Numerical modeling of microstructure evolution in nanocrystalline alloys - grain boundary segregation, solute drag and mechanics

Prakarsh Pandey; Shiva Rudraraju

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Numerical modeling of microstructure evolution in nanocrystalline alloys - grain boundary segregation, solute drag and mechanics

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents a three-dimensional finite-strain phase-field framework that unifies grain-boundary segregation, solute precipitation, and mechanical loading, and shows how these effects jointly stabilize grain size in nanocrystalline…

desk verdict A plausible coupling of segregation, precipitation, and finite-strain mechanics, but the printed strong form is non-conservative and the key rescaling is vacuous; fixable, not desk-rejectable. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10048 v1 pith:5TJ7P3FQ submitted 2026-08-10 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Prakarsh Pandey , Shiva Rudraraju This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords nanocrystallinealloysphase-fieldmodelinggrainboundarysegregationsolutedragprecipitationfinite-strainmechanicsgrowthfiniteelementmethod

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 the mechanisms that stabilize nanocrystalline alloys—solute atoms segregating to grain boundaries, solute-rich precipitates forming at junctions, and mechanical deformation—can be described in a single phase-field model. It develops a three-dimensional, finite-element, finite-strain formulation in which a composition-dependent double-well potential, an energy barrier whose height changes with local solute content, lowers grain-boundary energy where solute gathers, while conserved solute diffusion and mechanical equilibrium evolve alongside the grain-order parameters. The simulations show that segregation slows grain coarsening by dragging on moving boundaries, that precipitation pins triple junctions and freezes the grain structure, and that applied load accelerates growth by adding a strain-energy driving force. If the framework is right, it provides one computational tool for designing alloy composition, heat treatment, and mechanical processing to hold grain size in the optimal strength range.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the solute-composition-dependent double-well potential W(c)=Wφ(1−c)+W_c c that multiplies the multiwell landscape g(φ) of the grain order parameters. This one function couples the three physics: it makes grain boundaries energetically favorable for solute, it makes the effective boundary mobility MφW(c) composition-dependent so a moving boundary drags an asymmetric solute profile, and in the regular-solution version it combines with the heat of mixing to drive precipitation. The second essential piece is the finite-strain elasticity term (1/2)E:C(φ):E with an orientation-averaged stiffness tensor C(φ), which adds a strain-energy driving force to the same Allen-Cahn kinetics. The paper uses the total grain-boundary energy ∫ (ε²/2)Σᵢ|∇φᵢ|² dV as its scalar measure of grain growth, since it is proportional to total boundary length at fixed boundary thickness.

What would settle it

Take a specific nanocrystalline alloy with known segregation enthalpy and boundary mobility, feed those values into the model, and compare its predicted grain-size evolution against in-situ annealing experiments. If the measured coarsening rate, stabilized grain size, or response to applied load deviates from the model's prediction in a way that cannot be fixed by adjusting the linear W(c) parameters, the assumption that segregation is captured by this double-well construction is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the coupled systems of equations—Eq. (19) for an ideal solution (grain-boundary segregation with mechanics) and Eq. (22) for a regular solution (solute precipitation with mechanics)—capture the simultaneous evolution of grain order parameters φ_i, solute concentration c, solute chemical potential μ, and displacement u in a nanocrystalline polycrystal. The coupling is carried by making the double-well barrier W(c)=Wφ(1−c)+W_c c a decreasing function of solute composition, so solute is thermodynamically pulled into the grain boundaries, and by adding the finite-strain elastic energy (1/2)E:C(φ):E to the total free energy. The demonstrations show three behaviors: segregation produces a composition-dependent drag that slows grain coarsening; precipitation at triple junctions pins those junctions and stabilizes the structure; and mechanical load accelerates grain growth through strain-energy minimization while orienting the remaining grains. The paper reads these as evidence that grain-size stabilization can be engineered through solute interactions and that mechanical deformation can modulate the stabilized microstructure.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a simple, uncalibrated linear rule—solute lowers the grain-boundary energy barrier in proportion to its local concentration, with numbers chosen for the demonstrations and constant mobilities—captures the physics of segregation and drag; if that rule is not true for a real alloy, the predicted stabilization could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Researchers can now study, in one simulation, how segregation strength, precipitation, and applied strain compete to set the stable grain size of a nanocrystalline alloy.
The model yields a concrete criterion: when the strain-energy term exceeds the chemical grain-boundary term in the order-parameter equation, mechanical loading dominates and accelerates coarsening; when segregation lowers the barrier enough, drag dominates and suppresses it.
The triple-junction pinning result implies that precipitate-forming solutes can keep the grain structure stable even under mechanical load, which matters for alloys that are deformed during production or used under stress.
Because grains with low-strain-energy orientations grow preferentially under load, the framework can predict deformation-induced texture, not just grain-size stabilization.
The three-dimensional finite-element implementation allows application to realistic polycrystalline geometries, moving beyond 2D idealizations.

