Ag–Cu–In system

24 accepted literature values from 1 paper(s) (experimental 17, model 7); 0 calculated phase diagram(s). 3 further extracted value(s) not accepted by the reader-agreement checks are only in the JSON/CSV.

Data: JSON · CSV · interactive explorer · papers (bibliography) · Markdown

Accepted values by evidence class
Evidence class	Values
experimental	17
model	7

Accepted values by property group
Property group	Values
invariant reaction	24

Invariant reactions (literature)

Invariant reactions reported in the literature for the Ag–Cu–In system (24)
T (K)	Reaction / phases	Compositions (mole fraction)	Class	Source	Location
880	L + α-(Cu) ↔ α-(Ag) + β	L: Ag 0.295, Cu 0.507, In 0.198; α-(Cu): Ag 0.068, Cu 0.905, In 0.027; α-(Ag): Ag 0.728, Cu 0.093, In 0.179; β: Ag 0.16, Cu 0.73, In 0.11	experimental	[1] Muzzillo 2018 cites Bahari 2009 doi	Table 4, p. 9, row 1 report
880	L + α-(Ag) + α-(Cu) ↔ β	L: Ag 0.346, Cu 0.451, In 0.204; α-(Ag): Ag 0.773, Cu 0.085, In 0.141; α-(Cu): Ag 0.007, Cu 0.968, In 0.025; β: Ag 0.162, Cu 0.731, In 0.107	model	[1] Muzzillo 2018	Table 4, p. 9, row 2 report
876.7	α-(Ag) + β ↔ L + ζ		experimental	[1] Muzzillo 2018 cites Bahari 2009 doi	Table 4, p. 9, row 3 report
873	L + α-(Ag) -> α-(Cu) + β-Ag3In	L: Ag 0.389, Cu 0.409, In 0.202; α-(Ag): Ag 0.759, Cu 0.146, In 0.095; α-(Cu): Ag 0.119, Cu 0.814, In 0.067; β-Ag3In: Ag 0.542, Cu 0.265, In 0.193	experimental	[1] Muzzillo 2018 cites Gebhardt 1952	Table 2, p. 4, row 1 report
848	L + α-(Cu) -> β-Ag3In + β-Cu4In	L: Ag 0.3, Cu 0.474, In 0.226; α-(Cu): Ag 0.122, Cu 0.758, In 0.12; β-Ag3In: Ag 0.368, Cu 0.408, In 0.224; β-Cu4In: Ag 0.225, Cu 0.579, In 0.196	experimental	[1] Muzzillo 2018 cites Gebhardt 1952	Table 2, p. 4, row 2 report
833	L + β-Ag3In -> β-Cu4In + ζ		experimental	[1] Muzzillo 2018 cites Gebhardt 1952	Table 2, p. 4, row 3 report
783.5	L ↔ α-(Ag) + β + γ-Cu9In4	L: Ag 0.264, Cu 0.467, In 0.269; α-(Ag): Ag 0.715, Cu 0.09, In 0.194; β: Ag 0.063, Cu 0.768, In 0.169; γ-Cu9In4: Ag 0.06, Cu 0.626, In 0.314	model	[1] Muzzillo 2018	Table 4, p. 9, row 5 report
783	L ↔ α-(Ag) + β + γ-Cu9In4	L: Ag 0.28, Cu 0.471, In 0.249; α-(Ag): Ag 0.74, Cu 0.089, In 0.171; β: Ag 0.037, Cu 0.798, In 0.165; γ-Cu9In4: Ag 0.066, Cu 0.637, In 0.297	experimental	[1] Muzzillo 2018 cites Bahari 2009 doi	Table 4, p. 9, row 4 report
768	α-(Ag) + γ-Cu9In4 ↔ β + δ		experimental	[1] Muzzillo 2018 cites Bahari 2009 doi	Table 4, p. 9, row 6 report
763	β-Cu4In -> α-(Cu) + β-Ag3In + δ	β-Cu4In: Ag 0.103, Cu 0.681, In 0.216; α-(Cu): Ag 0.011, Cu 0.924, In 0.065; β-Ag3In: Ag 0.45, Cu 0.335, In 0.215; δ: Ag 0.064, Cu 0.65, In 0.286	experimental	[1] Muzzillo 2018 cites Gebhardt 1952	Table 2, p. 4, row 4 report
762	α-(Ag) + β ↔ α-(Cu) + δ		experimental	[1] Muzzillo 2018 cites Bahari 2009 doi	Table 4, p. 9, row 7 report
