2025-11-22T23:31:16.072362

Stainless steel in an electronically excited state

Medvedev
Understanding the non-equilibrium behavior of stainless steel under extreme electronic excitation remains a critical challenge for laser processing and radiation science. We employ a hybrid framework integrating density-functional tight binding, transport Monte Carlo, and Boltzmann equations to model austenitic stainless steel (Fe$_{0.5875}$Cr$_{0.25}$Mn$_{0.09}$Ni$_{0.07}$C$_{0.0025}$) under ultrafast irradiation. The developed approach uniquely bridges atomic-scale electronic dynamics and mesoscale material responses, enabling the quantitative mapping of electron-temperature-dependent properties (electronic heat capacity, thermal conductivity, and electron-phonon coupling) up to the electronic temperatures Te~25,000 K. Two distinct lattice disordering mechanisms are identified: nonthermal melting at Te~10,000 K (the dose ~1.4 eV/atom), where the lattice collapses on sub-picosecond timescales without atomic heating driven by electronic excitation modifying the interatomic potential; and thermal melting (at ~0.45 eV/atom), induced by electron-phonon coupling on picosecond timescales. The derived parameters enable predictive modeling of stainless steel under extreme conditions, with implications for laser machining and radiation-resistant material design.
academic

Stainless Steel in an Electronically Excited State

Basic Information

  • Paper ID: 2504.19798
  • Title: Stainless steel in an electronically excited state
  • Author: Nikita Medvedev (Institute of Physics and Institute of Plasma Physics, Czech Academy of Sciences)
  • Classification: cond-mat.mtrl-sci (Condensed Matter Physics - Materials Science)
  • Publication Date: April 2025 (arXiv preprint)
  • Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19798

Abstract

This study addresses the critical challenge of non-equilibrium behavior in stainless steel under extreme electronic excitation in laser processing and radiation science. Using a hybrid framework integrating density functional tight-binding (DFTB), transport Monte Carlo, and Boltzmann equation, the authors model the behavior of austenitic stainless steel (Fe₀.₅₈₇₅Cr₀.₂₅Mn₀.₀₉Ni₀.₀₇C₀.₀₀₂₅) under ultrafast irradiation. This approach uniquely connects atomic-scale electron dynamics with mesoscale material response, enabling quantitative mapping of electron temperature-dependent properties (electron heat capacity, thermal conductivity, and electron-phonon coupling) up to electron temperatures of Te25,000 K. The study identifies two distinct lattice disordering mechanisms: (1) non-thermal melting, occurring at Te11,500 K (dose ~1.9 eV/atom), where the lattice collapses on a sub-picosecond timescale without atomic heating, driven by electronic excitation altering interatomic potentials; (2) thermal melting (~0.45 eV/atom), induced by electron-phonon coupling on a picosecond timescale.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

  1. Core Problem: Understanding the non-equilibrium response mechanisms of austenitic stainless steel under ultrafast laser irradiation and extreme radiation environments, particularly material behavior when the electronic system is highly excited.
  2. Significance:
    • Widespread Applications: Stainless steel has irreplaceable applications in medicine (implants, surgical instruments), engineering and construction (corrosive environments, aerospace), chemical and petroleum industries (pipes, containers), and radiation-harsh environments (nuclear reactors, particle accelerators, free-electron laser beam monitors)
    • Practical Requirements: Laser processing, radiation damage assessment, and radiation-resistant material design all require accurate understanding of material response under extreme conditions
  3. Limitations of Existing Methods:
    • Two-Temperature Model: Traditional two-temperature molecular dynamics only describes thermal effects, neglecting direct effects of electronic excitation on interatomic potentials
    • Missing Parameters: Lack of electron heat capacity, thermal conductivity, and electron-phonon coupling parameters for stainless steel at high electron temperatures (Te > 10,000 K)
    • Non-thermal Effects: Non-thermal melting phenomena in metals are rarely studied; whether such mechanisms exist in stainless steel remains unclear
  4. Research Motivation:
    • Establish a multi-scale model capable of simultaneously describing thermal and non-thermal effects
    • Quantitatively assess thermodynamic and transport properties of stainless steel at extreme electron temperatures
    • Determine whether non-thermal melting mechanisms exist in stainless steel and identify their thresholds

