B–Fe system

208 accepted literature values from 4 paper(s) (experimental 69, model 117, unspecified 22); 0 calculated phase diagram(s). 12 further extracted value(s) not accepted by the reader-agreement checks are only in the JSON/CSV.

Data: JSON · CSV · interactive explorer · phases (11) · papers (bibliography) · Markdown

Accepted values by evidence class
Evidence class	Values
experimental	69
model	117
unspecified	22

Accepted values by property group
Property group	Values
invariant reaction	175
phase transition	15
mixing / partial	18

Convex hulls: Materials Project DFT hull · OQMD DFT hull · CALPHAD hull FeB-01Pal · CALPHAD hull FeB-02Rom · CALPHAD hull FeB-08Yos · CALPHAD hull FeB-19Wit · CALPHAD hull FeB-91Pan · CALPHAD hull FeB-94Hal-LB

Invariant reactions (literature)

Invariant reactions reported in the literature for the B–Fe system (175)
T (K)	Reaction / phases	Compositions (mole fraction)	Class	Source	Location
1930	congruent melting: L <-> B27		unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Chart 1981	Table 3, p. 14, row 1 report
1924	congruent melting: L <-> B27	L: B 0.5; B27: B 0.5	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Van 2013 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 10 report
1923	congruent melting: L <-> B27		experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Massalski 1990	Table 3, p. 14, row 3 report
1923	congruent melting: L <-> B27	L: B 0.5; B27: B 0.5	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Zaitsev 2003 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 7 report
1923	congruent melting: L <-> B27		experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Portnoi 1969 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 5 report
1906	congruent melting: L <-> B27	L: B 0.5; B27: B 0.5	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Hallemans 1994	Table 3, p. 14, row 9 report
1900	congruent melting: L <-> B27		unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Witusiewicz 1989	Table 3, p. 14, row 8 report
1880	congruent melting: L <-> B27	L: B 0.5; B27: B 0.5	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 14, row 12 report
1876	congruent melting: L <-> B27	L: B 0.5; B27: B 0.5	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites T 2002	Table 3, p. 14, row 11 report
1863	congruent melting: L <-> B27		unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 3, p. 14, row 2 report
1863	congruent melting: L <-> B27		experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Sidorenko 1977	Table 3, p. 14, row 6 report
1813	congruent melting: L <-> B27		experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Voroshnin 1970 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 4 report
1782	eutectic: L⇄FeB+βB	L: Fe 0.367; βB: Fe 0	model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Hallemans 1994 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 15 report
1782	eutectic: L <-> B27+ βB	L: B 0.633; B27: B 0.5; βB: B 1	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Hallemans 1994	Table 3, p. 14, row 20 report
1773	eutectic: L⇄FeB+βB	L: Fe 0.36	model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Massalski 1990	Table 5, p. 6, row 14 report
1773	eutectic: L <-> B27+ βB	L: B 0.64	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Portnoi 1969 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 17 report
1773	eutectic: L⇄FeB+βB	L: Fe 0.36	experimental	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Portnoi 1969 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 17 report
1773	eutectic: L <-> B27+ βB	L: B 0.64; B27: B 0.506; βB: B 0.985	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 14, row 23 report
1773	eutectic: L <-> B27+ βB	L: B 0.64	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Massalski 1990	Table 3, p. 14, row 15 report
1773	eutectic: L <-> B27+ βB	L: B 0.632; B27: B 0.5; βB: B 1	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites T 2002	Table 3, p. 14, row 21 report