Reading between the lines

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

A step the paper leaves implicit is calibration: fitting W(c), Mφ, and Msol to atomistic or experimental data for a specific alloy would turn the observed qualitative trends into quantitative design predictions.
Because the model tracks the solute chemical potential as a field, an immediate testable extension is comparing its steady-state boundary-velocity-versus-driving-force curve against the classical analytical solute-drag solution; agreement would confirm the thermodynamic basis of the drag.
The same free-energy construction could be extended to anisotropic or temperature-dependent mobilities, which would let the framework address abnormal grain growth and texture evolution without importing a separate model.
One could also couple the precipitation branch to explicit nucleation kinetics, since currently precipitates form by spinodal decomposition at triple junctions rather than by nucleation and growth.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The paper is a plausible but under-validated extension of known phase-field models, and the central formulation as printed has a mass-conservation error that needs fixing. The genuinely new piece is the coupling: a 3D finite-strain FEM framework that puts GB segregation, solute precipitation, and mechanics in one set of equations. The literature review is honest, and the demonstrations, while qualitative, show the framework can produce the expected stabilization effects.

The soft spots are real. The boxed strong form Eq. (19) writes ∂c/∂t = c(1−c) M_sol ∇²µ, but the flux in Eq. (6) and the weak form Eq. (23) imply ∂c/∂t = ∇·[c(1−c) M_sol ∇µ]. As printed, Eq. (19) is non-conservative, so the simulation you would run from the strong form can drift in total mass. This is not a minor typo; it is the equation the whole segregation model is built on. The claimed fixed-GB-width rescaling ˜ǫ = ǫ/W(c) also turns out to be vacuous because the factors cancel, leaving Eq. (8) identical to Eq. (7).

Beyond that, the parameters (W_c, mobilities) are hand-picked, not calibrated to any alloy, so the observed drag and pinning may be artifacts of the free energy ansatz rather than material behavior. The paper releases no code or data, and the results are largely qualitative. None of these are deal-breakers; the framework is plausible, but they need to be addressed before the paper is reproducible.

Who is this for? Computational alloy designers and phase-field practitioners who want a single tool for coupled segregation–precipitation–mechanics problems. It deserves peer review, but a serious referee should insist on correcting the governing equations and on validation against an analytical drag law or MD data. I would not cite it as is.

Best

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a phase-field framework for coupled grain-boundary segregation, solute drag/precipitation, and finite-strain mechanics in nanocrystalline alloys. The model is built on a free-energy functional whose double-well barrier W(c) depends linearly on solute composition, plus gradient terms for the phase fields and composition and an elastic strain-energy term. Governing equations are presented in strong form (Eqs. (19) and (22)) and weak form (Eqs. (23)-(27)), with backward-Euler time integration over C0 finite elements. Demonstrations include 2D polycrystal simulations of solute segregation/drag for different Wc values, precipitation pinning at triple junctions, load-driven grain growth under elastic anisotropy, and 3D thin-slice coupled cases. The paper claims this is the first unified treatment of these phenomena in a 3D FEM finite-strain phase-field setting.