Core Contributions

  1. Hybrid Multi-Scale Modeling Framework: Development of the XTANT-3 toolkit integrating DFTB, transport Monte Carlo, and Boltzmann equation, capable of simultaneously handling electron cascades, electron thermalization, and atomic dynamics
  2. Electron Temperature-Dependent Parameter Database: First systematic calculation of austenitic stainless steel properties at extreme electron temperatures (up to Te~25,000 K):
    • Electron heat capacity
    • Electron thermal conductivity (including electron-phonon and electron-electron contributions)
    • Electron-phonon coupling parameters
  3. Discovery of Dual Damage Mechanisms: Identification of two distinctly different melting mechanisms in stainless steel:
    • Non-thermal melting: dose threshold ~1.9 eV/atom, sub-picosecond timescale, without atomic heating
    • Thermal melting: dose threshold ~0.45 eV/atom, picosecond timescale, via electron-phonon coupling
  4. Element-Specific Response: Discovery that the manganese subsystem is particularly sensitive to electronic excitation, exhibiting non-thermal acceleration behavior
  5. Predictive Modeling Capability: Provision of photon energy-dependent damage threshold fluence curves to guide experiments and engineering applications

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Input: Laser pulse parameters (photon energy, pulse duration, absorbed dose) and initial material state Output:

  • Electron temperature-dependent thermodynamic and transport properties
  • Time-resolved evolution of atomic and electron temperatures
  • Material structure changes (melting, disordering) Constraints: Applicable to ultrafast (sub-picosecond to picosecond) irradiation processes

Model Architecture

The overall architecture employs the XTANT-3 hybrid simulation toolkit, comprising three coupled modules:

1. Electron Transport Module

Fast Electrons (E > 10 eV): Event-driven Monte Carlo

  • Photon absorption cross-sections: EPICS2023 database
  • Impact ionization: Complex dielectric function form (dipole approximation)
  • Quasi-elastic scattering: Modified Molière cross-section
  • Auger decay: Including core-shell hole dynamics

Slow Electrons (E < 10 eV): Boltzmann equation

  • Electron-electron thermalization: Relaxation time approximation
  • Electron-phonon scattering: Dynamic coupling method

2. Electronic Structure Module

Density Functional Tight-Binding (DFTB):

  • Parameterization: PTBP tight-binding parameter set
  • Basis set: sp³d⁵ linear combination of atomic orbitals (LCAO)
  • k-space grid: 7×7×7 Monkhorst-Pack grid
  • Output: Instantaneous energy levels (band structure), wave functions, atomic forces

3. Atomic Dynamics Module

Molecular Dynamics (MD):

  • Atomic forces: Calculated from tight-binding Hamiltonian gradients
  • Potential energy: Dependent on instantaneous electronic occupation
  • Integration algorithm: Martyna-Tuckerman 4th-order algorithm
  • Time step: ≤1 fs

4. Simulation System

  • Chemical composition: Fe₀.₅₈₇₅Cr₀.₂₅Mn₀.₀₉Ni₀.₀₇C₀.₀₀₂₅
  • Simulation box: 400 atoms (235 Fe, 100 Cr, 36 Mn, 28 Ni, 1 C)
  • Crystal structure: Face-centered cubic (fcc)
  • Box dimensions: 18.45×18.4×14.76 Ų
  • Density: 7.3 g/cm³ (experimental value 7.5-7.9 g/cm³)

Technical Innovations

1. Electron Heat Capacity Calculation

Using instantaneous energy level statistics:

