Ru2Si3: enthalpy of formation

12 accepted literature formation-enthalpy value(s) (experimental 5, model 6, unspecified 1); experimental median -50.3 kJ/mol-atom (n = 5); Materials Project -61.195 kJ/mol-atom (mp-aaaabgvo); OQMD -60.271 kJ/mol-atom (oqmd-2149).

Systems: Ru–Si

Literature values

Enthalpy of formation of Ru2Si3 reported in the literature (12)
Value	Phase as printed	T (K)	Class	Method	System	Source	Location
-60.7 kJ/mol-atom ± 1.7	Ru2Si3	298.15	experimental	High temperature calorimetry	Ru–Si	[1] Long 2009 cites Perring 1998 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 12 report
-60.7 kJ/mol-atom ± 1.7	Ru2Si3	298.15	experimental	High temperature direct synthesis calorimetry	Ru–Si	[2] Liu 2001 cites Meschel 1998 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 13 report
-50.3 kJ/mol-atom ± 1	Ru2Si3	1704	experimental	High temperature calorimetry	Ru–Si	[2] Liu 2001 cites Perring 1997 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 14 report
-50.3 kJ/mol-atom ± 1	Ru2Si3	1704	experimental	High temperature calorimetry	Ru–Si	[1] Long 2009 cites Perring 1997 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 11 report
-49.2 kJ/mol-atom	Ru2Si3	298.15	experimental		Ru–Si	[2] Liu 2001 cites Kuntz 1997 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 15 report
-53.053 kJ/mol-atom	Ru2Si3	298.15	model	Assessment	Ru–Si	[1] Long 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 15 report
-49.06 kJ/mol-atom	Ru2Si3		model	Assessment	Ru–Si	[2] Liu 2001	Table 1, p. 2, row 19 report
-49.06 kJ/mol-atom	Ru2Si3	298.15	model	Assessment	Ru–Si	[1] Long 2009 cites Liu 2001 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 14 report
-47.723 kJ/mol-atom	Ru2Si3	298.15	model	Assessment	Ru–Si	[1] Long 2009 cites Du 2001	Table 1, p. 2, row 13 report
-26.8 kJ/mol-atom	Ru2Si3		model	Estimation	Ru–Si	[2] Liu 2001 cites Petersson 1982 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 18 report
-26 kJ/mol-atom	Ru2Si3		model	Prediction	Ru–Si	[2] Liu 2001 cites F 1988	Table 1, p. 2, row 17 report
-26.8 kJ/mol-atom	Ru2Si3		unspecified		Ru–Si	[2] Liu 2001 cites Mann 1995	Table 1, p. 2, row 16 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 Ru2Si3
Value	Unit	Printed	Reading	Method (class, basis)	Effective
-60.7	kJ/mol-atom	1.7	0.05	3.2 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated)	3.2
-60.7	kJ/mol-atom	1.7	0.05	3.2 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated)	3.2
-50.3	kJ/mol-atom	1	0.05	3.2 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated)	3.2
-50.3	kJ/mol-atom	1	0.05	3.2 (solution_reaction_calorimetry, calibrated)	3.2
-49.2	kJ/mol-atom		0.05	3.5 (unknown, calibrated)	3.5
-53.053	kJ/mol-atom		5.000e-4	3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)	3.9
-49.06	kJ/mol-atom		0.005	3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)	3.9
-49.06	kJ/mol-atom		0.005	3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)	3.9
-47.723	kJ/mol-atom		5.000e-4	3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)	3.9
-26.8	kJ/mol-atom		0.05	3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)	3.9
-26	kJ/mol-atom		0.5	3.9 (model_calculated, calibrated)	3.9
-26.8	kJ/mol-atom		0.05	3.5 (unknown, calibrated)	3.5

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 Ru2Si3
Source	Entry	kJ/mol-atom	eV/atom	Space group	E above hull (kJ/mol-atom)	E above hull (eV/atom)	Theoretical
Materials Project	mp-aaaabgvo	-61.195	-0.634248	Pbcn	0	0	no
OQMD	oqmd-2149	-60.271	-0.624669	Pbcn	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

Z.H. Long, H.S. Liu, Z.P. Jin, Thermodynamic description of Ru–Ge–Si ternary system, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 479, 262-267 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2009.01.079
Y.Q. Liu, G. Shao, K.P. Homewood, Thermodynamic assessment of the Ru–Si and Os–Si systems, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 320, 72-79 (2001). doi:10.1016/s0925-8388(01)00931-8

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}
}