Significance. If taken at face value, the framework is a useful contribution to computational materials science: it couples conserved and non-conserved phase-field equations with finite-strain mechanics, and the qualitative phenomena shown—solute accumulation at GBs, asymmetric solute profiles during migration, triple-junction pinning, and texture development under load—are consistent with established expectations. The explicit variational weak forms and the use of an established finite-element library are strengths that will help others reproduce the method. The main weaknesses are the lack of calibration and validation against experiments, the non-conservative strong form in Eq. (19), and several algebraic or typographical inconsistencies. None of these invalidates the overall idea, but they must be corrected before the formulation can serve as a reliable reference.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.1, Eq. (19)] The boxed solute evolution equation ∂c/∂t = c(1−c)M_sol∇²µ is not the divergence of the flux defined in Eq. (6). Continuity (5) with J = −c(1−c)M_sol∇µ gives ∂c/∂t = ∇·[c(1−c)M_sol∇µ]. The printed strong form differs by the term M_sol∇[c(1−c)]·∇µ. With no-flux boundaries, ∫∂c/∂t = ∫c(1−c)M_sol∇²µ dV is not identically zero, so the segregation simulations in Figures 3, 4, and 8 would use a non-conservative equation if Eq. (19) were implemented literally. The weak form (23) integrates the divergence form, so either the strong form is a typo and the paper must state that the weak form is the governing PDE, or the authors must justify dropping the ∇[c(1−c)]·∇µ term and verify global mass conservation in the reported runs.
[Section 2.1, Eq. (8)] With ~ǫ defined as ǫ/W(c), Eq. (8) is algebraically identical to Eq. (7), since −Mφ W(c)(∂g/∂φ − (ǫ/W(c))∇²φ) = −Mφ(W(c)∂g/∂φ − ǫ∇²φ). The claimed fixed-GB-width modification therefore has no effect on the equation. If a fixed diffuse-interface width is intended, the gradient-energy coefficient in the free energy must be scaled proportionally to W(c), not by ǫ/W(c). As written, this passage is misleading and should be removed or corrected.
[Section 2, Eq. (2)] The term −ǫ∑_{i=1}^N ∇²φ_i in the evolution equation for φ_i is incorrect; the variational derivative of ∑_i (ǫ/2)|∇φ_i|² with respect to φ_i contains only ∇²φ_i, not the sum over all order parameters. The sum appears to be a typographical error, but since Eq. (2) introduces the base grain-growth model, it should be corrected to avoid ambiguity.

minor comments (6)

[Section 5] The manuscript reports Wφ=1 and the three Wc values, but it does not provide numerical values for Mφ, M_sol, ǫ, κ, Ωmix, RT, elastic constants, applied load magnitude, time step, or mesh resolution. A parameter table is needed for reproducibility.
[Section 2.1, after Eq. (7)] The text writes the GB thickness as δ=ǫ/W(c); for the double-well free energy, the diffuse-interface width typically scales as (ǫ/W(c))^{1/2} up to the specific well shape, so this expression should be justified or corrected.
[Page 4 and References [26,27]] 'Fadi et. al.' should be 'Abdeljawad et al.' and 'Acta Materiallia' should be 'Acta Materialia'.
[Figure 5 caption and Figure 10 axes] 'soute interaction' and 'precipitaiton' are typos, and the axis label 'T × 10^3 (time step)' is confusing; it should be restated as 'time step (×10^3)' or similar.
[Reference [31]] The entry is listed as Scripta Materialia 63 (1997) 1049–1052; given the volume number, the year is likely 2010 and should be checked against the original publication.
[Section 5.4] The '3D' example is a thin slice with 'a few elements along the thickness direction'; the authors should clarify whether the reported results are effectively 2D in-plane and discuss any through-thickness resolution effects.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