Ce(Te)=1V0∑i∂fe(Ei)∂Te(Ei−μ(Te))C_e(T_e) = \frac{1}{V_0} \sum_i \frac{\partial f_e(E_i)}{\partial T_e}(E_i - \mu(T_e))

where fe(Ei)f_e(E_i) is the Fermi-Dirac distribution and μ(Te)\mu(T_e) is the electron chemical potential

2. Electron Thermal Conductivity Calculation

Matthiessen's Rule Combination: κtot(Te)=(1κe−a(Te)+1κe−e(Te))−1\kappa_{tot}(T_e) = \left(\frac{1}{\kappa_{e-a}(T_e)} + \frac{1}{\kappa_{e-e}(T_e)}\right)^{-1}

Electron-Phonon Contribution: Kubo-Greenwood form κe−a(Te)=L22−TeL122L11\kappa_{e-a}(T_e) = L_{22} - T_e \frac{L_{12}^2}{L_{11}}

Onsager coefficients: Lij=−(−1)i+jV0me∑kdfdEk(Ek−μ)i+j+2∣⟨k∣p∣k′⟩∣2L_{ij} = -\frac{(-1)^{i+j}}{V_0 m_e} \sum_k \frac{df}{dE_k}(E_k - \mu)^{i+j+2}|\langle k|p|k'\rangle|^2

Electron-Electron Contribution: Based on Monte Carlo scattering cross-sections

3. Electron-Phonon Coupling Calculation

Non-Perturbative Dynamic Coupling Method: G(Te,Ta)=1V0(Te−Ta)∑i,jEjIe−aijG(T_e, T_a) = \frac{1}{V_0(T_e - T_a)} \sum_{i,j} E_j I_{e-a}^{ij}

Scattering integral:

