| Author(s) |
Jonathan E. Guyer, Stephen DeWitt, László Gránásy, Olle Heinonen, Andrea Jokisaari, David Montiel, Tamás Pusztai, Peter Voorhees, James Warren, Daniel Wheeler, Wenkun Wu, Trevor Keller, Daniel Schwen, Larry Aagesen, Michael Tonks, Katsuyo Thornton, Jin Zhang, Beck Andrews, Nana Ofori-Opoku, Pierre-Clément Simon, Damien Pinto, Damien Tourret, Alex Chadwick, Vishwas Goel, Mythreyi Ramesh, Sourabh Kadambi, Sudipta Biswas |
| Abstract Scope |
Phase field models are
formulated as multidimensional and multivariate systems of partial
differential equations (PDEs) in order to perform mesoscale simulations of
microstructural evolution. These PDEs do not generally allow for
analytical solutions, so numerical approaches are required to solve them.
Phase field modelers employ a range of numerical codes, ranging from
bespoke codes, applicable to a specific research project, to elaborate
frameworks suited to solving a wide range of problems.
Even when the equations faithfully represent the phenomena of interest,
the numerical implementation of those equations can introduce both errors
and artifacts. Under leadership of Prof. Voorhees, the Center for Hierarchical Materials Design (CHiMaD)
brought together phase field practitioners and developers of the most
widely used phase field codes, in order to determine if the different codes
calculated the same results. This talk will describe the
benchmarks we have implemented and
what we have learned from benchmarking "well understood" models. |