Generation of representative powder particle packing in 2D/3D: which tool for which application?

Although dense sphere packings serve as the initial state for simulations in powder metallurgy, additive manufacturing and granular physics, the choice of a packing generator is rarely guided by a systematic benchmark. A representative packing must be (i)-(ii) physically admissible (non-overlapping particles in gravitational equilibrium); (iii) faithful to the target particle size distribution (PSD); (iv) representative in relative density Phi; and (v) computationally affordable. Four open-source tools have been benchmarked, meeting (i)-(ii) by construction: the sequential DR (dropping-and-rolling) and its densified variant DR-ME, and the discrete element method (DEM) codes LAMMPS (gravity) and dp3D (isostatic compression). Across four configurations (2D/3D lognormal, 3D bimodal, and a 3D domain-size study), they are compared against an industrial MIM-grade powder, with PSD fidelity measured by the bin-width-independent Hellinger distance and Phi against the feedstock solid loading (phi_exp = 0.62, by Archimedes' method). In 3D, the DEM codes reach the densest packings but run more than three orders of magnitude slower: for approximatively 20 000 particles, DR shows a 9% phi shortfall relative to dp3D while running 1800x faster. These idealised model packings yield application-driven tool-selection guidelines.