1773	eutectic: L⇄FeB+βB	L: Fe 0.368; FeB: Fe 0.5; βB: Fe 0	model	[2] Rompaey 2002	Table 5, p. 6, row 10 report
1772	eutectic: L <-> B27+ βB	L: B 0.625; B27: B 0.5; βB: B 1	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Poletti 2013 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 22 report
1772	eutectic: L⇄FeB+βB	L: Fe 0.374; FeB: Fe 0.5; βB: Fe 0	model	[2] Rompaey 2002	Table 5, p. 6, row 11 report
1770	eutectic: L⇄FeB+βB		model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Chart 1981	Table 5, p. 6, row 12 report
1770	eutectic: L <-> B27+ βB	L: B 0.64	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 3, p. 14, row 14 report
1770	eutectic: L⇄FeB+βB	L: Fe 0.36	model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 5, p. 6, row 13 report
1770	eutectic: L <-> B27+ βB		unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Chart 1981	Table 3, p. 14, row 13 report
1767	eutectic: liquid -> FeB + β	L: B 0.629; FeB: B 0.5; β: B 1	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	Table I, p. 8, row 3 report
1767	eutectic: liquid -> FeB + β	L: B 0.63; FeB: B 0.5; β: B 1	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	Table I, p. 8, row 1 report
1766	eutectic: L <-> B27+ βB	L: B 0.632	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Zaitsev 2003 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 18 report
1753	eutectic: L <-> B27+ βB	L: B 0.635	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Van 2013 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 19 report
1701	eutectic: L⇄FeB+βB		experimental	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Voroshnin 1970 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 16 report
1701	eutectic: L <-> B27+ βB		experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Voroshnin 1970 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 16 report
1683	liquid + FeB -> Fe2B	liquid: B 0.33; FeB: B 0.5; Fe2B: B 0.333333	experimental	[3] Palumbo 2001 cites ref. 69Por	Table I, p. 8, row 13 report
1683	peritectic: L + B27 <-> Fe2B	L: B 0.333; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Portnoi 1969 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 27 report
1683	peritectic: L+FeB⇄Fe2B		experimental	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Portnoi 1969 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 25 report
1681	peritectic: L + B27 <-> Fe2B	L: B 0.326; B27: B 0.5; Fe2B: B 0.333	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Hallemans 1994	Table 3, p. 14, row 30 report
1681	peritectic: L+FeB⇄Fe2B	L: Fe 0.674	model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Hallemans 1994 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 23 report
1680	peritectic: L + B27 <-> Fe2B	Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Chart 1981	Table 3, p. 14, row 24 report
1680	peritectic: L+FeB⇄Fe2B		model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Chart 1981	Table 5, p. 6, row 20 report
1680	peritectic: L+FeB⇄Fe2B	L: Fe 0.675	model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 5, p. 6, row 21 report
1680	peritectic: L + B27 <-> Fe2B	L: B 0.325; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 3, p. 14, row 25 report
1672	peritectic: L + B27 <-> Fe2B	L: B 0.318; B27: B 0.5; Fe2B: B 0.333	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites T 2002	Table 3, p. 14, row 31 report
1672	peritectic: L+FeB⇄Fe2B	L: Fe 0.682; FeB: Fe 0.5; Fe2B: Fe 0.667	model	[2] Rompaey 2002	Table 5, p. 6, row 18 report
1671	liquid + FeB -> Fe2B	liquid: B 0.337; FeB: B 0.5; Fe2B: B 0.333	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	Table I, p. 8, row 12 report
1671	liquid + FeB -> Fe2B	liquid: B 0.335; FeB: B 0.5; Fe2B: B 0.333	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	Table I, p. 8, row 10 report
1669	peritectic: L + A2 <-> A1	L: B 0.084; A2: B 4.500e-5; A1: B 1.000e-4	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites T 2002	Table 3, p. 14, row 41 report
