Predictive modeling of ultrashort-pulse laser ablation requires temperature-dependent material parameters derived from the electronic structure, namely the electronic thermal conductivity, electron-phonon coupling, and heat capacity. These parameters are well documented for elemental metals but remain sparsely documented for alloys, apart from application-relevant exceptions such as stainless steels. The technologically important titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V is a prominent example, which is still modeled using elemental-titanium values. We compute the electronic transport of hcp Ti and Ti-6Al-4V from first principles, using the Kubo-Greenwood formalism within the Korringa-Kohn-Rostoker coherent-potential-approximation framework, treating chemical and thermal disorder on equal footing. For elemental Ti, the calculated electrical resistivity agrees with independent electron-phonon calculations and experiment and also reproduces the high-temperature saturation near the Mott-Ioffe-Regel limit. Under electron-phonon nonequilibrium, the electronic thermal conductivity saturates and then decreases with electronic temperature, reaching a maximum of about 2.97 k W m − 1 K − 1 in Ti but only 0.47 k W m − 1 K − 1 in Ti-6Al-4V, a factor of 6.4 lower. In two-temperature-model simulations the alloy and elemental parameter sets yield peak lattice temperatures differing by only about 1.4%, because reduced electron-phonon coupling and thermal conductivity offset each other, consistent with reported experimental ablation thresholds that differ by about 3%, well within their measurement uncertainties. This compensation is strongest for subpicosecond pulses and weakens across the 1 to 10 ps crossover toward longer-pulse behavior. Replacing the first-principles thermal conductivity with the low-temperature Drude limit shifts the peak lattice temperature by up to 19%, showing that the functional form of the transport model is even more important than the elemental versus alloy distinction for predictive accuracy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hobmaier et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: