATO ASI Series E-No. 114 81 (1986)

    1986

  30. [38]

    K. Ji, E. Dorari, A. J. Clarke, A. Karma, Microstructural Pattern Formation during Far- from-Equilibrium Alloy Solidification, Physical Review Letters 130 (2) (2023) 026203

    2023

  31. [39]

    K. Ji, M. Zhong, A. Karma, Quantitative Phase- Field Modeling of Rapid Alloy Solidification, arXiv:2411.07953 [cond-mat] (Nov. 2024)

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Shimokawabe, T

    T. Shimokawabe, T. Aoki, T. Takaki, T. Endo, A. Yamanaka, N. Maruyama, A. Nukada, S. Mat- suoka, Peta-scale phase-field simulation for den- dritic solidification on the tsubame 2.0 supercom- puter, in: Proceedings of 2011 International Con- ference for High Performance Computi...

    2011

  33. [41]

    Vondrous, M

    A. Vondrous, M. Selzer, J. Hötzer, B. Nestler, Parallel computing for phase-field models, The International journal of high performance com- puting applications 28 (1) (2014) 61–72

    2014

  34. [42]

    Shibuta, M

    Y. Shibuta, M. Ohno, T. Takaki, Solidification in a supercomputer: from crystal nuclei to dendrite assemblages, Jom 67 (2015) 1793–1804. 23

    2015

  35. [43]

    Sakane, T

    S. Sakane, T. Takaki, T. Aoki, Parallel-gpu- accelerated adaptive mesh refinement for three- dimensional phase-field simulation of dendritic growth during solidification of binary alloy, Ma- terials Theory 6 (1) (2022) 3

    2022

  36. [44]

    Provatas, N

    N. Provatas, N. Goldenfeld, J. Dantzig, Adap- tive mesh refinement computation of solidifica- tion microstructures using dynamic data struc- tures, Journal of computational physics 148 (1) (1999) 265–290

    1999

  37. [45]

    Greenwood, K

    M. Greenwood, K. Shampur, N. Ofori-Opoku, T. Pinomaa, L. Wang, S. Gurevich, N. Provatas, Quantitative 3d phase field modelling of solidi- fication using next-generation adaptive mesh re- finement, Computational Materials Science 142 (2018) 153–171

    2018

  38. [46]

    Rosam, P

    J. Rosam, P. K. Jimack, A. Mullis, An adap- tive, fully implicit multigrid phase-field model for the quantitative simulation of non-isothermal bi- nary alloy solidification, Acta Materialia 56 (17) (2008) 4559–4569

    2008

  39. [47]

    Bollada, C

    P. Bollada, C. E. Goodyer, P. K. Jimack, A. M. Mullis, F. Yang, Three dimensional thermal- solute phase field simulation of binary alloy solid- ification, Journal of Computational Physics 287 (2015) 130–150

    2015

  40. [48]

    A. D. Boccardo, M. Tong, S. B. Leen, D. Tour- ret, J. Segurado, Efficiency and accuracy of gpu- parallelized fourier spectral methods for solving phase-field models, Computational Materials Sci- ence 228 (2023) 112313

    2023

  41. [49]

    L.Q.Chen, J.Shen, Applicationsofsemi-implicit fourier-spectral method to phase field equations, Computer Physics Communications 108 (2-3) (1998) 147–158

    1998

  42. [50]

    W. Feng, P. Yu, S. Hu, Z.-K. Liu, Q. Du, L.- Q. Chen, Spectral implementation of an adaptive moving mesh method for phase-field equations, Journal of Computational Physics 220 (1) (2006) 498–510

    2006

  43. [51]

    Kittl, P

    J. Kittl, P. Sanders, M. Aziz, D. Brunco, M. Thompson, Complete experimental test of ki- netic models for rapid alloy solidification, Acta materialia 48 (20) (2000) 4797–4811

    2000

  44. [52]

    Willnecker, D

    R. Willnecker, D. Herlach, B. Feuerbacher, Evi- dence of nonequilibrium processes in rapid solid- ification of undercooled metals, Physical review letters 62 (23) (1989) 2707

    1989

  45. [53]

    J. W. Lum, D. M. Matson, M. C. Flemings, High- speed imaging and analysis of the solidification of undercooled nickel melts, Metallurgical and Ma- terials Transactions B 27 (1996) 865–870