f(E_i)(2-f(E_j)) - f(E_j)(2-f(E_i))e^{-E_{ij}/T_a}, & i>j \\ f(E_j)(2-f(E_i))e^{-E_{ij}/T_a} - f(E_i)(2-f(E_j)), & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}$$ Scattering probability calculated via wave function overlap: $$w_{ij} \approx \frac{4e}{\hbar\delta t^2} \sum_{\alpha,\beta} |c_{i,\alpha}(t)c_{j,\beta}(t_0)S_{i,j}|^2$$ **Innovations**: - Direct calculation of coupling from atomic motion, avoiding overestimation in Eliashberg formalism - Includes implicit dependence on atomic temperature - Non-perturbative, applicable to high electron temperatures #### 4. Non-Thermal Effects Handling Through instantaneous electronic occupation directly affecting interatomic potentials: - Electronic distribution function changes → Hamiltonian changes → Potential energy surface changes - Naturally describes non-thermal melting without additional parameters ## Experimental Setup ### Simulation Parameters #### Initialization - Atoms randomly placed on fcc lattice - Equilibrated at room temperature (300 K) - Averaged over multiple random configurations (10 for heat capacity and thermal conductivity, 40 for electron-phonon coupling) #### Laser Parameters - Pulse duration: 10 fs (FWHM, Gaussian pulse) - Photon energy: 30 eV (main simulation), scanned 10-10,000 eV (threshold curves) - Absorbed dose: 0.45-2 eV/atom #### Simulation Types 1. **Complete Simulation**: All physical processes included (electron-phonon coupling enabled) 2. **Born-Oppenheimer Simulation**: Electron-phonon coupling excluded, only non-thermal effects considered ### Evaluation Metrics #### Electronic Properties - Density of states (DOS) - Electron chemical potential - Electron heat capacity: J/(cm³·K) - Electron thermal conductivity: W/(m·K) - Electron-phonon coupling: W/(cm³·K) #### Structural Features - Radial distribution function - Lattice order parameter - Element-specific temperatures #### Damage Thresholds - Thermal melting dose: ~0.45 eV/atom - Non-thermal melting dose: ~1.9 eV/atom - Photon energy-dependent fluence threshold ### Comparison Methods Primarily compared with DFT calculations by Bévillon et al. (2015): - Material composition: Fe₇₃Cr₂₁Ni₁₄ vs. Fe₅₈.₇₅Cr₂₅Mn₉Ni₇C₀.₂₅ in this work - Method: DFT (Eliashberg formalism) vs. DFTB (dynamic coupling) ## Experimental Results ### Main Results #### 1. Electronic Density of States (DOS) - **Overall Consistency**: Qualitatively consistent with DFT calculations (Ref.[49]) - **Sources of Differences**: - Different composition (this work contains Mn, Ref.[49] does not) - Slightly lower density results in narrower peaks - **Near Fermi Level**: Primarily contributed by d-orbitals of Fe and Cr #### 2. Electron Chemical Potential - **Trend**: Increases with electron temperature - **Numerical Range**: From 0 eV (T=0) to ~2.5 eV (Te=50,000 K) - **DFT Comparison**: Qualitatively consistent, differences <15% #### 3. Electron Heat Capacity - **Low Temperature Linear Region** (Te < 5,000 K): ~10⁻⁴ J/(cm³·K) - **High Temperature Saturation** (Te > 30,000 K): ~4×10⁻³ J/(cm³·K) - **DFT Difference**: Maximum difference ~30% at Te~30,000 K #### 4. Electron Thermal Conductivity **Total Thermal Conductivity**: - Te=1,000 K: ~50 W/(m·K) - Te=10,000 K: ~200 W/(m·K) - Te=50,000 K: ~150 W/(m·K) (decrease dominated by electron-electron scattering) **Compositional Analysis**: - Low temperature (<20,000 K): Electron-phonon scattering dominates - High temperature (>20,000 K): Electron-electron scattering begins to dominate - DFT calculations lack electron-electron term, resulting in overestimation at high temperatures #### 5. Electron-Phonon Coupling **Room Temperature (Ta=300 K)**: - Te=1,000 K: ~10¹⁶ W/(cm³·K) - Te=10,000 K: ~10¹⁷ W/(cm³·K) - Te=25,000 K: ~3×10¹⁷ W/(cm³·K) **DFT Comparison**: - This work results are 2-5 times lower than Eliashberg formalism - Reason: Eliashberg formalism is known to systematically overestimate (Wang approximation issue) **Atomic Temperature Dependence**: $$G(T_e, T_a) \approx 0.3 \frac{T_a}{T_{room}} G(T_e, T_a=300K)$$ Linear relationship holds before melting point ### Damage Mechanism Analysis #### Thermal Melting (Complete Simulation) **Threshold**: ~0.45 eV/atom **Timescale**: ~1.5-2 ps **Mechanism**: 1. Electron energy absorption (t=0) 2. Electron thermalization (t<100 fs) 3. Heat transfer via electron-phonon coupling (t=0-1 ps) 4. Atomic temperature reaches melting point ~1600-1800 K (t~1 ps) 5. Lattice