Mo3Si: enthalpy of formation
31 accepted literature formation-enthalpy value(s) (experimental 9, model 21, DFT 1); experimental median -29.1 kJ/mol-atom (n = 9); Materials Project -30.345 kJ/mol-atom (mp-aaaaabxb); OQMD -29.355 kJ/mol-atom (oqmd-5887).
Systems: Mo–Si
Literature values
| Value | Phase as printed | T (K) | Class | Method | System | Source | Location | Quote |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -31.3 kJ/mol-atom ± 1.5 | Mo3Si | 298.15 | experimental | Combustion calorimetry | Mo–Si | [1] Czerny 2024 cites Tomaszkiewicz 1996 | Table 8, p. 10, row 24 report | |
| -30.5 kJ/mol-atom ± 1.5 | Mo3Si | 298.15 | experimental | EMF | Mo–Si | [1] Czerny 2024 cites Fujiwara 2007 | Table 8, p. 10, row 15 report | |
| -29.1 kJ/mol-atom ± 3 | Mo3Si | 298.15 | experimental | Mo–Si | [2] Liu 2000 cites Chart 1973 | Table 2, p. 6, row 3 report | ||
| -29.1 kJ/mol-atom ± 3 | Mo3Si | 298.15 | experimental | Knudsen effusion | Mo–Si | [1] Czerny 2024 cites Chart 1974 | Table 8, p. 10, row 40 report | |
| -29.1 kJ/mol-atom ± 3 | Mo3Si | 298.15 | experimental | Mo–Si | [2] Liu 2000 cites Chart 1974 doi | Table 2, p. 6, row 2 report | ||
| -29.1 kJ/mol-atom ± 3 | Mo3Si | 298.15 | experimental | Exp | Mo–Si | [3] Geng 2010 cites Chart 1974 doi | Table 2, p. 6, row 2 report | |
| -25.418 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | experimental | Mo–Si | [2] Liu 2000 cites Barin 1989 | Table 2, p. 6, row 4 report | ||
| -24.89 kJ/mol-atom ± 2.09 | Mo3Si | 298.15 | experimental | Mo–Si | [2] Liu 2000 cites Hultgren 1973 | Table 2, p. 6, row 1 report | ||
| -24.4 kJ/mol-atom ± 4.2 | Mo3Si | 298.15 | experimental | Knudsen effusion | Mo–Si | [1] Czerny 2024 cites Searcy 1960 | Table 8, p. 10, row 43 report | |
| -39.5 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Prediction | Mo–Si | [1] Czerny 2024 cites Kaufman 1979 | Table 8, p. 10, row 36 report | |
| -35.83 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Local density approximation | Mo–Si | [1] Czerny 2024 cites Zhong 2016 | Table 8, p. 10, row 4 report | |
| -32.28 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Generalized gradient approximation | Mo–Si | [1] Czerny 2024 cites Zhong 2016 | Table 8, p. 10, row 5 report | |
| -31.75 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Mo–Si | [2] Liu 2000 cites Costa 1994 | Table 2, p. 6, row 7 report | ||
| -31.75 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Mo–Si | [3] Geng 2010 cites Costa 1994 | Table 2, p. 6, row 7 report | ||
| -29.8052 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Mo–Si | [2] Liu 2000 cites Bai 1999 | Table 2, p. 6, row 8 report | ||
| -29.8052 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Mo–Si | [3] Geng 2010 cites Bai 1999 | Table 2, p. 6, row 8 report | ||
| -29.7102 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Mo–Si | [2] Liu 2000 cites Vahlas 1989 doi | Table 2, p. 6, row 6 report | ||
| -29.7102 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Assessed | Mo–Si | [3] Geng 2010 cites Vahlas 1989 doi | Table 2, p. 6, row 6 report | |
| -29.6 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Calculation similar to Miedema | Mo–Si | [1] Czerny 2024 cites Machlin 1981 | Table 8, p. 10, row 35 report | |
| -29.3 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Assessment | Mo–Si | [1] Czerny 2024 | Table 8, p. 10, row 1 report | |
| -29.3 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Assessment | Mo–Si | [1] Czerny 2024 cites Guo 2012 | Table 8, p. 10, row 9 report | |
| -29.259 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | CALPHAD | Mo–Si | [3] Geng 2010 | Table 2, p. 6, row 10 report | |
| -29.1 kJ/mol-atom ± 3 | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Mo–Si | [3] Geng 2010 cites Chart 1973 | Table 2, p. 6, row 3 report | ||
| -28.372 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Mo–Si | [2] Liu 2000 cites Kaufman 1997 | Table 2, p. 6, row 5 report | ||
| -28.372 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Mo–Si | [3] Geng 2010 cites Kaufman 1997 | Table 2, p. 6, row 5 report | ||
| -27.9 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Mo–Si | [2] Liu 2000 | Table 2, p. 6, row 9 report | ||
