Cu–Fe system

99 accepted literature values from 2 paper(s) (experimental 68, model 22, unspecified 9); 6 calculated phase diagram(s). 11 further extracted value(s) not accepted by the reader-agreement checks are only in the JSON/CSV.

Data: JSON · CSV · interactive explorer · interactive phase diagram · phases (4) · papers (bibliography) · Markdown

Accepted values by evidence class
Evidence class	Values
experimental	68
model	22
unspecified	9

Accepted values by property group
Property group	Values
invariant reaction	55
mixing / partial	42
heat capacity / entropy / enthalpy	2

Calculated phase diagrams

Binary phase diagrams calculated with pycalphad 0.11.2 from the SGTE binary collection (Hallstedt 2025, CC BY 4.0). Evidence class: model.

Assessments with a calculated phase diagram
TDB file	Assessment	SHA-256	Links
CuFe-03Tur.tdb	M.A. Turchanin, P.G. Agraval, I.V. Nikolaenko, J. Phase Equilib., 24, 307-19(2003). doi:10.1361/105497103770330280	`cdb9d77a4cc00a0ee505500911c9ecb972585706a9da3f794bb89d3e420c7606`	viewer · TDB · JSON
CuFe-15Ste.tdb	G. Stechauner, E. Kozeschnik, Acta Mater., 100, 135-46(2015). doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2015.08.042	`bfc63223f5caef05e77bd54d10e9981b4ed899ce387420f6661240a4a9f8657f`	viewer · TDB · JSON
CuFe-87Jan.tdb	A. Jansson, TRITA-MAC 340, Stockholm 1987.	`2c05cb21e3fff528545ab62c3b870f91fe01aaae5933f3c7a8a604e52bfa72ea`	viewer · TDB · JSON
CuFe-93Ans-LB.tdb	I. Ansara, A. Jansson, TRITA-MAC 533, Stockholm 1993.	`e3232aa138fa336c27427dd8c29432398f01cf5442dfaf1e4bd6d51bb428989f`	viewer · TDB · JSON
CuFe-93Swa.tdb	L.J. Swartzendruber, Phase Diagrams of Binary Iron Alloys, ASM, 1993.	`4c1bc91a8d26ffd41925653a23b5dfa4f85c86f36363a365a31a6192a33ad130`	viewer · TDB · JSON
CuFe-95Che.tdb	Q. Chen, Z.P. Jin, Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 26A, 417-26(1995). doi:10.1007/BF02664678	`2a778f43763571c566806c472294295f62dc3aeac5bf50acd4b521149622da1a`	viewer · TDB · JSON

Calculated three-phase invariants (model, mole fraction of the second component)
TDB file	T (K)	Phases at the invariant
CuFe-03Tur.tdb	1759.9	LIQUID (x(Fe) 0.89484) + FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.93082) + BCC_A2 (x(Fe) 0.94195)
CuFe-03Tur.tdb	1367.73	LIQUID (x(Fe) 0.03473) + FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.04966) + FCC_A1#2 (x(Fe) 0.92403)
CuFe-03Tur.tdb	1120.67	FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.01035) + FCC_A1#2 (x(Fe) 0.97453) + BCC_A2 (x(Fe) 0.98372)
CuFe-15Ste.tdb	1762.3	LIQUID (x(Fe) 0.87508) + FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.92992) + BCC_A2 (x(Fe) 0.9329)
CuFe-15Ste.tdb	1370.3	LIQUID (x(Fe) 0.03574) + FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.04825) + FCC_A1#2 (x(Fe) 0.94945)
CuFe-15Ste.tdb	1138.73	FCC_A1#2 (x(Fe) 0.01781) + FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.98306) + BCC_A2 (x(Fe) 0.98865)
CuFe-87Jan.tdb	1761.93	LIQUID (x(Fe) 0.88323) + FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.92527) + BCC_A2 (x(Fe) 0.93114)
CuFe-87Jan.tdb	1369.31	LIQUID (x(Fe) 0.03677) + FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.04744) + FCC_A1#2 (x(Fe) 0.93246)
CuFe-87Jan.tdb	1119.84	FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.0111) + FCC_A1#2 (x(Fe) 0.97495) + BCC_A2 (x(Fe) 0.9831)
CuFe-93Ans-LB.tdb	1762.39	LIQUID (x(Fe) 0.87941) + FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.92737) + BCC_A2 (x(Fe) 0.93279)
CuFe-93Ans-LB.tdb	1371.17	LIQUID (x(Fe) 0.03378) + FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.04678) + FCC_A1#2 (x(Fe) 0.93586)
CuFe-93Ans-LB.tdb	1115.92	FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.01256) + FCC_A1#2 (x(Fe) 0.97522) + BCC_A2 (x(Fe) 0.98415)
CuFe-93Swa.tdb	1781.58	LIQUID (x(Fe) 0.94005) + FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.95568) + BCC_A2 (x(Fe) 0.9629)
CuFe-93Swa.tdb	1371.81	LIQUID (x(Fe) 0.03392) + FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.04845) + FCC_A1#2 (x(Fe) 0.92384)
CuFe-93Swa.tdb	1117.67	FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.01287) + FCC_A1#2 (x(Fe) 0.97183) + BCC_A2 (x(Fe) 0.98086)
CuFe-95Che.tdb	1758.92	LIQUID (x(Fe) 0.89246) + FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.92753) + BCC_A2 (x(Fe) 0.93667)
CuFe-95Che.tdb	1369.04	LIQUID (x(Fe) 0.03156) + FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.04485) + FCC_A1#2 (x(Fe) 0.92499)
CuFe-95Che.tdb	1121.82	FCC_A1 (x(Fe) 0.01274) + FCC_A1#2 (x(Fe) 0.97427) + BCC_A2 (x(Fe) 0.98327)

