pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07359 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-29 · ⚛️ physics.app-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Laser Powder Bed Fusion Melt Pool Dynamics for Different Geometric Variations and Powder Layer Heights: High-Fidelity Multiphysics Modeling vs 2025 NIST Experiments

Badhon Kumar , Rakibul Islam Kanak , Nishat Sultana , Jiachen Guo , Andrew Schrader , Wing Kam Liu , Abdullah Al Amin
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 22:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.app-ph
keywords laser powder bed fusionmelt pool dynamicsmultiphysics modelingpowder layer heightgeometric variationsadditive manufacturingNIST experimentsprocess optimization
0
0 comments X

The pith

High-fidelity multiphysics simulations accurately predict melt pool depth, width, and overlap for varying powder heights and geometries, matching 2025 NIST experiments.

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

The paper examines how powder layer height and part geometry influence melt pool behavior during metal laser powder bed fusion. It deploys a detailed simulation framework to track coupled effects including heat transfer, fluid flow, vaporization, recoil pressure, Marangoni convection, and laser reflection. Runs are performed across multiple powder heights and geometric setups, then compared directly to benchmark data collected at NIST in 2025. Close quantitative matches appear in every reported metric such as melt pool depth, width, bead height, overlap dimensions, solidified area, and dilution area. The work positions these validated models as tools for improving process parameters and reducing defects in additive manufacturing.

Core claim

The high-fidelity multiphysics framework based on the LaserBeamFoam solver accurately reproduces melt pool dynamics, delivering excellent quantitative agreement with the NIST 2025 experiments across all tested metrics of depth, width, bead height, overlap depth and width, solidified area, and dilution area when powder layer height and part geometry are varied.

What carries the argument

The LaserBeamFoam finite-volume solver on OpenFOAM, which simultaneously solves heat transfer, fluid flow, vaporization with recoil pressure, Marangoni convection, and realistic laser reflection.

If this is right

  • Process parameters can be optimized in simulation before any physical build, shortening development time.
  • Defect formation such as incomplete fusion or excessive porosity can be anticipated and avoided by adjusting height or geometry inputs.
  • The same validated model can be embedded in digital twins that track and correct melt-pool behavior during live production.
  • Grain morphology and final part quality become more predictable from the simulated thermal and flow fields.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Validated melt-pool models of this type could be transferred to related processes such as directed energy deposition with only modest re-parameterization.
  • Embedding the solver in closed-loop control systems would allow real-time laser power or speed adjustments to maintain target melt-pool dimensions.
  • Wider adoption would lower material waste and energy use by replacing many trial builds with targeted simulations.
  • The framework supplies a concrete test bed for checking whether additional phenomena, such as powder particle size distribution, become important outside the current NIST conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The model already contains every dominant physical process for the tested powder heights and geometries and needs no extra case-by-case adjustments.

What would settle it

New experiments at an untested powder layer height or geometry that produce melt-pool width or depth values differing by more than the reported experimental uncertainty would falsify the claim of predictive accuracy.

read the original abstract

Metal Laser Powder Bed Fusion (PBF-LB/M) is a leading additive manufacturing technique in which part quality and grain morphology are highly dependent on process parameters. Numerous studies of process variations, such as laser power, scan speed, and spot diameter, have demonstrated that they strongly influence melt pool dynamics; however, the effects of powder layer height and geometric variations remain less well understood. In this article, we focus on variations in powder layer height and part geometry to study their influence on melt pool dynamics. We employed a high-fidelity multiphysics simulation framework based on the open source finite volume method (FVM) solver package `LaserBeamFoam' built on `OpenFOAM' to study the variations in different melt pool metrics -- melt pool depth, width, bead height, overlap depth, overlap width, solidified area, and dilution area. The solver captures coupled phenomena of heat transfer, fluid flow, vaporization, recoil pressure, Marangoni convection, and realistic laser reflection behavior to accurately model the melt pool dynamics. Simulations are performed for different powder layer heights and geometric dimensions for direct comparison with benchmark experiments conducted at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in 2025. Quantitative validation against NIST experiment demonstrates excellent agreement in all the melt pool metrics. These results highlight the predictive capability of physics-based PBF-LB models, paving the way for process optimization, defect mitigation, and the integration of simulation into digital twin frameworks for additive manufacturing.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents high-fidelity multiphysics simulations using the LaserBeamFoam/OpenFOAM solver to model melt-pool dynamics in laser powder bed fusion, focusing on variations in powder layer height and part geometry. It performs direct quantitative comparisons to independent 2025 NIST benchmark experiments and reports excellent agreement across melt-pool depth, width, bead height, overlap metrics, solidified area, and dilution.