disordering (t~1.5-2 ps) **Element-Specific Behavior**: - C atoms: Highly mobile, severe temperature oscillations (single-atom statistics) - Mn atoms: Non-thermal acceleration spike (t<100 fs), indicating sensitivity to electronic excitation - Fe, Cr, Ni: Similar temperature evolution #### Non-Thermal Melting (Born-Oppenheimer Simulation) **Threshold**: ~1.9 eV/atom **Electron Temperature**: Te~11,500 K **Timescale**: <1 ps **Mechanism**: 1. Electronic excitation alters potential energy surface 2. Potential barriers lower, atoms overcome barriers 3. Sub-picosecond lattice collapse 4. Atomic temperature remains near room temperature (~300-500 K) 5. Non-thermal acceleration causes slight temperature increase after phase transition **Key Evidence**: - Atomic temperature far below melting point yet disordering occurs - Mn subsystem again shows non-thermal acceleration spike - Timescale 3-4 times faster than thermal melting ### Damage Threshold Fluence Converted to incident fluence using photon absorption length: **Thermal Melting**: - 30 eV: ~0.1 J/cm² - 100 eV: ~0.3 J/cm² - 1000 eV: ~2 J/cm² **Non-Thermal Melting**: - 30 eV: ~0.4 J/cm² - 100 eV: ~1.2 J/cm² - 1000 eV: ~8 J/cm² **Shell Effects**: Threshold curve exhibits jumps at element shell energies (enhanced photon absorption) ### Key Findings 1. **Coexisting Dual Mechanisms**: Stainless steel exhibits both thermal and non-thermal melting simultaneously, with thresholds differing by a factor of 4 2. **Manganese Specificity**: Mn subsystem is particularly sensitive to electronic excitation, exhibiting non-thermal acceleration 3. **Importance of Electron-Electron Scattering**: At high temperatures (>20,000 K), significantly reduces thermal conductivity; DFT calculations ignoring this term overestimate 4. **Coupling Parameter Differences**: Dynamic coupling method yields 2-5 times lower values than Eliashberg formalism, closer to experimental expectations 5. **Multi-Element Alloy Complexity**: Different elements respond differently to electronic excitation; single-element models are inadequate ## Related Work ### Two-Temperature Model Development 1. **Classical Two-Temperature Model** (Rethfeld, Lin, et al.): - Continuum description of electron and phonon systems - Parameters: electron heat capacity, thermal conductivity, electron-phonon coupling - Limitations: Assumes equilibrium parameters, neglects non-thermal effects 2. **Two-Temperature Molecular Dynamics** (Ivanov, Zhigilei, et al.): - Continuum electrons + atomic MD - Improvement: Atomic-level description - Limitations: Still based on thermal equilibrium assumptions ### Non-Thermal Effects Research 1. **Semiconductors/Insulators** (Stampfli, Jeschke, et al.): - Non-thermal melting widely reported (Si, diamond, etc.) - Mechanism: Covalent bond breaking 2. **Non-Thermal Effects in Metals** (Murphy, Grigoryan, et al.): - Rarely reported (electron-induced phase transitions in W) - This work: First systematic study in alloys ### Stainless Steel Computational Studies **Bévillon et al. (2015)**: - Method: DFT + Eliashberg formalism - Contribution: First calculation of stainless steel electronic properties - Limitations: No non-thermal effects, coupling parameters possibly overestimated ### Advantages of This Work 1. **Multi-Scale Integration**: From electron cascades to atomic dynamics 2. **Non-Perturbative Method**: Dynamic coupling applicable to extreme conditions 3. **Non-Thermal Effects**: First systematic identification of non-thermal melting in stainless steel 4. **Predictive Capability**: Provides experimentally verifiable thresholds ## Conclusions and Discussion ### Main Conclusions 1. **Parameter Database**: Systematically calculated thermodynamic and transport properties of austenitic stainless steel at electron temperatures up to 25,000 K, filling the gap in high-temperature parameters 2. **Dual Damage Mechanisms**: - Thermal melting: 0.45 eV/atom, picosecond timescale, via electron-phonon coupling - Non-thermal melting: 1.9 eV/atom, sub-picosecond timescale, electronic excitation alters potential energy surface 3. **Element Specificity**: Manganese subsystem is particularly sensitive to electronic excitation, exhibiting non-thermal acceleration, indicating significant element-specific response differences in multi-element alloys 4. **Practical Value**: Provides photon energy-dependent damage threshold fluence, guiding laser processing and radiation protection design ### Limitations 1. **Tight-Binding Parameterization**: - Underestimated density (7.3 vs. 7.5-7.9 g/cm³) - Electron-phonon coupling sensitive to parameter set (Ref.