Convex hulls: Materials Project DFT hull · OQMD DFT hull · CALPHAD hull CuFe-03Tur · CALPHAD hull CuFe-87Jan · CALPHAD hull CuFe-93Ans-LB · CALPHAD hull CuFe-93Swa · CALPHAD hull CuFe-95Che

Invariant reactions (literature)

Invariant reactions reported in the literature for the Cu–Fe system (55)
T (K)	Reaction / phases	Compositions (mole fraction)	Class	Source	Location
1764	δ + liq -> γ	δ: Cu 0.064; γ: Cu 0.076; liq: Cu 0.116	unspecified	[1] Chen 1995 cites Chuang 1995	Table II, p. 6, row 6 report
1764	L + δ ↔ γ	L: Fe 0.884; δ: Fe 0.936	model	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Chuang	Table 2, p. 5, row 7 report
1761	L + δ ↔ γ		experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Amara 2003	Table 2, p. 5, row 4 report
1760	L + δ ↔ γ	L: Fe 0.896; δ: Fe 0.942	model	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 2, p. 5, row 9 report
1759	L + δ ↔ γ	L: Fe 0.902	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Maddocks 1936	Table 2, p. 5, row 1 report
1759	δ + liq -> γ	δ: Cu 0.063; γ: Cu 0.073; liq: Cu 0.108	model	[1] Chen 1995	Table II, p. 6, row 7 report
1759	δ + liq -> γ	liq: Cu 0.098	experimental	[1] Chen 1995 cites Maddocks 1936	Table II, p. 6, row 1 report
1759	L + δ ↔ γ	L: Fe 0.892; δ: Fe 0.937	model	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Chen 1995 doi	Table 2, p. 5, row 8 report
1755	δ + liq -> γ	δ: Cu 0.061; γ: Cu 0.066; liq: Cu 0.1	experimental	[1] Chen 1995 cites Oelsen 1961	Table II, p. 6, row 3 report
1755	L + δ ↔ γ	L: Fe 0.9; δ: Fe 0.939	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Oelsen 1961	Table 2, p. 5, row 3 report
1753	δ + liq -> γ	liq: Cu 0.098	experimental	[1] Chen 1995 cites Hellawell 1957 doi	Table II, p. 6, row 2 report
1753	δ + liq -> γ	δ: Cu 0.066; γ: Cu 0.08; liq: Cu 0.127	unspecified	[1] Chen 1995 cites Kubaschewski 1977	Table II, p. 6, row 4 report
1753	L + δ ↔ γ	L: Fe 0.873; δ: Fe 0.934	model	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Kubaschewski 1977	Table 2, p. 5, row 5 report
1753	L + δ ↔ γ	L: Fe 0.902	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites ref. 1943And	Table 2, p. 5, row 2 report
1752	δ + liq -> γ	δ: Cu 0.063; γ: Cu 0.075; liq: Cu 0.124	unspecified	[1] Chen 1995 cites Hasebe 1980 doi	Table II, p. 6, row 5 report
1752	L + δ ↔ γ	L: Fe 0.876; δ: Fe 0.937	model	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Hasebe 1980 doi	Table 2, p. 5, row 6 report
1698	L2 ↔ L1 + δ	L2: Fe 0.591; L1: Fe 0.49; δ: Fe 0.912	model	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 2, p. 5, row 30 report
1405	L1 + L2 ↔ ε	L1: Fe 0.22	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Amara 2003	Table 2, p. 5, row 31 report
1380	L1 + L2 ↔ ε	L1: Fe 0.058; L2: Fe 0.931; ε: Fe 0.127	model	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 2, p. 5, row 32 report
1371	γ + liq -> ε	γ: Cu 0.076; ε: Cu 0.952; liq: Cu 0.965	unspecified	[1] Chen 1995 cites Chuang 1995	Table II, p. 6, row 13 report
1371	L + γ ↔ ε	L: Fe 0.035; γ: Fe 0.924; ε: Fe 0.048	model	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Chuang	Table 2, p. 5, row 16 report
1369	L + γ ↔ ε		experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Maddocks 1936	Table 2, p. 5, row 10 report
1369	L + γ ↔ ε	L: Fe 0.032; γ: Fe 0.929; ε: Fe 0.045	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Oelsen 1961	Table 2, p. 5, row 12 report
1369	L + γ ↔ ε	L: Fe 0.032; γ: Fe 0.91; ε: Fe 0.05	model	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Hasebe 1980 doi	Table 2, p. 5, row 15 report
1369	γ + liq -> ε	γ: Cu 0.09; ε: Cu 0.95; liq: Cu 0.968	unspecified	[1] Chen 1995 cites Hasebe 1980 doi	Table II, p. 6, row 12 report