762	β ↔ α-(Ag) + α-(Cu) + δ	β: Ag 0.06, Cu 0.78, In 0.16; α-(Ag): Ag 0.718, Cu 0.094, In 0.188; α-(Cu): Ag 0.002, Cu 0.924, In 0.074; δ: Ag 0.001, Cu 0.699, In 0.3	model	[1] Muzzillo 2018	Table 4, p. 9, row 8 report
758	β-Ag3In + γ-Cu9In4 -> α-(Ag) + δ		experimental	[1] Muzzillo 2018 cites Gebhardt 1952	Table 2, p. 4, row 5 report
757.6	L + α-(Ag) ↔ γ-Cu9In4 + ζ	L: Ag 0.335, Cu 0.301, In 0.364; α-(Ag): Ag 0.694, Cu 0.065, In 0.24; γ-Cu9In4: Ag 0.058, Cu 0.624, In 0.318; ζ: Ag 0.691, Cu 0.045, In 0.264	model	[1] Muzzillo 2018	Table 4, p. 9, row 10 report
757	L + α-(Ag) ↔ γ-Cu9In4 + ζ		experimental	[1] Muzzillo 2018 cites Bahari 2009 doi	Table 4, p. 9, row 9 report
755	α-(Ag) + γ-Cu9In4 ↔ δ + ζ		experimental	[1] Muzzillo 2018 cites Bahari 2009 doi	Table 4, p. 9, row 11 report
748	β-Ag3In -> α-(Ag) + α-(Cu) + δ	β-Ag3In: Ag 0.51, Cu 0.262, In 0.228; α-(Ag): Ag 0.748, Cu 0.067, In 0.185; α-(Cu): Ag 0.011, Cu 0.924, In 0.065; δ: Ag 0.065, Cu 0.594, In 0.341	experimental	[1] Muzzillo 2018 cites Gebhardt 1952	Table 2, p. 4, row 6 report
737	L + γ-Cu9In4 ↔ η-HT + ζ	L: Ag 0.331, Cu 0.267, In 0.403; γ-Cu9In4: Ag 0.057, Cu 0.622, In 0.321; η-HT: Ag 0.05, Cu 0.605, In 0.345; ζ: Ag 0.676, Cu 0.041, In 0.283	model	[1] Muzzillo 2018	Table 4, p. 9, row 13 report
737	L + γ-Cu9In4 ↔ η-HT + ζ		experimental	[1] Muzzillo 2018 cites Bahari 2009 doi	Table 4, p. 9, row 12 report
607	L + η-HT + ζ ↔ γ-Ag9In4		experimental	[1] Muzzillo 2018 cites Bahari 2009 doi	Table 4, p. 9, row 14 report
607	L + γ-Ag9In4 ↔ η-HT + ζ	L: Ag 0.243, Cu 0.133, In 0.624; γ-Ag9In4: Ag 0.649, Cu 0.036, In 0.315; η-HT: Ag 0.03, Cu 0.604, In 0.366; ζ: Ag 0.619, Cu 0.032, In 0.349	model	[1] Muzzillo 2018	Table 4, p. 9, row 15 report
589	L + η-HT ↔ γ-Ag9In4 + Cu11In9	L: Ag 0.22, Cu 0.115, In 0.665; η-HT: Ag 0.027, Cu 0.604, In 0.369; γ-Ag9In4: Ag 0.649, Cu 0.036, In 0.315; Cu11In9: Ag 0.053, Cu 0.497, In 0.45	model	[1] Muzzillo 2018	Table 4, p. 9, row 17 report
589	L + γ-Ag9In4 + η-HT ↔ Cu11In9		experimental	[1] Muzzillo 2018 cites Bahari 2009 doi	Table 4, p. 9, row 16 report
488	γ-Ag9In4 + η-HT ↔ η-LT + Cu11In9		experimental	[1] Muzzillo 2018 cites Bahari 2009 doi	Table 4, p. 9, row 18 report

Sources

Reporting papers the values were read from (a value cited from another work names that work in its row).

Christopher P. Muzzillo, Tim Anderson, Thermodynamic assessment of Ag–Cu–In, J Mater Sci 53, 6893-6910 (2018). doi:10.1007/s10853-018-1999-8

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 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); 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; 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). 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_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}
}