Pd21Yb10: enthalpy of formation

7 accepted literature formation-enthalpy value(s) (experimental 1, model 5, DFT 1); experimental median -75 kJ/mol-atom (n = 1).

Systems: Pd–Yb

Literature values

Enthalpy of formation of Pd21Yb10 reported in the literature (7)
Value	Phase as printed	T (K)	Class	Method	System	Source	Location
-75 kJ/mol-atom ± 4	Pd21Yb10	1029.5	experimental	KEML/KEMS*	Pd–Yb	[1] Kardellass 2020 cites Ciccioli 2016 doi	Table 3, p. 5, row 50 report
-80.7767 kJ/mol-atom	Pd21Yb10	298.15	model	Prediction	Pd–Yb	[1] Kardellass 2020 cites De 2014	Table 3, p. 5, row 49 report
-71.4441 kJ/mol-atom	Pd21Yb10	298.15	model	Optimization R-K	Pd–Yb	[1] Kardellass 2020	Table 3, p. 5, row 46 report
-71.2839 kJ/mol-atom	Pd21Yb10	298.15	model	Optimization R-K	Pd–Yb	[1] Kardellass 2020	Table 3, p. 5, row 45 report
-65.0944 kJ/mol-atom	Pd21Yb10	298.15	model	Optimization K	Pd–Yb	[1] Kardellass 2020	Table 3, p. 5, row 48 report
-64.0132 kJ/mol-atom	Pd21Yb10	298.15	model	Optimization K	Pd–Yb	[1] Kardellass 2020	Table 3, p. 5, row 47 report
-75.63 kJ/mol-atom	Pd21Yb10	298.15	DFT	Ab-initio	Pd–Yb	[1] Kardellass 2020	Table 3, p. 5, row 51 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 Pd21Yb10
Value	Unit	Printed	Reading	Method (class, basis)	Effective
-75	kJ/mol-atom	4	5.000e-5	4.2 (kems_vapour, calibrated)	4.2
-80.7767	kJ/mol-atom		5.000e-6	3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)	3.9
-71.4441	kJ/mol-atom		5.000e-6	3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)	3.9
-71.2839	kJ/mol-atom		5.000e-6	3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)	3.9
-65.0944	kJ/mol-atom		5.000e-6	3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)	3.9
-64.0132	kJ/mol-atom		5.000e-6	3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)	3.9
-75.63	kJ/mol-atom		5.000e-4	8.395 (dft, calibrated)	8.395

Sources

Said Kardellass, Colette Servant, Isabelle Drouelle, Fatima Zahra Chrifi-Alaoui, Mohamed Idbenali, Alyen Abahazem et al., Calphad-type assessment of the Pd-Yb binary system supported by first-principles calculations – Part II: Results, Materials Today: Proceedings 24, 140-150 (2020). doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2019.08.196

Please cite

R. Arróyave, J. Saal, D. Shin, ORCHID-Values: thermodynamic and phase-equilibrium values read from the literature (version 2026.10; Version 1, machine-extracted), Zenodo (2026). doi:10.5281/zenodo.23735569
R. Arróyave, J. Saal, D. Shin, ORCHID-Parity: DFT-vs-experiment formation-enthalpy benchmark (version 2026.10; Version 1, machine-extracted), Zenodo (2026). doi:10.5281/zenodo.23735943
R. Arróyave, J. Saal, D. Shin, ORCHID data: umbrella record of the ORCHID datasets (version 2026.10; Version 1, machine-extracted), Zenodo (2026). doi:10.5281/zenodo.23736065

Also cite the original source of every value you use (paper_citation / paper_doi, and cited_dois for values the paper cites from earlier work); A. Jain et al., The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation, APL Materials 1 (2013) 011002, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323 (CC BY 4.0); J. E. Saal et al., JOM 65 (2013) 1501, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-013-0755-4 and S. Kirklin et al., npj Comput. Mater. 1 (2015) 15010, https://doi.org/10.1038/npjcompumats.2015.10 (CC BY 4.0); G. Kim, S. V. Meschel, P. Nash, W. Chen, Experimental formation enthalpies for intermetallic phases and other inorganic compounds, Scientific Data 4 (2017) 170162, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.162; B. Hallstedt, The SGTE collection of binary datasets, Calphad 89 (2025) 102833, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.calphad.2025.102833 (CC BY 4.0), and the original assessment named in each file. Version 1, machine-extracted: values were read by language-model readers constrained to quote their source and checked automatically, and the release was then audited on the printed pages by adversarial audits, an independent second review of fit-facing records and a preliminary human review of a frozen sample. Flags such as accepted and ESPEI-ready record screening results, not certification; known issues are listed in the release notes.

@misc{orchid_literature_2026,
  author    = {Arr{\'o}yave, Raymundo and Saal, James and Shin, Dongwon},
  title     = {{ORCHID-Values: thermodynamic and phase-equilibrium values read from the literature}},
  version   = {2026.10},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  year      = {2026},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.23735569},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23735569},
  note      = {Version 1, machine-extracted}
}

@misc{orchid_dft_benchmark_2026,
  author    = {Arr{\'o}yave, Raymundo and Saal, James and Shin, Dongwon},
  title     = {{ORCHID-Parity: DFT-vs-experiment formation-enthalpy benchmark}},
  version   = {2026.10},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  year      = {2026},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.23735943},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23735943},
  note      = {Version 1, machine-extracted}
}

@misc{orchid_data_2026,
  author    = {Arr{\'o}yave, Raymundo and Saal, James and Shin, Dongwon},
  title     = {{ORCHID data: umbrella record of the ORCHID datasets}},
  version   = {2026.10},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  year      = {2026},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.23736065},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23736065},
  note      = {Version 1, machine-extracted}
}