1369	γ + liq -> ε	ε: Cu 0.952; liq: Cu 0.961	unspecified	[1] Chen 1995 cites Kubaschewski 1977	Table II, p. 6, row 11 report
1369	L + γ ↔ ε	L: Fe 0.039; ε: Fe 0.048	model	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Kubaschewski 1977	Table 2, p. 5, row 14 report
1369	L + γ ↔ ε	L: Fe 0.032; γ: Fe 0.925; ε: Fe 0.045	model	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Chen 1995 doi	Table 2, p. 5, row 17 report
1369	γ + liq -> ε	γ: Cu 0.071; ε: Cu 0.955; liq: Cu 0.968	experimental	[1] Chen 1995 cites Oelsen 1961	Table II, p. 6, row 10 report
1369	γ + liq -> ε	γ: Cu 0.075; ε: Cu 0.955; liq: Cu 0.968	model	[1] Chen 1995	Table II, p. 6, row 14 report
1369	γ + liq -> ε		experimental	[1] Chen 1995 cites Maddocks 1936	Table II, p. 6, row 8 report
1368	L + γ ↔ ε	L: Fe 0.035; γ: Fe 0.924; ε: Fe 0.05	model	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 2, p. 5, row 18 report
1366	L + γ ↔ ε		experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Amara 2003	Table 2, p. 5, row 13 report
1363	L + γ ↔ ε		experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Hellawell 1957 doi	Table 2, p. 5, row 11 report
1363	γ + liq -> ε		experimental	[1] Chen 1995 cites Hellawell 1957 doi	Table II, p. 6, row 9 report
1139	γ -> α + ε	α: Cu 0.019	experimental	[1] Chen 1995 cites Qureshi 1961	Table II, p. 6, row 17 report
1139	γ ↔ ε + α	α: Fe 0.981	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Qureshi 1961	Table 2, p. 5, row 21 report
1131	γ -> α + ε	α: Cu 0.018	experimental	[1] Chen 1995 cites Salje 1978	Table II, p. 6, row 19 report
1131	γ ↔ ε + α	α: Fe 0.982	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Salje 1978	Table 2, p. 5, row 23 report
1126	γ ↔ ε + α	γ: Fe 0.973; ε: Fe 0.014; α: Fe 0.982	model	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Hasebe 1980 doi	Table 2, p. 5, row 26 report
1126	γ -> α + ε	γ: Cu 0.027; α: Cu 0.018; ε: Cu 0.986	unspecified	[1] Chen 1995 cites Hasebe 1980 doi	Table II, p. 6, row 21 report
1124	γ -> α + ε	γ: Cu 0.018; α: Cu 0.012; ε: Cu 0.985	experimental	[1] Chen 1995 cites Oelsen 1961	Table II, p. 6, row 15 report
1124	γ ↔ ε + α	γ: Fe 0.982; ε: Fe 0.015; α: Fe 0.988	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Oelsen 1961	Table 2, p. 5, row 20 report
1124	γ -> α + ε	γ: Cu 0.018	unspecified	[1] Chen 1995 cites Kubaschewski 1977	Table II, p. 6, row 20 report
1124	γ ↔ ε + α	γ: Fe 0.977	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Speich 1966	Table 2, p. 5, row 22 report
1124	γ -> α + ε	γ: Cu 0.023	experimental	[1] Chen 1995 cites Speich 1966	Table II, p. 6, row 18 report
1122	γ ↔ ε + α	γ: Fe 0.974; ε: Fe 0.013; α: Fe 0.983	model	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Chen 1995 doi	Table 2, p. 5, row 28 report
1122	γ -> α + ε	γ: Cu 0.026; α: Cu 0.017; ε: Cu 0.987	model	[1] Chen 1995	Table II, p. 6, row 23 report
1120	γ ↔ ε + α	γ: Fe 0.975; ε: Fe 0.01; α: Fe 0.984	model	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 2, p. 5, row 29 report
1118	γ -> α + ε	γ: Cu 0.028; α: Cu 0.021; ε: Cu 0.987	unspecified	[1] Chen 1995 cites Chuang 1995	Table II, p. 6, row 22 report
1118	γ ↔ ε + α	γ: Fe 0.972; ε: Fe 0.013; α: Fe 0.979	model	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Chuang	Table 2, p. 5, row 27 report
1115	γ ↔ ε + α		experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Amara 2003	Table 2, p. 5, row 24 report
1115	γ ↔ ε + α		experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Wreidt 1960	Table 2, p. 5, row 19 report
1115	γ -> α + ε		experimental	[1] Chen 1995 cites Wriedt 1960	Table II, p. 6, row 16 report
124	γ ↔ ε + α	γ: Fe 0.982	model	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Kubaschewski 1977	Table 2, p. 5, row 25 report

