Ge5Yb3: enthalpy of formation
10 accepted literature formation-enthalpy value(s) (experimental 2, model 5, DFT 3); experimental median -49.8 kJ/mol-atom (n = 2); OQMD -58.344 kJ/mol-atom (oqmd-1823083).
Systems: Ge–Yb
Literature values
| Value | Phase as printed | T (K) | Class | Method | System | Source | Location | Quote |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -49.8 kJ/mol-atom ± 13.2 | Yb3Ge5 | 298.15 | experimental | KEWL and KEMS | Ge–Yb | [1] Achgar 2018 cites Balducci 2007 doi | Table 2, p. 5, row 14 report | |
| -49.8 kJ/mol-atom ± 13.2 | Yb3Ge5 | 298.15 | experimental | KE technique | Ge–Yb | [2] Dai-man 2018 cites Balducci 2007 | Table 2, p. 4, row 14 report | |
| -63 kJ/mol-atom | Yb3Ge5 | model | Prediction | Ge–Yb | [1] Achgar 2018 cites De 1988 | Table 2, p. 5, row 15 report | ||
| -63 kJ/mol-atom | Yb3Ge5 | 298.15 | model | Miedema model | Ge–Yb | [2] Dai-man 2018 cites Grytsiv 2002 | Table 2, p. 4, row 16 report | |
| -60.952 kJ/mol-atom | Yb3Ge5 | model | Optimization | Ge–Yb | [1] Achgar 2018 | Table 2, p. 5, row 17 report | ||
| -59.3 kJ/mol-atom | Yb3Ge5 | 298.15 | model | SCM | Ge–Yb | [2] Dai-man 2018 | Table 2, p. 4, row 18 report | |
| -56.426 kJ/mol-atom | Yb3Ge5 | model | Optimization | Ge–Yb | [1] Achgar 2018 | Table 2, p. 5, row 18 report | ||
| -56.1 kJ/mol-atom | Yb3Ge5 | 0 | DFT | DFT calculation | Ge–Yb | [2] Dai-man 2018 cites Saal 2013 | Table 2, p. 4, row 17 report | |
| -55.9 kJ/mol-atom ± 6.2 | Yb3Ge5 | DFT | DFT | Ge–Yb | [1] Achgar 2018 cites Balducci 2007 doi | Table 2, p. 5, row 16 report | ||
| -55.9 kJ/mol-atom ± 6.2 | Yb3Ge5 | 298.15 | DFT | DFT calculation | Ge–Yb | [2] Dai-man 2018 cites Balducci 2007 | Table 2, p. 4, row 15 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.
| Value | Unit | Printed | Reading | Method (class, basis) | Composition | Scatter | Conversion | Effective |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -49.8 | kJ/mol-atom | 13.2 | 0.05 | 4.2 (kems_vapour, calibrated) | 13.2 | |||
| -49.8 | kJ/mol-atom | 13.2 | 0.05 | 4.2 (kems_vapour, calibrated) | 13.2 | |||
| -63 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.5 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -63 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -60.952 | kJ/mol-atom | 5.000e-4 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -59.3 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -56.426 | kJ/mol-atom | 5.000e-4 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -56.1 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 8.395 (dft, calibrated) | 8.395 | ||||
| -55.9 | kJ/mol-atom | 6.2 | 0.05 | 8.395 (dft, calibrated) | 8.395 | |||
| -55.9 | kJ/mol-atom | 6.2 | 0.05 | 8.395 (dft, calibrated) | 8.395 |
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.
| Source | Entry | kJ/mol-atom | eV/atom | Space group | E above hull (kJ/mol-atom) | E above hull (eV/atom) | Theoretical |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OQMD | oqmd-1823083 | -58.344 | -0.604696 | Cmcm | 0.3539 | 0.0037 | yes |
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
- Khadija Achgar, Saïd Kardellass, Najim Selhaoui, Thermodynamic assessment of the Ytterbium–Germanium binary system, J Therm Anal Calorim 131, 443-453 (2018). doi:10.1007/s10973-017-6203-x
- Zhu Dai-man, Li Chang-rong, Guo Cui-ping, Du Zhen-min, Thermodynamic assessment of the Ge-Yb binary system, Ferroelectrics 522, 80-87 (2018). doi:10.1080/00150193.2018.1392217