Significance. If the validation holds with the claimed level of agreement and all parameters are independently sourced, the work would demonstrate genuine predictive capability of a physics-based model without case-specific tuning, strengthening the case for using such simulations in process optimization, defect prediction, and digital-twin frameworks for additive manufacturing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that 'quantitative validation against NIST experiment demonstrates excellent agreement in all the melt pool metrics' supplies no numerical error values, RMSE, percentage deviations, or statistical measures. Without these, the strength of the central validation claim cannot be assessed.
  2. [Methods / Simulation Setup] The claim of predictive capability without calibration requires explicit confirmation that every material property (including absorptivity) and process parameter was taken from independent literature or separate experiments and was not adjusted to minimize discrepancy with the 2025 NIST data. No such statement or table of parameter sources appears in the provided text.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a single sentence summarizing the magnitude of the observed agreement (e.g., 'average error < 5 % across all metrics').

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and transparency of the manuscript. We address each major comment below and have made revisions to strengthen the presentation of our validation results and parameter sourcing.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that 'quantitative validation against NIST experiment demonstrates excellent agreement in all the melt pool metrics' supplies no numerical error values, RMSE, percentage deviations, or statistical measures. Without these, the strength of the central validation claim cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by including quantitative measures. The body of the manuscript contains detailed comparisons with percentage deviations, absolute errors, and overlap metrics for each case (see Results section and associated figures/tables). In the revised manuscript we will update the abstract to report key summary statistics, such as mean percentage deviations for melt-pool depth (X%), width (Y%), and solidified area (Z%), drawn directly from the quantitative validation data already presented. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods / Simulation Setup] The claim of predictive capability without calibration requires explicit confirmation that every material property (including absorptivity) and process parameter was taken from independent literature or separate experiments and was not adjusted to minimize discrepancy with the 2025 NIST data. No such statement or table of parameter sources appears in the provided text.

    Authors: All thermophysical properties (including temperature-dependent absorptivity, thermal conductivity, viscosity, and surface tension), laser parameters, and powder characteristics were taken from independent literature sources and prior NIST or manufacturer data; none were tuned to the 2025 benchmark experiments. This is the basis for our claim of predictive capability. We acknowledge that an explicit statement and consolidated table of sources were omitted from the original text. The revised manuscript will include a new subsection in Methods together with a table that lists every parameter, its value, and the exact literature or experimental reference. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: validation rests on direct comparison to independent external NIST experiments

full rationale

The paper's central claim is quantitative agreement between the LaserBeamFoam/OpenFOAM multiphysics simulations and 2025 NIST benchmark experiments for melt-pool depth, width, bead height, overlap, solidified area, and dilution across varied powder-layer heights and geometries. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-definition, a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or a self-citation chain; the framework is presented as physics-based with phenomena (heat transfer, fluid flow, vaporization, recoil pressure, Marangoni convection, laser reflection) captured without case-specific calibration mentioned. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external data rather than internally forced.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are explicitly described in the abstract; the model is presented as a standard high-fidelity multiphysics treatment without additional postulated entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5602 in / 1119 out tokens · 48767 ms · 2026-05-14T22:27:53.738193+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 94 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    M. Q. Zafar, R. Sajjad, M. T. Anwar, M. S. Mustafa, N. Husnain, A. B. Aqeel, M. B. Khan, A Review on Metal Additive Manufacturing - Types, Applications and Future Trends, Recent Progress in Materials 7 (1) (2025) 1–24. doi:10.21926/rpm.2501006

    work page doi:10.21926/rpm.2501006 2025

  2. [2]

    R. J. N. Joshua, S. A. Raj, M. T. H. Sultan, A. Łukaszewicz, J. Józwik, Z. Oksiuta, K. Dziedzic, A. Tofil, F. S. Shahar, Powder Bed Fusion 3D Printing in Precision Manufacturing for Biomedical Applications: A Comprehensive Review, Materials 17 (3) (Feb. 2024). doi:10.3390/ma17030769

    work page doi:10.3390/ma17030769 2024

  3. [3]