[52]) - Not specifically optimized for stainless steel 2. **Simulation Scale**: - 400-atom box limits statistics (especially single C atom) - Periodic boundary conditions exclude surface effects - No long-range energy transport 3. **Temperature Range**: - Electron-phonon coupling calculations limited to Te<25,000 K - Higher temperatures require new methods 4. **Experimental Verification**: - Lack of experimental data at high electron temperatures - Non-thermal melting threshold requires experimental confirmation - Time-resolved measurement techniques challenging 5. **Composition Dependence**: - Only one specific composition studied - Other stainless steel grades may differ ### Future Directions 1. **Experimental Verification**: - Time-resolved X-ray diffraction measurements of non-thermal melting - Pump-probe experiments to determine electron-phonon coupling - Damage threshold measurements 2. **Method Improvements**: - Optimize tight-binding parameters for improved density accuracy - Develop larger-scale simulation capabilities - Include surface and interface effects 3. **Material Extensions**: - Other stainless steel grades (304, 316L, etc.) - Temperature and pressure dependence - Cumulative irradiation damage 4. **Application Development**: - Integration into laser processing simulations - Radiation damage prediction tools - Material optimization design ## In-Depth Evaluation ### Strengths 1. **Methodological Innovation**: - **Multi-Scale Integration**: XTANT-3 framework first seamlessly integrates DFTB, Monte Carlo, and Boltzmann equation, spanning from femtosecond electron cascades to picosecond atomic dynamics - **Non-Perturbative Treatment**: Dynamic coupling method overcomes overestimation in traditional Eliashberg formalism, more suitable for extreme conditions - **Self-Consistent Non-Thermal Effects**: Instantaneous electronic occupation directly affects potential energy surface, naturally describing non-thermal phenomena 2. **Scientific Discovery Importance**: - **First Identification**: Systematic study of non-thermal melting mechanisms in metal alloys, extending non-thermal effects to new material classes - **Element Specificity**: Non-thermal acceleration of Mn subsystem is important evidence of complex multi-element alloy response - **Mechanism Distinction**: Clear separation of thermal and non-thermal contributions provides new perspective on damage mechanisms 3. **Experimental Sufficiency**: - **Systematic Parameter Scanning**: Comprehensive coverage of electron temperature, atomic temperature, and dose - **Statistical Reliability**: Multiple random configuration averaging (10-40 times) - **Comparative Verification**: Systematic comparison with DFT calculations with reasonable difference analysis 4. **Practical Value**: - **Parameter Database**: Directly usable parameters for two-temperature models - **Threshold Prediction**: Photon energy-dependent damage fluence curves guide experiments - **Open Source**: XTANT-3 and data publicly available, promoting reproducibility 5. **Writing Quality**: - Clear structure, detailed method description - Complete formula derivations, sufficient technical details - Professional figure design, high information density ### Shortcomings 1. **Quantitative Accuracy Issues**: - **Density Deviation**: 7.3 vs. 7.5-7.9 g/cm³, 8% error may affect quantitative results - **Coupling Parameter Sensitivity**: Authors acknowledge sensitivity to tight-binding parameterization (Ref.[52]), but uncertainty not quantified - **DFT Differences**: 30% electron heat capacity difference, 2-5× coupling parameter difference, lacking error bar analysis 2. **Missing Experimental Verification**: - **Key Parameters**: No experimental data verifying electron-phonon coupling at high electron temperatures - **Non-Thermal Melting**: 1.9 eV/atom threshold purely theoretical prediction, lacking experimental evidence - **Timescale**: Sub-picosecond dynamics difficult to verify experimentally, prediction reliability unknown 3. **Model Assumption Limitations**: - **Single-Atom Statistics**: Only 1 C atom, severe temperature oscillations, questionable statistical significance - **Periodic Boundaries**: Exclude surface effects, while actual laser processing involves surface ablation - **Linear Absorption**: Threshold fluence calculation assumes linear photon absorption, non-linear effects at high intensity not considered 4. **Insufficient Analysis Depth**: - **Mechanism Details**: Microscopic mechanism of Mn specificity not deeply explained (electronic structure, bonding characteristics) - **Phase Transition Dynamics**: Atomic-level processes of non-thermal melting insufficiently detailed - **Parameter Dependence**: Systematic sensitivity study to tight-binding parameter set lacking 5. **Limited Applicability Range**: - **Composition Specificity**: Only one composition studied, generalization to other stainless steels requires caution - **Pulse Parameters**: Primarily 10 fs/30 eV, limited coverage of other parameter ranges - **Temperature Window**: Electron-phonon coupling limited to <25,000 K, higher temperature extrapolation uncertain ### Impact 1. **Academic Contribution**: - **Pioneering**: Systematic study of non-thermal melting in metal alloys, likely to become citation benchmark in field - **Methodological Value**: XTANT-3 framework generalizable to other materials and extreme conditions - **Parameter Data**: Fills high-temperature parameter gap, supports subsequent theoretical and experimental research 2. **Practical Value**: - **Laser Processing**: Threshold prediction optimizes laser parameters, avoiding damage or improving efficiency - **Radiation Protection**: Stainless steel component lifetime assessment in nuclear reactors, accelerators - **Material Design**: Element-specific understanding guides radiation-resistant alloy design 3. **Limitations**: - **Verification Needed**: Key predictions (non-thermal threshold, high-temperature parameters) require experimental confirmation - **Accuracy Enhancement**: Quantitative applications require improved density and parameter accuracy - **Scale Extension**: Engineering applications need mesoscale modeling capability 4. **Reproducibility**: - **Open Source**: XTANT-3 and data publicly available (Zenodo, GitHub) - **Method Detail**: Sufficient detail supports reproduction - **Computational Cost**: 400 atoms/40 runs, acceptable computational load ### Applicable Scenarios 1. **Best Suited For**: - Theoretical prediction of ultrafast laser (fs-ps) irradiation of stainless steel - Initial response of high-energy particle (X-ray, ion) irradiation - Electron temperature-dependent parameters for two-temperature model input - Extreme conditions dominated by non-thermal effects (high dose, short pulse) 2. **Use With Caution**: - Other stainless steel grades (requires re-parameterization) - Long timescale (>10 ps) damage evolution (requires coupled heat transport) - Surface processing (requires surface effects consideration) - Applications with extreme quantitative accuracy requirements (density error impact) 3. **Not Applicable**: - Nanosecond and longer pulses (equilibrium models more appropriate) - Low-dose irradiation (linear response regime) - Macroscopic scales (requires continuum models) - Other alloy systems (requires re-modeling) ## References This paper cites 59 references, with key references including: 1. **Methodological Foundations**: - [30] Medvedev N. XTANT-3 (2023) - Core tool of this work - [34] Koskinen & Mäkinen. DFTB for beginners (2009) - [17] Medvedev & Milov. Electron-phonon coupling (2020) 2. **Stainless Steel DFT Comparison**: - [49] Bévillon et al. 316L stainless steel ab initio properties (2015) 3. **Non-Thermal Effects**: - [22] Siders et al. Non-thermal melting detection (1999) - [23] Stampfli & Bennemann. Silicon laser-induced instability (1992) 4. **Two-Temperature Model**: - [13] Rethfeld et al. Ultrafast laser ablation modeling (2017) - [16] Lin et al. Electron-phonon coupling (2008) --- **Overall Assessment**: This is a high-quality computational materials science paper with important contributions in both methodological innovation and scientific discovery. The development of the XTANT-3 multi-scale framework and identification of non-thermal melting mechanisms in stainless steel are pioneering. Main limitations are quantitative accuracy and lack of experimental verification, but the provided parameter database and threshold predictions have significant practical value for laser processing and radiation science. Recommended future work should focus on experimental verification and parameter accuracy improvement.