The only definitional identity is the redundant ~ǫ rescaling in Eq. (8); the coupled formulation and case studies are not circular.

self definitional [Section 2.1, Eqs. (7)-(8), definition of the scaled interface parameter]
"As the double-well height is now a function of the solute composition, this leads to a dependency of the GB thickness on the solute composition (δ = ǫ/W(c)). To maintain a fixed GB width we introduce a new scaled parameter ˜ǫ = ǫ/W(c). With the introduction of this scaled parameter, the governing equation of grain growth in the presence of a solute distribution is given by, ∂φi/∂t = −MφiW(c)(∂g(φ)/∂φi − ~ǫ∇2φi) (8)."

Because ˜ǫ is defined as ǫ/W(c) immediately above, substituting it into Eq. (8) yields exactly the right-hand side of Eq. (7): −MφW(c)∂g/∂φ + Mφ ǫ∇²φ. The 'scaled' equation is therefore algebraically identical to the equation it is meant to modify; the claimed fixed-GB-width adjustment is a notational relabeling of the existing gradient coefficient and does not introduce a new term. This is a self-definitional identity rather than a derivation of a modified governing equation. The identity is not the source of the paper's central unification claim, and all later weak forms are consistent with the original Eq. (7), so the circularity is minor.

full rationale

The central claim is a coupled 3D finite-strain FEM phase-field formulation, and that formulation is assembled from external prior models (Grönhagen-Ågren, Abdeljawad et al., Tonks et al.) rather than from a self-citation chain; the authors' own references are background examples only and are not load-bearing. The only step in the derivation chain that reduces to its own input by construction is Eq. (8), where the definition ~ǫ=ǫ/W(c) makes the new equation identical to Eq. (7). This no-op does not undermine the coupled formulation because all subsequent weak forms use the equivalent expression. The segregation, drag, and pinning behaviors in Section 5 are model inputs rather than independent predictions: the paper states that W(c) 'has been set up as a decreasing function of solute composition' and that the free energy 'has been setup in a way' to achieve the drag. Because the paper presents these as demonstrations of the model's intended behavior and does not rename them as externally fitted predictions, they do not meet the threshold for fitted-input-called-prediction circularity. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. For completeness, the printed strong form ∂c/∂t=c(1−c)Msol∇²μ in Eq. (19) is not the divergence form of the flux in Eq. (6) used in the weak forms in Eq. (23), but that is a consistency/reproducibility concern outside the circularity definition. The score therefore reflects a single minor definitional identity.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard phase-field kinetics, ideal/regular solution thermodynamics, a hand-chosen composition-dependent double well, and a Saint-Venant-like finite-strain elasticity. None of the material or kinetic parameters is calibrated to a specific alloy, so the simulations are model demonstrations rather than quantitative predictions.

free parameters (12)

Wφ (double-well height, solute-free GB) = 1 (arbitrary units)
Set at the start of Section 5.1; no physical alloy basis.
Wc (double-well height, solute-rich GB) = 0.2, -0.1, -0.4 in parametric study
Chosen by hand in Section 5.1 to produce different drag strengths; not calibrated to any material.
GB mobility Mφ = not specified
Appears in Eqs. (7)-(8) and (19); no value or units are given.
Solute mobility Msol = not specified
Appears in the solute flux Eq. (6); the Msol/Mφ ratio controls drag visibility and is not reported.
Gradient energy coefficient ǫ = not specified
Sets the diffuse interface width in Eq. (2); no value reported.
Composition gradient coefficient κ = not specified
Appears in the precipitation model Eq. (9); no value reported.
Heat of mixing Ωmix = not specified
Controls phase separation in the regular solution model Eq. (10); no value reported.
Elastic constants and anisotropy ratio = e2 modulus twice e1; absolute values not specified
Artificial anisotropy chosen in Section 5.3 to drive strain-energy grain growth; not based on a real metal.
Initial solute composition c0 = 0.3
Uniform initial solute concentration in all simulations, Section 5.1.
Temperature / RT scaling = not specified
The RT ln terms in Eqs. (4) and (10) require a temperature; no value or nondimensionalization is stated.
Applied displacement (load level and rate) = not specified
Boundary condition in Section 5.3 and Figures 6-9; magnitude is not reported.
Time stepping and mesh density = 128x128 elements in 2D, 'similar' in 3D; time steps not specified
Backward Euler and adaptive time stepping are mentioned in Section 4, but no tolerances or time step values are given.

assumptions (9)

domain assumption Allen-Cahn and Cahn-Hilliard equations are valid mesoscale models for GB migration and solute diffusion.
Used throughout Section 2; assumed without atomistic validation.
domain assumption Ideal and regular solution free energies describe solute thermodynamics in NC alloys.
Eqs. (4) and (10); limits applicability to dilute or regular systems.
ad hoc to paper A linear composition-dependent double-well height W(c)=Wφ(1-c)+Wc c captures segregation energetics.
Section 2.1 and 5.1; chosen by hand, not derived from MD or experiment.
domain assumption GB and solute mobilities are isotropic constants.
Eqs. (6)-(7) and (11); drag visibility depends on their ratio, which is not specified.
domain assumption Elastic stiffness of a grain boundary region is the h(φ)-weighted average of grain stiffness tensors.
Eq. (15), from Tonks et al. [30]; standard interpolation.
domain assumption Green-Lagrange strain with a constant elasticity tensor describes finite-strain deformation of the alloy.
Eqs. (14) and (16); no material nonlinearity or large-strain validation.
domain assumption GB energy can be measured by the gradient term ∫(ǫ/2)|∇φ|² when GB width is fixed.
Section 5 preamble; this proxy ignores the g(φ)W(c) contribution that changes during segregation.
domain assumption No-flux boundary conditions on solute and order parameters are appropriate for the simulated representative patch.
Section 3; no domain-size sensitivity study is provided.
domain assumption A ~60-grain 2D or 2.5D simulation with six random orientations is representative of NC polycrystal behavior.
Section 5; no statistical ensemble or larger-domain convergence is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerical modeling of microstructure evolution in nanocrystalline alloys - grain boundary segregation, solute drag and mechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5TJ7P3FQ

@misc{pith2026260810048,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerical modeling of microstructure evolution in nanocrystalline alloys - grain boundary segregation, solute drag and mechanics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5TJ7P3FQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10048}
}

read the original abstract

Nanocrystalline (NC) alloys hold much promise as structural alloys due to their superior mechanical properties over traditional coarser grained microcrystalline alloys. Strength of metallic alloys is related to the underlying grain size - as represented by the classical Hall-Petch relation. Generally, a metals strength increases with decreasing mean grain size from the micrometer scale to the nanometer scale, until about a mean size of 20 nm. Any further decrease of grain size results in decreasing strength. Thus, there is an optimal range of mean grain size for most metals about which maximum material strength can be obtained. In the context of NC alloys, stabilization of the grain size in this optimal range is one of the primary synthesis challenges. Since nm-scale mean grain sizes are desired, phenomena like GB solute segregation and solute precipitation are utilized during alloy synthesis to mitigate grain growth. Numerical modeling the phenomena of GB-solute interactions and the evolution of these stabilized GBs under mechanical load are of immense interest to the NC alloy community. To enrich the numerical modeling formulations available in this space, we present here a phase-field method based numerical framework to model GB segregation, solute precipitation and effect of external loading on NC alloys. While some of these effects have been modeled in isolation, a unified treatment of the solute and GB segregation with mechanics interactions has not be considered in the literature. We present a 3D FEM finite-strain phase-field formulation for modeling grain evolution and microstructure stabilization. Beyond the formulation, various case studies demonstrate the applicability of this framework. Further, thermodynamic and kinetic arguments are provided based on the evolution of GB energy to explain the effects of solute drag, GB pinning and mechanical deformation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10048 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (a) Double-well potential and driving force for gr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison of grain structure evolution at three d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of evolving grain structure with differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of grain structure at different time ste [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Displacement boundary conditions applied on the g [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison of grain structure without load (a,b,c [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Grain growth with the solute drag effect due to GB seg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Grain growth with the solute drag effect due to solut [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: GB energy variation in the system for (a) GB segreg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[1]