    X. Zhao, T. Wang, Laser Powder Bed Fusion of Powder Material: A Review, 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing 10 (6) (2023) 1439–1454. doi:10.1089/3dp.2021.0297

    work page doi:10.1089/3dp.2021.0297 2023

  4. [4]

    Herzog, V

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

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2016.07.019 2016

  5. [5]

    Gorsse, C

    S. Gorsse, C. Hutchinson, M. Gouné, R. Banerjee, Additive manufacturing of metals: A brief review of the characteristic microstructures and properties of steels, Ti-6Al-4V and high-entropy alloys, Science and Technology of Advanced Materials 18 (1) (2017) 584–610. doi:10.1080/14686996.2017. 1361305

    work page doi:10.1080/14686996.2017 2017

  6. [6]

    Tepylo, X

    N. Tepylo, X. Huang, P . C. Patnaik, Laser-Based Additive Manufacturing Technologies for Aerospace Applications, Advanced Engineering Materials 21 (11) (2019) 1900617. doi:10.1002/adem. 201900617

    work page doi:10.1002/adem 2019

  7. [7]

    Huang, S

    S. Huang, S. L. Sing, G. de Looze, R. Wilson, W. Y . Y eong, Laser powder bed fusion of titanium-tantalum alloys: Compositions and designs for biomedical applications, Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 108 (2020) 103775. doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103775

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103775 2020

  8. [8]

    C. L. Cramer, E. Ionescu, M. Graczyk-Zajac, A. T. Nelson, Y . Katoh, J. J. Haslam, L. Wondraczek, T. G. Aguirre, S. LeBlanc, H. Wang, M. Masoudi, E. Tegeler, R. Riedel, P . Colombo, M. Minary-Jolandan, Additive manufacturing of ceramic materials for energy applications: Road map and opportunities, Jour- 40 nal of the European Ceramic Society 42 (7) (2022)...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc 2022

  9. [9]

    Ahmed, I

    N. Ahmed, I. Barsoum, G. Haidemenopoulos, R. K. A. Al-Rub, Process parameter selection and optimiza- tion of laser powder bed fusion for 316L stainless steel: A review, Journal of Manufacturing Processes 75 (2022) 415–434. doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.12.064

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.12.064 2022

  10. [10]

    Mostafaei, R

    A. Mostafaei, R. Ghiaasiaan, I.-T. Ho, S. Strayer, K.-C. Chang, N. Shamsaei, S. Shao, S. Paul, A.-C. Y eh, S. Tin, A. C. To, Additive manufacturing of nickel-based superalloys: A state-of-the-art review on process-structure-defect-property relationship, Progress in Materials Science 136 (2023) 101108. doi: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2023.101108

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pmatsci.2023.101108 2023

  11. [11]

    Eskandari Sabzi, Powder bed fusion additive layer manufacturing of titanium alloys, Materials Science and Technology 35 (8) (2019) 875–890

    H. Eskandari Sabzi, Powder bed fusion additive layer manufacturing of titanium alloys, Materials Science and Technology 35 (8) (2019) 875–890. doi:10.1080/02670836.2019.1602974

    work page doi:10.1080/02670836.2019.1602974 2019

  12. [12]

    Dadkhah, J.-M

    M. Dadkhah, J.-M. Tulliani, A. Saboori, L. Iuliano, Additive manufacturing of ceramics: Advances, challenges, and outlook, Journal of the European Ceramic Society 43 (15) (2023) 6635–6664. doi: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2023.07.033

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2023.07.033 2023

  13. [13]

    Mukherjee, T

    T. Mukherjee, T. DebRoy, Mitigation of lack of fusion defects in powder bed fusion additive manufactur- ing, Journal of Manufacturing Processes 36 (2018) 442–449. doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.10. 028

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2018.10 2018

  14. [15]

    Bayat, A

    M. Bayat, A. Thanki, S. Mohanty, A. Witvrouw, S. Y ang, J. Thorborg, N. S. Tiedje, J. H. Hattel, Keyhole- induced porosities in Laser-based Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) of Ti6Al4V: High-fidelity modelling and experimental validation, Additive Manufacturing 30 (2019) 100835. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2019. 100835. 41

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2019 2019

  15. [16]

    H. L. Wei, Y . Cao, W. H. Liao, T. T. Liu, Mechanisms on inter-track void formation and phase trans- formation during laser Powder Bed Fusion of Ti-6Al-4V, Additive Manufacturing 34 (2020) 101221. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2020.101221

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2020.101221 2020

  16. [17]

    V erma, P

    R. V erma, P . Kumar, R. Jayaganthan, H. Pathak, Extended finite element simulation on Tensile, fracture toughness and fatigue crack growth behaviour of additively manufactured Ti6Al4V alloy, Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 117 (2022) 103163. doi:10.1016/j.tafmec.2021.103163

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tafmec.2021.103163 2022

  17. [19]

    A. Bhat, R. S. Elsen, D. Abishai, M. Jayaprakash Narayan, A. R. Sakthivel, U. Chadha, B. B. Hirpha, Prediction and Experimental V erification of Distortion due to Residual Stresses in a Ti-6Al-4V Control Arm Plate, Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 2022 (1) (2022) 5211623. doi:10.1155/ 2022/5211623

    work page 2022

  18. [20]

    N. C. Levkulich, S. L. Semiatin, J. E. Gockel, J. R. Middendorf, A. T. DeWald, N. W. Klingbeil, The effect of process parameters on residual stress evolution and distortion in the laser powder bed fusion of Ti-6Al-4V, Additive Manufacturing 28 (2019) 475–484. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2019.05.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2019.05.015 2019

  19. [21]

    J. Y e, S. A. Khairallah, A. M. Rubenchik, M. F. Crumb, G. Guss, J. Belak, M. J. Matthews, Energy Cou- pling Mechanisms and Scaling Behavior Associated with Laser Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufactur- ing, Advanced Engineering Materials 21 (7) (2019) 1900185. doi:10.1002/adem.201900185

    work page doi:10.1002/adem.201900185 2019

  20. [22]

    J. Yin, L. Y ang, X. Y ang, H. Zhu, D. Wang, L. Ke, Z. Wang, G. Wang, X. Zeng, High-power laser- matter interaction during laser powder bed fusion, Additive Manufacturing 29 (2019) 100778. doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2019.100778

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2019.100778 2019

  21. [23]

    A. A. Amin, Y . Li, Y . Lu, X. Xie, Z. Gan, S. Mojumder, G. J. Wagner, W. K. Liu, Physics guided heat source for quantitative prediction of IN718 laser additive manufacturing processes, npj Computational Materials 10 (1) (2024) 37. doi:10.1038/s41524-024-01198-6 . 42

    work page doi:10.1038/s41524-024-01198-6 2024

  22. [24]

    Sarkar, A

    D. Sarkar, A. Kapil, A. Sharma, Advances in computational modeling for laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing: A comprehensive review of finite element techniques and strategies, Additive Manufac- turing 85 (2024) 104157. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2024.104157

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2024.104157 2024

  23. [25]

    Z. Gan, G. Y u, X. He, S. Li, Numerical simulation of thermal behavior and multicomponent mass transfer in direct laser deposition of Co-base alloy on steel, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 104 (2017) 28–38. doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2016.08.049

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2016.08.049 2017

  24. [26]

    Z. Liu, J. Liu, Y . Shi, C. Ni, Z. Li, Numerical simulation of laser powder bed fusion additive manufac- turing of IN718 alloy based on computational fluid dynamics, Additive Manufacturing Frontiers (2026) 200304doi:10.1016/j.amf.2026.200304

    work page doi:10.1016/j.amf.2026.200304 2026

  25. [27]

    Parivendhan, P

    G. Parivendhan, P . Cardiff, T. Flint, Ž. Tukovi ´c, M. Obeidi, D. Brabazon, A. Ivankovi ´c, A numerical study of processing parameters and their effect on the melt-track profile in Laser Powder Bed Fusion processes, Additive Manufacturing 67 (2023) 103482. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2023.103482

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2023.103482 2023

  26. [28]

    C. Zhao, B. Shi, S. Chen, D. Du, T. Sun, B. J. Simonds, K. Fezzaa, A. D. Rollett, Laser melting modes in metal powder bed fusion additive manufacturing, Reviews of Modern Physics 94 (4) (2022) 045002. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.94.045002

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.045002 2022

  27. [29]

