Fe–Ta system

238 accepted literature values from 3 paper(s) (experimental 139, model 79, DFT 6, unspecified 14); 3 calculated phase diagram(s). 13 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 (7) · papers (bibliography) · Markdown

Accepted values by evidence class
Evidence class	Values
experimental	139
model	79
DFT	6
unspecified	14

Accepted values by property group
Property group	Values
invariant reaction	91
phase transition	71
phase equilibrium	13
formation	36
crystal structure	27

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
FeTa-03Dan.tdb	A. Danon, C. Servant, J. Nucl. Mater., 321, 8-18(2003). doi:10.1016/S0022-3115(03)00196-X	`e83eaadd3887295a5f92ef703e966351adfb91fead60026a2997abf7ea7b634e`	viewer · TDB · JSON
FeTa-11Wit.tdb	V.T. Witusiewicz, A.A. Bondar, U. Hecht, V.M. Voblikov, O.S. Fomichov, V.M. Petyukh, S. Rex, Intermetallics, 19, 1059-75(2011). doi:10.1016/j.intermet.2011.03.018	`9f4e7036b7ede1950b6bc64e77320f0bb4f0ac9b5707eac3b6d6026b9991ff90`	viewer · TDB · JSON
FeTa-15Raj.tdb	V.B. Rajkumar, K.C. Hari Kumar, Calphad, 48, 157-65(2015). doi:10.1016/j.calphad.2014.12.006	`04b06f96f96efcaab9397bde62b5d8a6ba78612bc41a66ceedfd36f465a9831b`	viewer · TDB · JSON

Calculated three-phase invariants (model, mole fraction of the second component)
TDB file	T (K)	Phases at the invariant
FeTa-03Dan.tdb	2047.05	C14_LAVES (x(Ta) 0.4099) + LIQUID (x(Ta) 0.41839) + MU_D85 (x(Ta) 0.49261)
FeTa-03Dan.tdb	2042.38	MU_D85 (x(Ta) 0.59771) + LIQUID (x(Ta) 0.63653) + BCC_A2 (x(Ta) 0.93968)
FeTa-03Dan.tdb	1725.65	BCC_A2 (x(Ta) 0.04236) + LIQUID (x(Ta) 0.06859) + C14_LAVES (x(Ta) 0.27205)
FeTa-03Dan.tdb	1493.46	FCC_A1 (x(Ta) 0.01052) + BCC_A2 (x(Ta) 0.01513) + C14_LAVES (x(Ta) 0.26982)
FeTa-03Dan.tdb	1198.62	FCC_A1 (x(Ta) 0.00108) + BCC_A2 (x(Ta) 0.00219) + C14_LAVES (x(Ta) 0.27858)
FeTa-11Wit.tdb	2058.91	C14_LAVES (x(Ta) 0.41006) + MU_D85 (x(Ta) 0.51095) + LIQUID (x(Ta) 0.51743)
FeTa-11Wit.tdb	2023.92	MU_D85 (x(Ta) 0.60372) + LIQUID (x(Ta) 0.65184) + BCC_A2 (x(Ta) 0.91414)
FeTa-11Wit.tdb	1716.11	BCC_A2 (x(Ta) 0.02091) + LIQUID (x(Ta) 0.07473) + C14_LAVES (x(Ta) 0.27679)
FeTa-11Wit.tdb	1510.75	FCC_A1 (x(Ta) 0.01061) + BCC_A2 (x(Ta) 0.01496) + C14_LAVES (x(Ta) 0.2977)
FeTa-11Wit.tdb	1242.43	FCC_A1 (x(Ta) 0.00409) + BCC_A2 (x(Ta) 0.00786) + C14_LAVES (x(Ta) 0.3186)
FeTa-15Raj.tdb	2064.99	C14_LAVES (x(Ta) 0.42799) + MU_D85 (x(Ta) 0.49686) + LIQUID (x(Ta) 0.50673)
FeTa-15Raj.tdb	2015.22	MU_D85 (x(Ta) 0.61526) + LIQUID (x(Ta) 0.65031) + BCC_A2 (x(Ta) 0.92232)
FeTa-15Raj.tdb	1720.87	BCC_A2 (x(Ta) 0.02284) + LIQUID (x(Ta) 0.06293) + C14_LAVES (x(Ta) 0.29834)
FeTa-15Raj.tdb	1503.7	FCC_A1 (x(Ta) 0.00917) + BCC_A2 (x(Ta) 0.01559) + C14_LAVES (x(Ta) 0.3101)
FeTa-15Raj.tdb	1245.19	FCC_A1 (x(Ta) 0.00392) + BCC_A2 (x(Ta) 0.00836) + C14_LAVES (x(Ta) 0.32176)

Convex hulls: Materials Project DFT hull · OQMD DFT hull · CALPHAD hull FeTa-03Dan · CALPHAD hull FeTa-11Wit

Invariant reactions (literature)