1669	peritectic: δFe+L⇄γFe	δFe: Fe 0.999955; L: Fe 0.9163; γFe: Fe 0.999899	model	[2] Rompaey 2002	Table 5, p. 6, row 26 report
1669	peritectic: L + A2 <-> A1	L: B 0.073; A2: B 4.500e-5; A1: B 1.000e-4	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 14, row 42 report
1669	liquid + FeB -> Fe2B	liquid: B 0.343; FeB: B 0.5; Fe2B: B 0.333	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	Table I, p. 8, row 11 report
1667.9	peritectic: δFe+L⇄γFe	δFe: Fe 0.999911; L: Fe 0.9133; γFe: Fe 0.999898	model	[2] Rompaey 2002	Table 5, p. 6, row 27 report
1667	metatectic/catatectic: A2 <-> L + A1	L: B 0.068	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Zaitsev 2003 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 36 report
1667	metatectic/catatectic: A2 <-> L + A1	A2: B 1.230e-4; L: B 0.081; A1: B 1.060e-4	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Hallemans 1994	Table 3, p. 14, row 35 report
1666.9	peritectic: δFe+L⇄γFe	δFe: Fe 0.999877; L: Fe 0.919; γFe: Fe 0.999894	model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Hallemans 1994 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 30 report
1666	metatectic/catatectic: A2 <-> L + A1	A2: B 1.140e-4	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Van 2013 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 37 report
1663	peritectic: L + B27 <-> Fe2B	L: B 0.321; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Zaitsev 2003 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 29 report
1662	peritectic: L + A2 <-> A1	L: B 0.072	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Massalski 1990	Table 3, p. 14, row 39 report
1662	δ -> γ + liquid	δ: B 3.170e-4; γ: B 1.110e-4; liquid: B 0.095	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	Table I, p. 8, row 15 report
1662	δ -> γ + liquid	δ: B 2.580e-4; γ: B 7.570e-5; liquid: B 0.094	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	Table I, p. 8, row 17 report
1662	peritectic: L+FeB⇄Fe2B	L: Fe 0.675	model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Massalski 1990	Table 5, p. 6, row 22 report
1662	peritectic: L + B27 <-> Fe2B	L: B 0.325; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Massalski 1990	Table 3, p. 14, row 26 report
1662	peritectic: L+FeB⇄Fe2B		experimental	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Voroshnin 1970 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 24 report
1662	peritectic: δFe+L⇄γFe	γFe: Fe 0.928	model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Massalski 1990	Table 5, p. 6, row 29 report
1662	liquid + FeB -> Fe2B	liquid: B 0.325; FeB: B 0.5; Fe2B: B 0.333333	experimental	[3] Palumbo 2001 cites ref. 70Vor	Table I, p. 8, row 14 report
1662	δ -> γ + liquid	δ: B 3.160e-4; γ: B 1.090e-4; liquid: B 0.095	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	Table I, p. 8, row 16 report
1658	peritectic: L + B27 <-> Fe2B	L: B 0.337; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Van 2013 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 28 report
1658	congruent melting: L <-> Fe2B	L: B 0.333; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Van 2013 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 43 report
1658	peritectic: L+FeB⇄Fe2B	L: Fe 0.684; FeB: Fe 0.5; Fe2B: Fe 0.667	model	[2] Rompaey 2002	Table 5, p. 6, row 19 report
1658	congruent melting: L -> Fe2B	L: B 0.333; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Van 2013 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 11 report
1657	peritectic: L + B27 <-> Fe2B	L: B 0.323; B27: B 0.488; Fe2B: B 0.333	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 14, row 34 report
1656	peritectic: L + B27 <-> Fe2B	L: B 0.333; B27: B 0.5; Fe2B: B 0.3333	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Poletti 2013 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 32 report
1654	peritectic: L + A2 <-> A1	L: B 0.072	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 3, p. 14, row 38 report