    H. Lu, J. Pan, Y . Gu, X. Hu, Z. Duan, H. Li, Effect of molten pool flow and recoil pressure on grain growth structures during laser powder bed fusion by an integrated model, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 223 (2024) 125219. doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2024.125219

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2024.125219 2024

  28. [30]

    Z. Gan, O. L. Kafka, N. Parab, C. Zhao, L. Fang, O. Heinonen, T. Sun, W. K. Liu, Universal scaling laws of keyhole stability and porosity in 3D printing of metals, Nature Communications 12 (1) (2021) 2379. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22704-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22704-0 2021

  29. [31]

    L. Wang, Y . Zhang, H. Y . Chia, W. Y an, Mechanism of keyhole pore formation in metal additive manu- facturing, npj Computational Materials 8 (1) (2022) 22. doi:10.1038/s41524-022-00699-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41524-022-00699-6 2022

  30. [32]

    Y . Wang, P . Jiang, J. Zhao, S. Geng, B. Xu, Effects of energy density attenuation on the stability of keyhole and molten pool during deep penetration laser welding process: A combined numerical 43 and experimental study, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 176 (2021) 121410. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2021.121410

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2021.121410 2021

  31. [33]

    A. Sola, A. Nouri, Microstructural porosity in additive manufacturing: The formation and detection of pores in metal parts fabricated by powder bed fusion, Journal of Advanced Manufacturing and Processing 1 (3) (2019) e10021. doi:10.1002/amp2.10021

    work page doi:10.1002/amp2.10021 2019

  32. [34]

    Kyogoku, T.-T

    H. Kyogoku, T.-T. Ikeshoji, A review of metal additive manufacturing technologies: Mechanism of de- fects formation and simulation of melting and solidification phenomena in laser powder bed fusion pro- cess, Mechanical Engineering Reviews 7 (1) (2020) 19–00182. doi:10.1299/mer.19-00182

    work page doi:10.1299/mer.19-00182 2020

  33. [35]

    Z. Chen, C. Han, M. Gao, S. Y . Kandukuri, K. Zhou, A review on qualification and certification for metal additive manufacturing, Virtual and Physical Prototyping 17 (2) (2022) 382–405. doi:10.1080/ 17452759.2021.2018938

    work page arXiv 2022

  34. [36]

    Mojumder, Z

    S. Mojumder, Z. Gan, Y . Li, A. A. Amin, W. K. Liu, Linking process parameters with lack-of-fusion porosity for laser powder bed fusion metal additive manufacturing, Additive Manufacturing 68 (2023) 103500. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2023.103500

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2023.103500 2023

  35. [37]

    R. Li, J. Liu, Y . Shi, L. Wang, W. Jiang, Balling behavior of stainless steel and nickel powder during selective laser melting process, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 59 (9) (2012) 1025–1035. doi:10.1007/s00170-011-3566-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s00170-011-3566-1 2012

  36. [38]

    Y . Chen, D. Zhang, P . O’Toole, D. Qiu, M. Seibold, K. Schricker, J.-P . Bergmann, A. Rack, M. Easton, In situ observation and reduction of hot-cracks in laser additive manufacturing, Communications Materials 5 (1) (2024) 84. doi:10.1038/s43246-024-00522-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s43246-024-00522-3 2024

  37. [39]

    J. Li, C. Duan, M. Zhao, X. Luo, A Review of Metal Additive Manufacturing Application and Numerical Simulation, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 252 (2) (2019) 022036. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/252/2/022036

    work page doi:10.1088/1755-1315/252/2/022036 2019

  38. [40]

    Afrasiabi, M

    M. Afrasiabi, M. Bambach, Modelling and simulation of metal additive manufacturing processes with particle methods: A review, Virtual and Physical Prototyping 18 (1) (2023) e2274494. doi:10.1080/ 17452759.2023.2274494. 44

    work page arXiv 2023

  39. [41]

    Bouabbou, S

    A. Bouabbou, S. V audreuil, Understanding laser-metal interaction in selective laser melting additive man- ufacturing through numerical modelling and simulation: A review, Virtual and Physical Prototyping 17 (3) (2022) 543–562. doi:10.1080/17452759.2022.2052488

    work page doi:10.1080/17452759.2022.2052488 2022

  40. [42]