| -27.9 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | CALPHAD | Mo–Si | [3] Geng 2010 cites Liu 2000 doi | Table 2, p. 6, row 9 report | |
| -26 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Prediction with Miedema model | Mo–Si | [1] Czerny 2024 cites Niessen 1981 | Table 8, p. 10, row 33 report | |
| -25.418 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Mo–Si | [3] Geng 2010 cites Barin 1989 | Table 2, p. 6, row 4 report | ||
| -24.89 kJ/mol-atom ± 2.09 | Mo3Si | 298.15 | model | Mo–Si | [3] Geng 2010 cites Hultgren 1973 | Table 2, p. 6, row 1 report | ||
| -29.5 kJ/mol-atom | Mo3Si | 298.15 | DFT | DFT | Mo–Si | [1] Czerny 2024 cites Colinet 2016 | Table 8, p. 10, row 6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -31.3 | kJ/mol-atom | 1.5 | 0.05 | 1 (combustion_calorimetry, cleaned_below_threshold) | 1.5 | |||
| -30.5 | kJ/mol-atom | 1.5 | 0.05 | 4.6 (emf, cleaned_below_threshold) | 4.6 | |||
| -29.1 | kJ/mol-atom | 3 | 0.05 | 3.5 (unknown, calibrated) | 3.5 | |||
| -29.1 | kJ/mol-atom | 3 | 0.05 | 4.2 (kems_vapour, calibrated) | 4.2 | |||
| -29.1 | kJ/mol-atom | 3 | 0.05 | 3.5 (unknown, calibrated) | 3.5 | |||
| -29.1 | kJ/mol-atom | 3 | 0.05 | 4.1 (experimental_unspecified, cleaned_below_threshold) | 4.1 | |||
| -25.418 | kJ/mol-atom | 5.000e-4 | 3.5 (unknown, calibrated) | 3.5 | ||||
| -24.89 | kJ/mol-atom | 2.09 | 0.005 | 3.5 (unknown, calibrated) | 3.5 | |||
| -24.4 | kJ/mol-atom | 4.2 | 0.05 | 4.2 (kems_vapour, calibrated) | 4.2 | |||
| -39.5 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -35.83 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.005 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -32.28 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.005 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -31.75 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.005 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -31.75 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.005 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -29.8052 | kJ/mol-atom | 5.000e-5 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -29.8052 | kJ/mol-atom | 5.000e-5 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -29.7102 | kJ/mol-atom | 5.000e-5 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -29.7102 | kJ/mol-atom | 5.000e-5 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -29.6 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -29.3 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -29.3 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -29.259 | kJ/mol-atom | 5.000e-4 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -29.1 | kJ/mol-atom | 3 | 0.05 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | |||
| -28.372 | kJ/mol-atom | 5.000e-4 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -28.372 | kJ/mol-atom | 5.000e-4 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -27.9 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -27.9 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -26 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -25.418 | kJ/mol-atom | 5.000e-4 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -24.89 | kJ/mol-atom | 2.09 | 0.005 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | |||
| -29.5 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 9.966 (dft, calibrated) | 9.966 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Materials Project | mp-aaaaabxb | -30.345 | -0.314507 | Pm-3n | 0 | 0 | no |
| OQMD | oqmd-5887 | -29.355 | -0.304242 | Pm-3n | 0 | 0 | no |
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
- Andreas Klaus Czerny, Wenhao Ma, Clemens Simon Hausner, Peter Franke, Magnus Rohde, Hans Jürgen Seifert, Thermodynamic Assessment of the Mo–Si System, Adv Eng Mater 26 (2024). doi:10.1002/adem.202302085
- Y Liu, G Shao, P Tsakiropoulos, Thermodynamic reassessment of the Mo–Si and Al–Mo–Si systems, Intermetallics 8, 953-962 (2000). doi:10.1016/s0966-9795(00)00068-6
- Tai Geng, Changrong Li, Xinqing Zhao, Huibin Xu, Zhenmin Du, Cuiping Guo, Thermodynamic assessment of the Nb–Si–Mo system, Calphad 34, 363-376 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.calphad.2010.07.003