Fe2Tm: enthalpy of formation

10 accepted literature formation-enthalpy value(s) (experimental 3, model 6, DFT 1); experimental median -5.7 kJ/mol-atom (n = 3); Materials Project -13.808 kJ/mol-atom (mp-aaabgmyp); OQMD -13.506 kJ/mol-atom (oqmd-17236).

Systems: Fe–Tm

Literature values

Enthalpy of formation of Fe2Tm reported in the literature (10)
ValuePhase as printedT (K)ClassMethodSystemSourceLocationQuote
-5.98 kJ/mol-atomFe2Tm300experimentalAdiabatic CaloFe–Tm[1] Kardellass 2014
cites Germano 1981 doi
Table 3, p. 4, row 22
report
-5.7 kJ/mol-atomFe2Tm290experimentalAdiabatic Calo.Fe–Tm[1] Kardellass 2014
cites Germano 1981 doi
Table 3, p. 4, row 21
report
-2.2 kJ/mol-atom ± 2.8Fe2Tm298.15experimentalDSC 1373 ± 2 KFe–Tm[1] Kardellass 2014
cites Meschel 2013 doi
Table 3, p. 4, row 20
report
-11.53 kJ/mol-atomFe2Tm298.15modelOptimizationFe–Tm[1] Kardellass 2014
cites Konar 2012
Table 3, p. 4, row 23
report
-6.7 kJ/mol-atomFe2Tm298.15modelPredictionFe–Tm[1] Kardellass 2014
cites Dariel 1974 doi
Table 3, p. 4, row 18
report
-6.5 kJ/mol-atomFe2Tm298.15modelPredictionFe–Tm[1] Kardellass 2014
cites Germano 1981 doi
Table 3, p. 4, row 17
report
-6.19 kJ/mol-atomFe2Tm298.15modelPredictionFe–Tm[1] Kardellass 2014
cites Kardellass 2013
Table 3, p. 4, row 16
report
-5.042 kJ/mol-atomFe2Tm298.15modelOptimisationFe–Tm[1] Kardellass 2014Table 3, p. 4, row 24
report
-2.46 kJ/mol-atomFe2Tm298.15modelOptimizationFe–Tm[1] Kardellass 2014Table 3, p. 4, row 25
report
-13.4 kJ/mol-atomFe2Tm298.15DFTAb initioFe–Tm[1] Kardellass 2014
cites Meschel 2013 doi
Table 3, p. 4, row 19
report

Uncertainty budget

Components kept separate, in the value's unit (literature SCHEMA.md, UNCERTAINTY_CALIBRATION.md): effective = max(sqrt(max(printed, reading, method)^2 + composition^2 + conversion^2), scatter). The method floor is the robust between-study scatter of the method class in ORCHID (calibrated) or a documented prior; printed values and printed uncertainties are unchanged.

Uncertainty budget of the literature values of Fe2Tm
ValueUnitPrintedReadingMethod (class, basis)CompositionScatterConversionEffective
-5.98kJ/mol-atom0.0053.5 (heat_content_calorimetry, calibrated)3.5
-5.7kJ/mol-atom0.053.5 (heat_content_calorimetry, calibrated)3.5
-2.2kJ/mol-atom2.80.052 (dsc_dta, prior)2.8
-11.53kJ/mol-atom0.0053.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)3.9
-6.7kJ/mol-atom0.053.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)3.9
-6.5kJ/mol-atom0.053.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)3.9
-6.19kJ/mol-atom0.0053.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)3.9
-5.042kJ/mol-atom5.000e-43.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)3.9
-2.46kJ/mol-atom0.0053.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)3.9
-13.4kJ/mol-atom0.053.929 (dft, calibrated)3.929

DFT formation energies

Lowest-energy entries at this composition. Materials Project and OQMD use different energy references and are never averaged. 1 eV/atom = 96.485 kJ/mol-atom.

DFT formation energy of Fe2Tm
SourceEntrykJ/mol-atomeV/atomSpace groupE above hull (kJ/mol-atom)E above hull (eV/atom)Theoretical
Materials Projectmp-aaabgmyp-13.808-0.143115Fd-3m00no
OQMDoqmd-17236-13.506-0.139979Fd-3m00no

DFT sources: A. Jain et al., Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation, APL Materials 1 (2013) 011002. doi:10.1063/1.4812323 (CC BY 4.0); J. E. Saal et al., JOM 65 (2013) 1501-1509; S. Kirklin et al., npj Comput. Mater. 1 (2015) 15010. doi:10.1007/s11837-013-0755-4 (CC BY 4.0);

Sources

  1. S. Kardellass, C. Servant, N. Selhaoui, A. Iddaoudi, Thermodynamic evaluations of the iron–lutetium and iron–thulium systems, Calphad 46, 42-54 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.calphad.2014.01.003