P. La, J. Ma, Y. T. Zhu, J. Yang, W. Liu, Q. Xue, R. Z. Valiev, Dry-sliding tribological properties of ultraﬁne-grained ti prepared by severe plast ic deformation, Acta materialia 53 (2005) 5167–5173

work page 2005
[2]

Szlufarska, A

I. Szlufarska, A. Nakano, P. Vashishta, A crossover in th e mechanical response of nanocrystalline ceramics, Science 309 (2005) 911–914

work page 2005
[3]

M. A. Meyers, A. Mishra, D. J. Benson, Mechanical propert ies of nanocrystalline materials, Progress in materials science 51 (2006) 427–556

work page 2006
[4]

J. P. Hirth, The inﬂuence of grain boundaries on mechanic al properties, 1972

work page 1972
[5]

Masing, K

G. Masing, K. Lucke, P. Nolting, Inﬂuence of small additi ons on recrystallization be- havior of superpurity aluminum, Z. Metallk (1956)

work page 1956
[6]

Hillert, Inhibition of grain-growth by 2nd-phase par ticles, Acta Metallurgica 36 (1988) 3177–3181

M. Hillert, Inhibition of grain-growth by 2nd-phase par ticles, Acta Metallurgica 36 (1988) 3177–3181. 23

work page 1988
[7]

Smith, Grains, phases and interfaces - an interpretat ion of microstructure, Trans Am

C. Smith, Grains, phases and interfaces - an interpretat ion of microstructure, Trans Am. Ins. Min. Engg. 175 (1948) 15–51

work page 1948
[8]

Hassold, H

G. Hassold, H. E. D. Srolovitz, Eﬀects of particle-size o n inhibited grain-growth, Scr. Metall. 24 (1990) 101–107

work page 1990

Show all 41 references

[9]

Kirchheim, Grain coarsening inhibited by solute segr egation, Acta Materialia 50 (2002) 413–419

R. Kirchheim, Grain coarsening inhibited by solute segr egation, Acta Materialia 50 (2002) 413–419

2002
[10]

Kirchheim, Reducing grain boundary, dislocation li ne and vacancyformation energies by solute segregation

R. Kirchheim, Reducing grain boundary, dislocation li ne and vacancyformation energies by solute segregation. ii. experimental evidence and conse quences, Acta Materialia 55 (2007) 5139–5148

2007
[11]

Lücke, K

K. Lücke, K. Detert, A quantitative theory of grain boun dary motion and recrystalliza- tion in metals in the presence of impurities, Acta Metallurg ica 5 (1957) 628–637

1957
[12]

J. W. Cahn, Impurity drag eﬀect in grain boundary motion , Acta Metallurgica 10 (1962) 789–798

1962
[13]

Hillert, B

M. Hillert, B. Sundman, A treatment of the solute drag on moving grain boundaries and phase interfaces in binary alloys, Acta Metallurgica 24 (1976) 731–743

1976
[14]

A. A. Wheeler, W. J. Boettinger, G. B. McFadden, Phase-ﬁ eld model of solute trapping during solidiﬁcation, Physical Review E 47 (1993) 1893–190 9

1993
[15]

N. A. Ahmad, A. A. Wheeler, W. J. Boettinger, G. B. McFadd en, Solute trapping and solute drag in a phase-ﬁeld model of rapid solidiﬁcation, Ph ysical Review E 58 (1998) 3436–3450

