A Phase-Field Model for In-Space Manufacturing of Binary Alloys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integrity of the final printed components is mostly dictated by the adhesion between the particles and phases that form upon solidification, which is a major problem in printing metallic parts using available In-Space Manufacturing (ISM) technologies based on the Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) methodology. Understanding the melting/solidification process helps increase particle adherence and allows to produce components with greater mechanical integrity. We developed a phase-field model of solidification for binary alloys. The phase-field approach is unique in capturing the microstructure with computationally tractable costs. The developed phase-field model of solidification of binary alloys satisfies the stability conditions at all temperatures. The suggested model is tuned for Ni-Cu alloy feedstocks. We derived the Ginzburg-Landau equations governing the phase transformation kinetics and solved them analytically for the dilute solution. We calculated the concentration profile as a function of interface velocity for a one-dimensional steady-state diffuse interface neglecting elasticity and obtained the partition coefficient, k, as a function of interface velocity. Numerical simulations for the diluted solution are used to study the interface velocity as a function of undercooling for the classic sharp interface model, partitionless solidification, and thin interface.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".