1654	peritectic: δFe+L⇄γFe		experimental	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Voroshnin 1970 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 31 report
1654	peritectic: δFe+L⇄γFe	γFe: Fe 0.928	model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 5, p. 6, row 28 report
1654	peritectic: L + A2 <-> A1		experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Voroshnin 1970 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 40 report
1654	δ -> γ + liquid		experimental	[3] Palumbo 2001 cites ref. 69Por	Table I, p. 8, row 18 report
1653	peritectic: L + B27 <-> Fe2B	Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 14, row 33 report
1493	eutectic: L -> tp-Fe3B + Fe2B	L: B 0.267; tp-Fe3B: B 0.25; Fe2B: B 0.48	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 28 report
1492	congruent melting: L -> tp-Fe3B	L: B 0.25; tp-Fe3B: B 0.25	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 23 report
1485	polymorphic: B27 <-> B33, Fe2B, βB	B33: B 0.503; Fe2B: B 0.333; βB: B 0.996	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 14, row 47 report
1484	polymorphic: B27 <-> B33, Fe2B, βB	Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 14, row 46 report
1473	eutectic: L <-> A1+ Fe2B	Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Portnoi 1969 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 51 report
1473	eutectic: liquid -> γ + Fe2B	liquid: B 0.174; Fe2B: B 0.333333	experimental	[3] Palumbo 2001 cites ref. 69Por	Table I, p. 8, row 22 report
1473	eutectic: L⇄γFe+Fe2B		experimental	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Portnoi 1969 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 39 report
1468	eutectic: L⇄γFe+Fe2B	L: Fe 0.836; γFe: Fe 0.99979; Fe2B: Fe 0.667	model	[2] Rompaey 2002	Table 5, p. 6, row 32 report
1468	eutectic: L <-> A1+ Fe2B	L: B 0.164; A1: B 2.100e-4; Fe2B: B 0.333	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites T 2002	Table 3, p. 14, row 56 report
1468	eutectic: liquid -> γ + Fe2B	liquid: B 0.168; γ: B 2.070e-4; Fe2B: B 0.333	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	Table I, p. 8, row 19 report
1467	eutectic: L⇄γFe+Fe2B	L: Fe 0.833; γFe: Fe 0.999809; Fe2B: Fe 0.667	model	[2] Rompaey 2002	Table 5, p. 6, row 33 report
1452	eutectic: liquid -> γ + Fe2B	liquid: B 0.169; γ: B 1.570e-4; Fe2B: B 0.333	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	Table I, p. 8, row 21 report
1451	eutectic: liquid -> γ + Fe2B	liquid: B 0.171; γ: B 1.980e-4; Fe2B: B 0.333	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	Table I, p. 8, row 20 report
1450	eutectic: L <-> A1+ Fe2B	L: B 0.17; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 3, p. 14, row 49 report
1450	eutectic: L⇄γFe+Fe2B	L: Fe 0.83	model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 5, p. 6, row 35 report
1450	eutectic: L⇄γFe+Fe2B		model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Chart 1981	Table 5, p. 6, row 34 report
1450	eutectic: L <-> A1+ Fe2B	Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Chart 1981	Table 3, p. 14, row 48 report
1448	eutectic: L <-> A1+ Fe2B	L: B 0.155; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Zaitsev 2003 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 53 report
1447	eutectic: L⇄γFe+Fe2B	L: Fe 0.83	model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Massalski 1990	Table 5, p. 6, row 36 report
1447	eutectic: liquid -> γ + Fe2B	liquid: B 0.17; Fe2B: B 0.333333	experimental	[3] Palumbo 2001 cites ref. 70Vor	Table I, p. 8, row 23 report
1447	eutectic: L⇄γFe+Fe2B	L: Fe 0.831	experimental	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Voroshnin 1970 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 38 report
1447	eutectic: L <-> A1+ Fe2B	L: B 0.17; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Massalski 1990	Table 3, p. 14, row 50 report
1446	eutectic: L <-> A1+ Fe2B	L: B 0.164; A1: B 1.870e-4; Fe2B: B 0.333	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Hallemans 1994	Table 3, p. 14, row 55 report