1998
[16]

Loginova, J

I. Loginova, J. Odqvist, G. Amberg, J. Ågren, The phase- ﬁeld approach and solute drag modeling of the transition to massive γ→ α transformation in binary fe-c alloys, Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 1327–1339

2003
[17]

P. R. Cha, S. G. Kim, D. H. Yeon, J. K. Yoon, A phase ﬁeld mod el for the solute drag on moving grain boundaries, Acta Materialia 50 (2002) 3817– 3829

2002
[18]

Strandlund, J

H. Strandlund, J. Odqvist, J. Ågren, An eﬀective mobili ty approach to solute drag in computer simulations of migrating grain boundaries, Compu tational Materials Science 44 (2008) 265–273

2008
[19]

Odqvist, B

J. Odqvist, B. Sundman, J. Ågren, A general method for ca lculating deviation from local equilibrium at phase interfaces, Acta Materialia 51 ( 2003) 1035–1043

2003
[20]

Grönhagen, J

K. Grönhagen, J. Ågren, Grain-boundary segregation an d dynamic solute drag the- ory—a phase-ﬁeld approach, Acta Materialia 55 (2007) 955–9 60. 24

2007
[21]

S. G. Kim, Y. B. Park, Grain boundary segregation, solut e drag and abnormal grain growth, Acta Materialia 56 (2008) 3739–37539

2008
[22]

J. Li, J. Wang, G. Yang, Phase ﬁeld modeling of grain boun dary migration with solute drag, Acta Materialia 57 (2009) 2108–2120

2009
[23]

M. B. Kasen, Some observations on boundary segregation during grain growth annealing of ultrapurity aluminum, Acta Metallurgica 20 (1972) 105–1 13

1972
[24]

T. Xu, S. Song, A kinetic model of non-equilibrium grain -boundary segregation, Acta Metallurgica 37 (1989) 2499–2506

1989
[25]

Jahazi, J

M. Jahazi, J. J. Jonas, The non-equilibrium segregatio n of boron on original and moving austenite grain boundaries, Mater Sci Engg A 335 (2002) 49–6 1

2002
[26]

H. A. Murdoch, C. A. Schuh, Stability of binary nanocrys talline alloys against grain growthand phase separation, Acta Materiallia 61 (2013) 212 1–2132

2013
[27]

Abdeljawad, P

F. Abdeljawad, P. Lu, N. Argibay, C. B. G, B. L. Boyce, S. M . Foiles, Grain boundary segregation in immiscible nanocrystalline alloys, Acta Ma teriallia 126 (2017) 528–539

2017
[28]

J. W. Cahn, J. E. Hilliard, Free energy of a non uniform sy stem. i, interfacial free energy, J. of Chemical Physics 28 (1958) 258–267

1958
[29]

Schönfelder, D

B. Schönfelder, D. Wolf, S. R. Phillpot, M. Furtkamp, Mo lecular-dynamics method for the simulation of grain-boundary migration, Interface Sci ence 5 (1997) 245–262

1997
[30]

Tonks, P

M. Tonks, P. Millett, Phase ﬁeld simulations of elastic deformation-driven grain growth in2d copper polycrystals, Mat. Sci. and Engg A 528 (2011) 408 6–4091

2011
[31]

Tonks, P

M. Tonks, P. Millett, W. Cai, D. Wolf, Analysis of the ela stic strain energy driving force for grain boundarymigration using phase ﬁeld simulat ion, Scripta Materialia 63 (1997) 1049–1052

1997
[32]

Kobayashi, Modeling and numerical simulations of de ndritic crystal growth, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 63 (1993) 410–423

R. Kobayashi, Modeling and numerical simulations of de ndritic crystal growth, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 63 (1993) 410–423

1993
[33]