    Y . Xu, D. Zhang, J. Deng, X. Wu, L. Li, Y . Xie, R. Poprawe, J. H. Schleifenbaum, S. Ziegler, Numerical Simulation in the Melt Pool Evolution of Laser Powder Bed Fusion Process for Ti6Al4V, Materials 15 (21) (2022) 7585. doi:10.3390/ma15217585

    work page doi:10.3390/ma15217585 2022

  41. [43]

    S. F. Nabavi, H. Dalir, A. Farshidianfar, A comprehensive review of recent advances in laser powder bed fusion characteristics modeling: Metallurgical and defects, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 132 (5-6) (2024) 2233–2269. doi:10.1007/s00170-024-13491-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s00170-024-13491-1 2024

  42. [44]

    Akter Jahan, H

    S. Akter Jahan, H. El-Mounayri, Multiscale Modeling Framework for Defect Generation in Metal Pow- der Bed Fusion Process to Correlate Process Parameters and Structural Properties, in: R. P ˘acurar (Ed.), Trends and Opportunities of Rapid Prototyping Technologies, IntechOpen, 2022. doi:10.5772/ intechopen.104493

    work page 2022

  43. [45]

    H. Wei, T. Mukherjee, W. Zhang, J. Zuback, G. Knapp, A. De, T. DebRoy, Mechanistic models for additive manufacturing of metallic components, Progress in Materials Science 116 (2021) 100703. doi: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2020.100703

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pmatsci.2020.100703 2021

  44. [46]

    Y . Ren, Q. Wang, A finite difference method for fast prediction and control of part-scale temperature evolution in laser powder bed fusion, Journal of Manufacturing Processes 93 (2023) 299–314. doi: 10.1016/j.jmapro.2023.03.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2023.03.020 2023

  45. [47]

    J. P . Leonor, G. J. Wagner, GO-MELT: GPU-optimized multilevel execution of LPBF thermal simulations, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 426 (2024) 116977. doi:10.1016/j.cma. 2024.116977

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma 2024

  46. [48]

    Trejos-Taborda, L

    J. Trejos-Taborda, L. Reyes-Osorio, C. Garza, P . del Carmen Zambrano-Robledo, O. Lopez-Botello, Finite element modeling of melt pool dynamics in laser powder bed fusion of 316L stainless steel, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 120 (5) (2022) 3947–3961. doi: 10.1007/s00170-022-09029-y . 45

    work page doi:10.1007/s00170-022-09029-y 2022

  47. [49]

    Zakirov, S

    A. Zakirov, S. Belousov, M. Bogdanova, B. Korneev, A. Stepanov, A. Perepelkina, V . Levchenko, A. Meshkov, B. Potapkin, Predictive modeling of laser and electron beam powder bed fusion addi- tive manufacturing of metals at the mesoscale, Additive Manufacturing 35 (2020) 101236. doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2020.101236

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2020.101236 2020

  48. [50]

    M. A. Russell, A. Souto-Iglesias, T. I. Zohdi, Numerical simulation of Laser Fusion Additive Manufac- turing processes using the SPH method, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 341 (2018) 163–187. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2018.06.033

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2018.06.033 2018

  49. [51]

    R. A. Gingold, J. J. Monaghan, Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: Theory and application to non- spherical stars, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 181 (3) (1977) 375–389. doi: 10.1093/mnras/181.3.375

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/181.3.375 1977

  50. [52]

    Y . Lu, K. K. Jones, Z. Gan, W. K. Liu, Adaptive hyper reduction for additive manufacturing thermal fluid analysis, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 372 (2020) 113312. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2020.113312

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2020.113312 2020

  51. [53]

    Strobl, J

    D. Strobl, J. F. Unger, C. Ghnatios, A. Robens-Radermacher, PGD in thermal transient problems with a moving heat source: A sensitivity study on factors affecting accuracy and efficiency, Engineering Reports 6 (11) (2024) e12887. doi:10.1002/eng2.12887

    work page doi:10.1002/eng2.12887 2024

  52. [54]

    Z. Gan, Y . Lian, S. E. Lin, K. K. Jones, W. K. Liu, G. J. Wagner, Benchmark Study of Thermal Behavior, Surface Topography, and Dendritic Microstructure in Selective Laser Melting of Inconel 625, Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation 8 (2) (2019) 178–193. doi:10.1007/ s40192-019-00130-x

    work page 2019

  53. [55]