1446	eutectic: L⇄γFe+Fe2B	L: Fe 0.836; γFe: Fe 0.999813	model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Hallemans 1994 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 37 report
1445	eutectic: L <-> A1+ Fe2B	L: B 0.165; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Van 2013 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 57 report
1439	eutectic: L <-> A1+ Fe2B	L: B 0.176; Fe2B: B 0.333	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Poletti 2013 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 58 report
1437	eutectic: liquid -> γ + Fe2B	liquid: B 0.17; Fe2B: B 0.333333	experimental	[3] Palumbo 2001 cites ref. 97Bat	Table I, p. 8, row 24 report
1437	eutectic: L <-> A1+ Fe2B	L: B 0.17; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Battezzati 1997 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 52 report
1436	eutectic: L <-> A1+ Fe2B	Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 14, row 54 report
1436	eutectic: L <-> A1+ Fe2B	L: B 0.17; A1: B 2.200e-4; Fe2B: B 0.333	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 14, row 59 report
1433	peritectic: L + B27 -> tp-Fe3B	B27: B 0.5; tp-Fe3B: B 0.25	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Battezzati 1997 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 24 report
1428	peritectic: L + B27 -> tp-Fe3B	L: B 0.245; B27: B 0.5; tp-Fe3B: B 0.25	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Zhou 2016 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 25 report
1426	congruent melting: L -> tp-Fe3B	L: B 0.25; tp-Fe3B: B 0.25	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Palumbo 2001 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 22 report
1420	eutectic: L -> tp-Fe3B + Fe2B	tp-Fe3B: B 0.25; Fe2B: B 0.5	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Poletti 2013 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 27 report
1419	eutectic: L -> tp-Fe3B + Fe2B	L: B 0.268; tp-Fe3B: B 0.25; Fe2B: B 0.5	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Palumbo 2001 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 26 report
1408	polymorphic: B27 <-> B33, Fe2B, βB	Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Lyakishev 1996	Table 3, p. 14, row 44 report
1393	eutectic: L -> A1 + tp-Fe3B	L: B 0.188; tp-Fe3B: B 0.25	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Poletti 2013 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 31 report
1388	eutectic: L -> A1 + tp-Fe3B	L: B 0.179; tp-Fe3B: B 0.25	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Zhou 2016 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 32 report
1387	eutectic: L -> A1 + tp-Fe3B	L: B 0.18; tp-Fe3B: B 0.25	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Battezzati 1997 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 29 report
1387	eutectic: liquid -> γ + Fe3B	Fe3B: B 0.25	experimental	[3] Palumbo 2001 cites ref. 97Bat	Table I, p. 8, row 31 report
1386	eutectic: liquid -> γ + Fe3B	liquid: B 0.183; γ: B 1.840e-4; Fe3B: B 0.25	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	Table I, p. 8, row 30 report
1386	eutectic: L -> A1 + tp-Fe3B	L: B 0.186; A1: B 2.400e-4; tp-Fe3B: B 0.25	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 34 report
1386	eutectic: liquid -> γ + Fe3B	liquid: B 0.186; γ: B 2.190e-4; Fe3B: B 0.25	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	Table I, p. 8, row 29 report
1386	eutectic: L -> A1 + tp-Fe3B	L: B 0.186; tp-Fe3B: B 0.25	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Palumbo 2001 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 30 report
1370	eutectic: L -> A1 + tp-Fe3B	tp-Fe3B: B 0.25, Fe 0.75	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 33 report
1323	polymorphic: B27 <-> B33, Fe2B, βB	Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Rades 2011 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 45 report