W. J. Boettinger, J. A. Warren, C. Beckermann, A. Karma, Phase-ﬁeld simulation of solidiﬁcation, Annual review of materials research 32 (200 2) 163–194
[34]

Bhagat, S

K. Bhagat, S. Rudraraju, Modeling of dendritic solidiﬁ cation and numerical analysis of the phase-ﬁeld approach to model complex morphologies in alloys, arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.14449 (2022). 25

2022 arXiv
[35]

Nishimori, A

H. Nishimori, A. Onuki, Pattern formation in phase-sep arating alloys with cubic sym- metry, Physical Review B 42 (1990) 980

1990
[36]

Y. Wang, D. Banerjee, C.-C. Su, A. Khachaturyan, Field k inetic model and computer simulation of precipitation of l12 ordered intermetallics from fcc solid solution, Acta materialia 46 (1998) 2983–3001

1998
[37]

Jiang, S

T. Jiang, S. Rudraraju, A. Roy, A. Van der Ven, K. Garikip ati, M. L. Falk, Multiphysics simulations of lithiation-induced stress in li1+xti2o4 electrode particles, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 120 (2016) 27871–27881

2016
[38]

L.-Q. Chen, W. Yang, Computer simulation of the domain d ynamics of a quenched sys- tem with a large number of nonconserved order parameters: Th e grain-growth kinetics, Physical Review B 50 (1994) 15752

1994
[39]

DeWitt, S

S. DeWitt, S. Rudraraju, D. Montiel, W. B. Andrews, K. Th ornton, Prisms-pf: A general framework for phase-ﬁeld modeling with a matrix-fr ee ﬁnite element method, npj Computational Materials 6 (2020) 1–12

2020
[40]

Allen, J

S. Allen, J. Cahn, A microscopic theory for antiphase bo undary motion and its appli- cation to antiphase domain coarsening, Acta Metallurgica 2 7 (1979) 1085–1095

1979
[41]

Arndt, et al., The deal.II library, version 9.5, 2023

D. Arndt, et al., The deal.II library, version 9.5, 2023. URL: https://dealii.org/deal95-preprint.pdf. doi:10.1515/jnma-2023-0089. 26

2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P. La, J. Ma, Y. T. Zhu, J. Yang, W. Liu, Q. Xue, R. Z. Valiev, Dry-sliding tribological properties of ultraﬁne-grained ti prepared by severe plast ic deformation, Acta materialia 53 (2005) 5167–5173

work page 2005

[2] [2]

Szlufarska, A

I. Szlufarska, A. Nakano, P. Vashishta, A crossover in th e mechanical response of nanocrystalline ceramics, Science 309 (2005) 911–914

work page 2005

[3] [3]

M. A. Meyers, A. Mishra, D. J. Benson, Mechanical propert ies of nanocrystalline materials, Progress in materials science 51 (2006) 427–556

work page 2006

[4] [4]

J. P. Hirth, The inﬂuence of grain boundaries on mechanic al properties, 1972

work page 1972

[5] [5]

Masing, K

G. Masing, K. Lucke, P. Nolting, Inﬂuence of small additi ons on recrystallization be- havior of superpurity aluminum, Z. Metallk (1956)

work page 1956

[6] [6]

Hillert, Inhibition of grain-growth by 2nd-phase par ticles, Acta Metallurgica 36 (1988) 3177–3181

M. Hillert, Inhibition of grain-growth by 2nd-phase par ticles, Acta Metallurgica 36 (1988) 3177–3181. 23

work page 1988

[7] [7]

Smith, Grains, phases and interfaces - an interpretat ion of microstructure, Trans Am

C. Smith, Grains, phases and interfaces - an interpretat ion of microstructure, Trans Am. Ins. Min. Engg. 175 (1948) 15–51

work page 1948

[8] [8]

Hassold, H

G. Hassold, H. E. D. Srolovitz, Eﬀects of particle-size o n inhibited grain-growth, Scr. Metall. 24 (1990) 101–107

work page 1990