    1996

  46. [54]

    Carrard, M

    M. Carrard, M. Gremaud, M. Zimmermann, W. Kurz, About the banded structure in rapidly solidified dendritic and eutectic alloys, Acta met- allurgica et materialia 40 (5) (1992) 983–996

    1992

  47. [55]

    Ivantsov, The temperature field around a spherical, cylindrical, or pointed crystal growing in a cooling solution, Dolk

    G.P. Ivantsov, The temperature field around a spherical, cylindrical, or pointed crystal growing in a cooling solution, Dolk. Akad. Nauk SSSR 58 (567) (1947)

    1947

  48. [56]

    Barbieri, J

    A. Barbieri, J. Langer, Predictions of dendritic growth rates in the linearized solvability theory, Physical Review A 39 (10) (1989) 5314

    1989

  49. [57]

    Langer, J

    J. Langer, J. Müller-Krumbhaar, Stability effects in dendritic crystal growth, Journal of Crystal Growth 42 (1977) 11–14

    1977

  50. [58]

    J. S. Langer, H. Müller-Krumbhaar, Theory of dendritic growth—i. elements of a stability anal- ysis, Acta Metallurgica 26 (11) (1978) 1681–1687

    1978

  51. [59]

    W. Kurz, B. Giovanola, R. Trivedi, Theory of microstructural development during rapid solid- ification, Acta Metallurgica 34 (5) (1986) 823– 830

    1986

  52. [60]

    Rappaz, S

    M. Rappaz, S. A. David, J. M. Vitek, L. A. Boatner, Analysis of solidification microstruc- tures in Fe-Ni-Cr single-crystal welds, Metallur- gical Transactions A 21 (6) (1990) 1767–1782

    1990

  53. [61]

    Pinomaa, M

    T. Pinomaa, M. Lindroos, M. Walbrühl, N. Provatas, A. Laukkanen, The significance of spatial length scales and solute segregation in strengtheningrapidsolidificationmicrostructures of316Lstainlesssteel, ActaMaterialia184(2020) 1–16

    2020

  54. [62]

    A. F. Chadwick, P. W. Voorhees, The develop- ment of grain structure during additive manufac- turing, Acta Materialia 211 (2021) 116862

    2021

  55. [63]

    K. Ji, A. M. Tabrizi, A. Karma, Isotropic finite- difference approximations for phase-field simula- tions of polycrystalline alloy solidification, Jour- nal of Computational Physics 457 (2022) 111069

    2022

  56. [64]

    Hardcastle, R

    C. Hardcastle, R. O. Mullan, R. Arroyave, B. Vela, Physics-informed gaussian process clas- sification for constraint-aware alloy design, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11369 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    C. E. Rasmussen, C. K. Williams, Gaussian Pro- cesses for Machine Learning, MIT Press, 2006

    2006

  58. [66]

    Park, C.-H

    H.-S. Park, C.-H. Jun, A simple and fast algo- rithm for k-medoids clustering, Expert Systems with Applications 36 (2) (2009) 3336–3341. 24

    2009

  59. [67]

    Brener, H

    E. Brener, H. Müller-Krumbhaar, D. Temkin, Ki- netic phase diagram and scaling relations for sta- tionary diffusional growth, Europhysics Letters 17 (6) (1992) 535

    1992

  60. [68]

    T. Ihle, H. Müller-Krumbhaar, Fractal and com- pact growth morphologies in phase transitions with diffusion transport, Physical Review E 49 (4) (1994) 2972

    1994

  61. [69]

    M. B. Amar, E. Brener, Parity-broken dendrites, Physical review letters 75 (3) (1995) 561

    1995

  62. [70]

    Akamatsu, G

    S. Akamatsu, G. Faivre, T. Ihle, Symmetry- broken double fingers and seaweed patterns in thin-film directional solidification of a nonfaceted cubic crystal, Physical Review E 51 (5) (1995) 4751

    1995

  63. [71]

    Kupferman, D

    R. Kupferman, D. A. Kessler, E. Ben-Jacob, Co- existence of symmetric and parity-broken den- drites in a channel, Physica A: Statistical Me- chanics and its Applications 213 (4) (1995) 451– 464. 25

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.