1234	other: tp-Fe3B -> bct-Fe3B, A1, B33	tp-Fe3B: B 0.25, Fe 0.75; bct-Fe3B: B 0.25, Fe 0.75	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 35 report
1233	other: tp-Fe3B -> bct-Fe3B, A1, B33	tp-Fe3B: B 0.25; bct-Fe3B: B 0.25; A1: B 2.100e-4; B33: B 0.476	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 36 report
1192	eutectoid: A1 -> A2 + bct-Fe3B	bct-Fe3B: B 0.25, Fe 0.75	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 37 report
1188	eutectoid: γFe⇄αFe+Fe2B		experimental	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Voroshnin 1970 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 45 report
1188	eutectoid: A1 <-> A2 + Fe2B	Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Voroshnin 1970 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 62 report
1186	eutectoid: A1 <-> A2 + Fe2B	Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 3, p. 14, row 60 report
1186	eutectoid: γFe⇄αFe+Fe2B		model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 5, p. 6, row 42 report
1185	eutectoid: A1 <-> A2 + Fe2B	A1: B 6.000e-5; A2: B 4.300e-5; Fe2B: B 0.333	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites T 2002	Table 3, p. 14, row 66 report
1185	γ -> α + Fe2B	γ: B 5.910e-5; α: B 4.300e-5; Fe2B: B 0.333	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	Table I, p. 8, row 27 report
1185	eutectoid: A1 <-> A2 + Fe2B	A1: B 5.800e-5; A2: B 4.500e-5; Fe2B: B 0.333	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Hallemans 1994	Table 3, p. 14, row 65 report
1185	eutectoid: A1 <-> A2 + Fe2B	A1: B 5.900e-5; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Van 2013 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 67 report
1184.6	eutectoid: γFe⇄αFe+Fe2B	γFe: Fe 0.999942; αFe: Fe 0.999955	model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Hallemans 1994 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 44 report
1184.6	eutectoid: γFe⇄αFe+Fe2B	γFe: Fe 0.999941; αFe: Fe 0.999956; Fe2B: Fe 0.667	model	[2] Rompaey 2002	Table 5, p. 6, row 41 report
1184.6	eutectoid: γFe⇄αFe+Fe2B	γFe: Fe 0.999941; αFe: Fe 0.999957; Fe2B: Fe 0.667	model	[2] Rompaey 2002	Table 5, p. 6, row 40 report
1184	eutectoid: A1 <-> A2 + Fe2B	A1: B 7.600e-5; A2: B 6.000e-6; Fe2B: B 0.333	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 14, row 68 report
1184	eutectoid: γFe⇄αFe+Fe2B		model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Massalski 1990	Table 5, p. 6, row 43 report
1184	eutectoid: A1 <-> A2 + Fe2B	Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Massalski 1990	Table 3, p. 14, row 61 report
1183	eutectoid: γFe⇄αFe+Fe2B	γFe: Fe 0.99994; αFe: Fe 0.999958	experimental	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Cameron 1986 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 46 report
1183	eutectoid: A1 <-> A2 + Fe2B	A1: B 6.000e-5; A2: B 4.300e-5; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Cameron 1986 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 63 report
1183	eutectoid: A1 -> A2 + bct-Fe3B	A1: B 1.600e-4; A2: B 1.100e-5; bct-Fe3B: B 0.25	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 38 report
1182	eutectoid: A1 <-> A2 + Fe2B	Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 14, row 64 report
1181	γ -> α + Fe2B	γ: B 5.900e-5; α: B 4.300e-5; Fe2B: B 0.333333	experimental	[3] Palumbo 2001 cites ref. 86Cam	Table I, p. 8, row 28 report
1044	magnetic: A2 <-> A2f, Fe2B	A2: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Arajs 1964 doi	Table 3, p. 14, row 69 report
1043	magnetic: A2 <-> A2f, Fe2B	A2: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Velasco 2007	Table 3, p. 14, row 70 report
1043	magnetic: A2 -> A2f, Fe2B	A2: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites T 2002	Table 3, p. 15, row 1 report
1043	magnetic: A2 -> A2f, bct-Fe3B	A2: B 0.25, Fe 0.75; bct-Fe3B: B 0.25, Fe 0.75	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 39 report