Other properties

Mixing / partial (42)

Mixing / partial, Cu–Fe system
Property	Value	T (K)	Phases / composition	Class	Source	Location	Quote
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ⌬H	11.8 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1673		model	[2] Turchanin 2003	p. 8 report	According to the present thermodynamic model of the melt, enthalpies of mixing are temperature dependent (Fig. 2), with the maximum in ⌬H predicted as 11.0 kJ mol-1 at xFe ⳱ 0.45 at 1873 K, and 11.8 kJ mol-1 at the same composition at 1673 K.
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔH	2.9 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.1	1673	liquid alloy: Cu 0.95, Fe 0.05	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 2 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔH	5.3 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.2	1673	liquid alloy: Cu 0.9, Fe 0.1	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 3 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ⌬H	11 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1873		model	[2] Turchanin 2003	p. 8 report	According to the present thermodynamic model of the melt, enthalpies of mixing are temperature dependent (Fig. 2), with the maximum in ⌬H predicted as 11.0 kJ mol-1 at xFe ⳱ 0.45 at 1873 K, and 11.8 kJ mol-1 at the same composition at 1673 K.
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ⌬H	10.8 unspecified ± 0.7	1873		experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	p. 2 report	Those measurements were carried out at 1873 K and covered the whole range of concentrations. As can be seen from Fig. 1, our results are in good agreement with the data of [1967Woo, 1971Toz, 1981Yas]. Thus, according to our work, ⌬H reaches a maximum value of 10.8 ± 0.7 kJ mol-1 at xCu ⳱ 0.43.
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔH	3.3 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.3	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.1, Fe 0.9	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 13 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔH	10.8 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.6	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.6, Fe 0.4	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 8 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔH	6 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.5	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.2, Fe 0.8	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 12 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔH	8.1 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.6	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.3, Fe 0.7	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 11 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔH	5 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.2	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.9, Fe 0.1	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 5 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔH	8.2 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.3	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.8, Fe 0.2	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 6 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔH	10.6 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.9	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.5, Fe 0.5	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 9 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔH	9.7 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.8	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.4, Fe 0.6	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 10 report
Enthalpy of mixing printed: ΔH	10.1 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.4	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.7, Fe 0.3	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 7 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Cu	0.24 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.07	1673	liquid alloy: Cu 0.95, Fe 0.05	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 2 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Fe	53.4 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 2.5	1673	liquid alloy: Cu 0.95, Fe 0.05	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 2 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Cu	0 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1673	liquid alloy: Cu 1, Fe 0	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 1 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Fe	62.7 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 2.8	1673	liquid alloy: Cu 1, Fe 0	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 1 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Cu	0.91 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.4	1673	liquid alloy: Cu 0.9, Fe 0.1	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 3 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Fe	45.1 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 3	1673	liquid alloy: Cu 0.9, Fe 0.1	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 3 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Fe	0.3 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.03	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.1, Fe 0.9	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 13 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Cu	30.3 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 2.8	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.1, Fe 0.9	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 13 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Cu	4.8 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.4	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.6, Fe 0.4	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 8 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Fe	12.3 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 1	