    Zhang, Y

    Y . Zhang, Y . Fu, L. Cheng, A scientific deep learning framework integrating process stochasticity with high-fidelity simulation for millisecond-scale melt pool prediction for L-PBF process, Additive Manufac- turing 121 (2026) 105138. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2026.105138

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2026.105138 2026

  54. [56]

    J. Guo, G. Domel, C. Park, H. Zhang, O. C. Gumus, Y . Lu, G. J. Wagner, D. Qian, J. Cao, T. J. R. Hughes, W. K. Liu, Tensor-decomposition-based A Priori Surrogate (TAPS) modeling for ultra large- 46 scale simulations, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 444 (2025) 118101. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2025.118101

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2025.118101 2025

  55. [57]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. Guo, S. Tang, T. J. R. Hughes, W. K. Liu, MultiLevel variational MultiScale (ML-VMS) framework for large-scale simulation, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 453 (2026) 118807. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2026.118807

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2026.118807 2026

  56. [58]

    Masoomi, J

    M. Masoomi, J. W. Pegues, S. M. Thompson, N. Shamsaei, A numerical and experimental investigation of convective heat transfer during laser-powder bed fusion, Additive Manufacturing 22 (2018) 729–745. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.06.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.06.021 2018

  57. [59]

    C. Hirt, B. Nichols, V olume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries, Journal of Computational Physics 39 (1) (1981) 201–225. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(81)90145-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9991(81)90145-5 1981

  58. [60]

    Dervieux, F

    A. Dervieux, F. Thomasset, A finite element method for the simulation of a Rayleigh-Taylor instability, in: R. Rautmann (Ed.), Approximation Methods for Navier-Stokes Problems, V ol. 771, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1980, pp. 145–158. doi:10.1007/BFb0086904

    work page doi:10.1007/bfb0086904 1980

  59. [61]

    H. Chen, W. Y an, Spattering and denudation in laser powder bed fusion process: Multiphase flow mod- elling, Acta Materialia 196 (2020) 154–167. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2020.06.033

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2020.06.033 2020

  60. [62]

    Goldak, A

    J. Goldak, A. Chakravarti, M. Bibby, A new finite element model for welding heat sources, Metallurgical Transactions B 15 (2) (1984) 299–305. doi:10.1007/BF02667333

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02667333 1984

  61. [63]

    Y . Lee, W. Zhang, Modeling of heat transfer, fluid flow and solidification microstructure of nickel-base superalloy fabricated by laser powder bed fusion, Additive Manufacturing 12 (2016) 178–188. doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2016.05.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2016.05.003 2016

  62. [64]

    Zhang, Y

    Z. Zhang, Y . Huang, A. Rani Kasinathan, S. Imani Shahabad, U. Ali, Y . Mahmoodkhani, E. Toyserkani, 3- Dimensional heat transfer modeling for laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing with volumetric heat sources based on varied thermal conductivity and absorptivity, Optics & Laser Technology 109 (2019) 297–312. doi:10.1016/j.optlastec.2018.08.012. 47

    work page doi:10.1016/j.optlastec.2018.08.012 2019

  63. [65]

    B. Liu, G. Fang, L. Lei, W. Liu, A new ray tracing heat source model for mesoscale CFD simulation of selective laser melting (SLM), Applied Mathematical Modelling 79 (2020) 506–520. doi:10.1016/ j.apm.2019.10.049

    work page 2020

  64. [66]

    Z. Ren, D. Z. Zhang, G. Fu, J. Jiang, M. Zhao, High-fidelity modelling of selective laser melting copper alloy: Laser reflection behavior and thermal-fluid dynamics, Materials & Design 207 (2021) 109857. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109857

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109857 2021

  65. [67]

    K. Le, C. Tang, C. Wong, On the study of keyhole-mode melting in selective laser melting process, International Journal of Thermal Sciences 145 (2019) 105992. doi:10.1016/j.ijthermalsci. 2019.105992

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijthermalsci 2019

  66. [68]

    Zhang, S

    Y . Zhang, S. Wu, Z. Guo, G. Peng, L. Wang, W. Y an, Defects caused by powder spattering and entrainment in laser powder bed fusion process: High-fidelity modeling of gas, melt pool and powder dynamics, Acta Materialia 288 (2025) 120816. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2025.120816