1043	magnetic: A2 -> A2f, bct-Fe3B	A2: B 2.000e-6; bct-Fe3B: B 0.25	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 40 report
1043	magnetic: A2 -> A2f, Fe2B	A2: B 1.000e-6; Fe2B: B 0.3333	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 4 report
1043	magnetic: A2 -> A2f, Fe2B	A2: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 3 report
1042	magnetic: A2 -> A2f, Fe2B	A2: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667; Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 3, p. 15, row 2 report
1018	magnetic: Fe2B -> Fe2Bf, A2f, B33	Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites T 2002	Table 3, p. 15, row 8 report
1015	magnetic: Fe2B -> Fe2Bf, A2f, B33	Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Chien 1979 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 7 report
1015	magnetic: Fe2B -> Fe2Bf, A2f, B33	Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Murphy 1973 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 6 report
1015	magnetic: Fe2B -> Fe2Bf, A2f, B33	Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 9 report
1015	magnetic: Fe2B -> Fe2Bf, A2f, B33	Fe2B: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Cadeville 1965	Table 3, p. 15, row 5 report
1015	magnetic: Fe2B -> Fe2Bf, A2f, B33	Fe2B: B 0.333; A2f: B 1.000e-6; B33: B 0.498	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 10 report
897	magnetic: bct-Fe3B -> bct-Fe3Bf, A2f, B33	bct-Fe3B: B 0.25, Fe 0.75	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Kong 1997 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 41 report
800	magnetic: bct-Fe3B -> bct-Fe3Bf, A2f, B33	bct-Fe3B: B 0.25, Fe 0.75	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Chien 1979 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 42 report
793	magnetic: bct-Fe3B -> bct-Fe3Bf, A2f, B33	bct-Fe3B: B 0.25, Fe 0.75	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Menushenkov 2012	Table 3, p. 15, row 44 report
789	magnetic: bct-Fe3B -> bct-Fe3Bf, A2f, B33	bct-Fe3B: B 0.25; A2f: B 0; B33: B 0.495	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 46 report
789	magnetic: bct-Fe3B -> bct-Fe3Bf, A2f, B33	bct-Fe3B: B 0.25, Fe 0.75	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 45 report
786	magnetic: bct-Fe3B -> bct-Fe3Bf, A2f, B33	bct-Fe3B: B 0.25, Fe 0.75	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Coehoorn 1989 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 43 report
600	magnetic: B33 -> B33f, Fe2Bf, βB	Fe2Bf: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites T 2002	Table 3, p. 15, row 19 report
597.5	magnetic: B33 -> B33f, Fe2Bf, βB	Fe2Bf: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Jeffries 1969 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 12 report
594	magnetic: B33 -> B33f, Fe2Bf, βB	Fe2Bf: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Lundquist 1962 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 14 report
593	magnetic: B33 -> B33f, Fe2Bf, βB	Fe2Bf: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Cadeville 1965	Table 3, p. 15, row 13 report
590	magnetic: B33 -> B33f, Fe2Bf, βB	Fe2Bf: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites DeYoung 1975 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 15 report
580	magnetic: B33 -> B33f, Fe2Bf, βB	B33: B 0.5; Fe2Bf: B 0.333; βB: B 1	model	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 21 report
580	magnetic: B33 -> B33f, Fe2Bf, βB	Fe2Bf: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019	Table 3, p. 15, row 20 report
580	magnetic: B33 -> B33f, Fe2Bf, βB	Fe2Bf: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Barinov 1991 doi	Table 3, p. 15, row 16 report
578	magnetic: B33 -> B33f, Fe2Bf, βB	Fe2Bf: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	unspecified	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Fries 2017	Table 3, p. 15, row 17 report
575	magnetic: B33 -> B33f, Fe2Bf, βB	Fe2Bf: B 0.333333, Fe 0.666667	experimental	[1] Witusiewicz 2019 cites Fries 2017	Table 3, p. 15, row 18 report