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.6, Fe 0.4	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 8 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Fe	59.4 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 3.3	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 1, Fe 0	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 4 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Cu	0 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 1, Fe 0	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 4 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Fe	1.2 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.1	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.2, Fe 0.8	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 12 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Cu	25.3 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 1.9	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.2, Fe 0.8	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 12 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Cu	21.1 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 1.5	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.3, Fe 0.7	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 11 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Fe	2.6 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.3	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.3, Fe 0.7	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 11 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Fe	41.4 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 1.9	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.9, Fe 0.1	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 5 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Cu	0.9 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.02	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.9, Fe 0.1	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 5 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Cu	3.2 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.1	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.8, Fe 0.2	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 6 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Fe	28.2 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 1.2	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.8, Fe 0.2	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 6 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Fe	7.8 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.9	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.5, Fe 0.5	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 9 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Cu	13.5 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.9	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.5, Fe 0.5	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 9 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Cu	17.2 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 1.2	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.4, Fe 0.6	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 10 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Fe	4.7 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.5	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.4, Fe 0.6	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 10 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Fe	18.8 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 1	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.7, Fe 0.3	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 7 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Cu	6.3 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 0.2	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0.7, Fe 0.3	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 7 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Fe	0 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0, Fe 1	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 14 report
Partial enthalpy printed: ΔH̄Cu	36.6 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 3.9	1873	liquid alloy: Cu 0, Fe 1	experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003	Table 1, p. 3, row 14 report

Heat capacity / entropy / enthalpy (2)

Heat capacity / entropy / enthalpy, Cu–Fe system
Property	Value	T (K)	Phases / composition	Class	Source	Location	Quote
Heat capacity printed: CEP	4.8 unspecified ± 1	1673		experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Wilde 1997	p. 5 report	For a sample of nearly equiatomic composition, CEP is 4.8 ± 1.0 J K-1 mol-1 at 1673 K and 9.6 ± 1.0 J K-1 mol-1 at 1723 K.
Heat capacity printed: CEP	9.6 unspecified ± 1	1723		experimental	[2] Turchanin 2003 cites Wilde 1997	p. 5 report	For a sample of nearly equiatomic composition, CEP is 4.8 ± 1.0 J K-1 mol-1 at 1673 K and 9.6 ± 1.0 J K-1 mol-1 at 1723 K.

Sources

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

Qing Chen, Zhanpeng Jin, The Fe-Cu system: A thermodynamic evaluation, Metall Mater Trans A 26, 417-426 (1995). doi:10.1007/bf02664678
M. A. Turchanin, P. G. Agraval, I. V. Nikolaenko, Thermodynamics of alloys and phase equilibria in the copper-iron system, JPE 24, 307-319 (2003). doi:10.1361/105497103770330280

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-Diagrams: calculated binary phase diagrams (version 2026.10), Zenodo (2026). doi:10.5281/zenodo.23735859
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); 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_phase_diagrams_2026,
  author    = {Arr{\'o}yave, Raymundo and Saal, James and Shin, Dongwon},
  title     = {{ORCHID-Diagrams: calculated binary phase diagrams}},
  version   = {2026.10},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  year      = {2026},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.23735859},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23735859}
}

@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}
}