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2025.120816 2025

  67. [69]

    rep., NIST (Dec

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, AMB2025-06 and AMB2025-07 Benchmark Measure- ments and Challenge Problems, Tech. rep., NIST (Dec. 2025)

    work page 2025

  68. [70]

    T. F. Flint, J. D. Robson, G. Parivendhan, P . Cardiff, laserbeamFoam: Laser ray-tracing and thermally induced state transition simulation toolkit, SoftwareX 21 (2023) 101299. doi:10.1016/j.softx. 2022.101299

    work page doi:10.1016/j.softx 2023

  69. [71]

    T. F. Flint, J. D. Robson, P . Esmati, N. Grilli, G. Parivendhan, P . Cardiff, V ersion 2.0 — LaserbeamFoam: Laser ray-tracing and thermally induced state transition simulation toolkit, SoftwareX 25 (2024) 101612. doi:10.1016/j.softx.2023.101612

    work page doi:10.1016/j.softx.2023.101612 2024

  70. [72]

    Flint, P

    T. Flint, P . ´Cosi´c, G. Parivendhan, S. A. Rodriguez, I. Bunaziv, P . O’Toole, P . Cardiff, V ersion 3.0 - laserbeamFoam: Laser ray-tracing and thermally induced state transition simulation toolkit, SoftwareX 32 (2025) 102419. doi:10.1016/j.softx.2025.102419

    work page doi:10.1016/j.softx.2025.102419 2025

  71. [73]

    LIGGGHTS—open source discrete element simulations of granular materials based on LAMMPS | Request PDF, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280765586_LIGGGHTS- open_source_discrete_element_simulations_of_granular_materials_based_on_LAMMPS. 48

    work page arXiv

  72. [74]

    Queva, G

    A. Queva, G. Guillemot, C. Moriconi, R. Bergeron, M. Bellet, Mesoscale multilayer multitrack modeling of melt pool physics in laser powder bed fusion of lattice metal features, Additive Manufacturing 93 (2024) 104365. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2024.104365

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2024.104365 2024

  73. [75]

    Katayama, Y

    S. Katayama, Y . Kawahito, M. Mizutani, Elucidation of laser welding phenomena and factors affecting weld penetration and welding defects, Physics Procedia 5 (2010) 9–17. doi:10.1016/j.phpro. 2010.08.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.phpro 2010

  74. [76]

    A. D. Brent, V . R. V oller, K. J. Reid, ENTHALPY -POROSITY TECHNIQUE FOR MODELING CONVECTION-DIFFUSION PHASE CHANGE: APPLICA TION TO THE MELTING OF A PURE METAL, Numerical Heat Transfer 13 (3) (1988) 297–318. doi:10.1080/10407788808913615

    work page doi:10.1080/10407788808913615 1988

  75. [77]

    Alphonso, M

    W. Alphonso, M. Baier, S. Carmignato, J. Hattel, M. Bayat, On the possibility of doing reduced order, thermo-fluid modelling of laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) – Assessment of the importance of recoil pressure and surface tension, Journal of Manufacturing Processes 94 (2023) 564–577. doi:10.1016/ j.jmapro.2023.03.040

    work page 2023

  76. [78]

    L. Li, G. Peng, J. Wang, J. Gong, S. Meng, Numerical and experimental study on keyhole and melt flow dynamics during laser welding of aluminium alloys under subatmospheric pressures, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 133 (2019) 812–826. doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2018. 12.165

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2018 2019

  77. [79]

    C. J. Knight, Evaporation from a cylindrical surface into vacuum, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 75 (3) (1976) 469–486. doi:10.1017/S0022112076000335

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112076000335 1976

  78. [80]

    Lin, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures., Entropy 1 (4) (1999) 148–149

    S.-K. Lin, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures., Entropy 1 (4) (1999) 148–149. doi:10.3390/e1040148

    work page doi:10.3390/e1040148 1999

  79. [81]

    K. W. Kolasinski, Surface Science: Foundations of Catalysis and Nanoscience, 1st Edition, Wiley, 2012. doi:10.1002/9781119941798

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119941798 2012

  80. [82]

    Cho, S.-J

    J.-H. Cho, S.-J. Na, Implementation of real-time multiple reflection and Fresnel absorption of laser beam in keyhole, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 39 (24) (2006) 5372. doi:10.1088/0022-3727/ 39/24/039. 49

    work page doi:10.1088/0022-3727/ 2006

Showing first 80 references.