Other properties

Phase transition (15)

Phase transition, B–Fe system
Property	Value	T (K)	Phases / composition	Class	Source	Location	Quote
Phase transition	1424 K	1424	congruent transformation	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	p. 4 report	A congruent melting of metastable FesB has been calculated at 1424 K, very close to a eutectic reaction of liquid with 25.7% at B which transform into Fe3B and FeB.
Phase transition	1813 K	1813	congruent melting: L⇄FeB	experimental	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Voroshnin 1970 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 7 report
Phase transition	1863 K	1863	congruent melting: L⇄FeB	experimental	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Sidorenko 1977	Table 5, p. 6, row 9 report
Phase transition	1863 K	1863	congruent melting: L⇄FeB	model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 5, p. 6, row 4 report
Phase transition	1863 K	1863	liquid -> FeB liquid: B 0.5; FeB: B 0.5	experimental	[3] Palumbo 2001 cites ref. 77Sid	Table I, p. 8, row 9 report
Phase transition	1866 K	1866	congruent melting: L⇄FeB L: Fe 0.5; FeB: Fe 0.5	model	[2] Rompaey 2002	Table 5, p. 6, row 2 report
Phase transition	1876 K	1876	congruent melting: L⇄FeB L: Fe 0.5; FeB: Fe 0.5	model	[2] Rompaey 2002	Table 5, p. 6, row 1 report
Phase transition	1882 K	1882	liquid -> FeB liquid: B 0.5; FeB: B 0.5	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	Table I, p. 8, row 7 report
Phase transition	1894 K	1894	liquid -> FeB liquid: B 0.5; FeB: B 0.5	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	Table I, p. 8, row 5 report
Phase transition	1896 K	1896	liquid -> FeB liquid: B 0.5; FeB: B 0.5	model	[3] Palumbo 2001	Table I, p. 8, row 6 report
Phase transition	1906 K	1906	congruent melting: L⇄FeB	model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Hallemans 1994 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 6 report
Phase transition	1923 K	1923	congruent melting: L⇄FeB	model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Massalski 1990	Table 5, p. 6, row 5 report
Phase transition	1923 K	1923	congruent melting: L⇄FeB	experimental	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Portnoi 1969 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 8 report
Phase transition	1923 K	1923	liquid -> FeB liquid: B 0.5; FeB: B 0.5	experimental	[3] Palumbo 2001 cites ref. 69Por	Table I, p. 8, row 8 report
Phase transition	1930 K	1930	congruent melting: L⇄FeB	model	[2] Rompaey 2002 cites Chart 1981	Table 5, p. 6, row 3 report

Mixing / partial (18)

Mixing / partial, B–Fe system
Property	Value	T (K)	Phases / composition	Class	Source	Location
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-6.656 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.992, Fe 0.008	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 16 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-11.271 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.994, Fe 0.006	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 11 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-6.181 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.999, Fe 0.001	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 2 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-13.258 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.995, Fe 0.005	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 10 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-12.579 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.997, Fe 0.003	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 6 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-10.042 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.993, Fe 0.007	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 13 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-9.753 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.993, Fe 0.007	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 14 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-5.81 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.999, Fe 0.001	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 1 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-13.465 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.996, Fe 0.004	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 8 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-12.786 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.996, Fe 0.004	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 7 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-11.954 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.994, Fe 0.006	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 12 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-11.872 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.997, Fe 0.003	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 5 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-2.932 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.991, Fe 0.009	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 17 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-7.277 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.992, Fe 0.008	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 15 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-9.7782 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.998, Fe 0.002	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 3 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-12.544 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.995, Fe 0.005	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 9 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-10.125 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.998, Fe 0.002	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 4 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔmixH	-3.751 kJ/mol-atom	1173	liquid alloy: B 0.991, Fe 0.009	model	[4] Zhou 2016	Table II, p. 5, row 18 report

Sources

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

V.T. Witusiewicz, A.A. Bondar, U. Hecht, A. Theofilatos, N.I. Tsyganenko, S.V. Utkin et al., Experimental study and thermodynamic re-modelling of the constituent binaries and ternary B–Fe–Ti system, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 800, 419-449 (2019). doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2019.05.341
T Van Rompaey, K.C Hari Kumar, P Wollants, Thermodynamic optimization of the B–Fe system, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 334, 173-181 (2002). doi:10.1016/s0925-8388(01)01777-7
M. Palumbo, G. Cacciamani, E. Bosco, M. Baricco, Thermodynamic analysis of glass formation in Fe-B system, Calphad 25, 625-637 (2001). doi:10.1016/s0364-5916(02)00012-3
G. J. Zhou, Y. Luo, Y. Zhou, Thermodynamic Reassessment of the Nd-Fe-B Ternary System, Journal of Elec Materi 45, 418-425 (2016). doi:10.1007/s11664-015-4112-y

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-Hulls: binary convex hulls (Materials Project, OQMD, assessed CALPHAD) (version 2026.10), Zenodo (2026). doi:10.5281/zenodo.23735891
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); 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_hulls_2026,
  author    = {Arr{\'o}yave, Raymundo and Saal, James and Shin, Dongwon},
  title     = {{ORCHID-Hulls: binary convex hulls (Materials Project, OQMD, assessed CALPHAD)}},
  version   = {2026.10},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  year      = {2026},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.23735891},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23735891}
}

@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}
}