Re2Si: enthalpy of formation
10 accepted literature formation-enthalpy value(s) (experimental 3, model 7); experimental median -20 kJ/mol-atom (n = 3); Materials Project 12.813 kJ/mol-atom (mp-aaabmclv); OQMD -21.934 kJ/mol-atom (oqmd-1800633).
Systems: Re–Si
Literature values
| Value | Phase as printed | T (K) | Class | Method | System | Source | Location | Quote |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -20 kJ/mol-atom | Re2Si | 298.15 | experimental | Elemental effusion | Re–Si | [1] Shao 2001 cites Searcy 1953 doi | Table 1, p. 3, row 1 report | |
| -20 kJ/mol-atom | Re2Si | 298.15 | experimental | Elemental effusion | Re–Si | [2] Yang 2010 cites Searcy 1962 | Table 2, p. 3, row 1 report | |
| -12.7 kJ/mol-atom ± 2.5 | Re2Si | 298.15 | experimental | Calorimetry | Re–Si | [2] Yang 2010 cites Meschel 1998 doi | Table 2, p. 3, row 4 report | |
| -27 kJ/mol-atom | Re2Si | model | Estimation | Re–Si | [1] Shao 2001 cites de Boer FR 1989 | Table 1, p. 3, row 3 report | ||
| -22.7 kJ/mol-atom | Re2Si | model | Assessment | Re–Si | [2] Yang 2010 cites Shao 2001 doi | Table 2, p. 3, row 5 report | ||
| -22.7 kJ/mol-atom | Re2Si | model | Assessment | Re–Si | [1] Shao 2001 | Table 1, p. 3, row 4 report | ||
| -22 kJ/mol-atom | Re2Si | model | Estimation | Re–Si | [2] Yang 2010 cites Boer 1989 | Table 2, p. 3, row 3 report | ||
| -19.7 kJ/mol-atom | Re2Si | model | Assessment | Re–Si | [1] Shao 2001 cites Chart 1973 | Table 1, p. 3, row 2 report | ||
| -19.7 kJ/mol-atom | Re2Si | model | Assessment | Re–Si | [2] Yang 2010 cites Chart 1973 | Table 2, p. 3, row 2 report | ||
| -19.367 kJ/mol-atom | Re2Si | model | This work | Re–Si | [2] Yang 2010 | Table 2, p. 3, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -20 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.5 | 4.2 (kems_vapour, calibrated) | 4.2 | ||||
| -20 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.5 | 4.2 (kems_vapour, calibrated) | 4.2 | ||||
| -12.7 | kJ/mol-atom | 2.5 | 0.05 | 3.2 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated) | 3.2 | |||
| -27 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.5 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -22.7 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -22.7 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -22 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.5 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -19.7 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -19.7 | kJ/mol-atom | 0.05 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 | ||||
| -19.367 | kJ/mol-atom | 5.000e-4 | 3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 3.9 |
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-aaabmclv | 12.813 | 0.1328 | P2_1/c | 31.9042 | 0.3307 | no |
| OQMD | oqmd-1800633 | -21.934 | -0.227333 | Pnma | 0 | 0 | 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
- G. Shao, Thermodynamic analysis of the Re–Si system, Intermetallics 9, 1063-1068 (2001). doi:10.1016/s0966-9795(01)00110-8
- Ying Yang, Shuanglin Chen, Y. Austin Chang, Thermodynamic modeling of the Re–Si–B system, Intermetallics 18, 51-56 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.intermet.2009.06.003