Invariant reactions reported in the literature for the Fe–Ta system (91)
T (K)	Reaction / phases	Compositions (mole fraction)	Class	Source	Location
2157.15	other: μ ↔ Liq.	Liq.: Ta 0.5382; μ ↔ Liq.: Ta 0.5382	model	[1] Danon 2003 cites Coelho 1994	Table 1, p. 5, row 2 report
2143.15	other: μ ↔ Liq.	Liq.: Ta 0.516; μ ↔ Liq.: Ta 0.516	experimental	[1] Danon 2003 cites Swartzendruber 1990	Table 1, p. 5, row 1 report
2089.15	peritectic: Liq. + μ ↔ ε	μ: Ta 0.5079; ε: Ta 0.4362; L: Ta 0.4288	model	[1] Danon 2003 cites Coelho 1994	Table 1, p. 5, row 5 report
2065	L + ε -> μ	L: Ta 0.5067; ε: Ta 0.428; μ: Ta 0.4969	model	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 2, p. 3, row 6 report
2061.15	other: μ ↔ Liq.	Liq.: Ta 0.52; μ ↔ Liq.: Ta 0.52	model	[1] Danon 2003	Table 1, p. 5, row 4 report
2060	peritectic: L + λ <-> μ	L: Ta 0.516; λ: Ta 0.409; μ: Ta 0.511	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 6, p. 14, row 7 report
2056	peritectic: L + λ <-> μ	λ: Ta 0.424; μ: Ta 0.49	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 6, p. 14, row 6 report
2056	L + ε -> μ	ε: Ta 0.424; μ: Ta 0.49	unspecified	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Witusiewicz 2011 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 5 report
2049.15	other: μ ↔ Liq.	Liq.: Ta 0.5384; μ ↔ Liq.: Ta 0.5384	model	[1] Danon 2003 cites Srikanth 1994 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 3 report
2048.15	other: ε ↔ Liq.	Liq.: Ta 0.326; ε ↔ Liq.: Ta 0.326	experimental	[1] Danon 2003 cites Elliot 1958	Table 1, p. 5, row 6 report
2047.15	other: ε ↔ Liq.	Liq.: Ta 0.386; ε ↔ Liq.: Ta 0.386	model	[1] Danon 2003	Table 1, p. 5, row 8 report
2046.15	eutectic: ε + μ ↔ Liq.	ε: Ta 0.41; μ: Ta 0.493; L: Ta 0.419	model	[1] Danon 2003	Table 1, p. 5, row 14 report
2042.15	eutectic: Liq. ↔ μ + bcc	μ: Ta 0.598; bcc: Ta 0.94; L: Ta 0.636	model	[1] Danon 2003	Table 1, p. 5, row 11 report
2042	eutectic: L <-> β + μ	L: Ta 0.638; β: Ta 0.94; μ: Ta 0.598	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Danon 2003 doi	Table 6, p. 14, row 15 report
2035.15	other: ε ↔ Liq.	Liq.: Ta 0.33; ε ↔ Liq.: Ta 0.33	model	[1] Danon 2003 cites Srikanth 1994 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 7 report
2035	eutectic: L <-> β + μ	L: Ta 0.66; β: Ta 0.915; μ: Ta 0.61	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 6, p. 14, row 12 report
2035	eutectic: L -> μ + (Ta)	L: Ta 0.66; μ: Ta 0.61; (Ta): Ta 0.915	unspecified	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Witusiewicz 2011 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 8 report
2025	eutectic: L <-> β + Ta3Fe2	L: Ta 0.653; β: Ta 0.914; Ta3Fe2: Ta 0.628	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 6, p. 14, row 10 report
2025	eutectic: L <-> β + μ	L: Ta 0.652; β: Ta 0.914; μ: Ta 0.605	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 6, p. 14, row 16 report
2025	eutectic: L <-> λ + Ta3Fe2	L: Ta 0.558; λ: Ta 0.434; Ta3Fe2: Ta 0.584	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 6, p. 14, row 9 report
2023.15	eutectic: Liq. ↔ μ + bcc		experimental	[1] Danon 2003 cites Coelho 1995 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 9 report
2023	eutectic: L <-> β + μ		experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Coelho 1995 doi	Table 6, p. 14, row 11 report
2023	eutectic: L -> μ + (Ta)		experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Coelho 1995 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 7 report
2020.15	eutectic: Liq. ↔ μ + bcc	μ: Ta 0.593; bcc: Ta 0.9362; L: Ta 0.6834	model	[1] Danon 2003 cites Coelho 1994	Table 1, p. 5, row 10 report
2020	eutectic: L <-> β + μ	L: Ta 0.683; β: Ta 0.936; μ: Ta 0.593	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Coelho 1994	Table 6, p. 14, row 14 report
2015	eutectic: L -> μ + (Ta)	L: Ta 0.6503; μ: Ta 0.6153; (Ta): Ta 0.9223	model	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 2, p. 3, row 10 report
2000	eutectic: L -> μ + (Ta)		experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 2, p. 3, row 9 report
1995.15	eutectic: ε + μ ↔ Liq.	ε: Ta 0.366; μ: Ta 0.5384; L: Ta 0.42	model	[1] Danon 2003 cites Srikanth 1994 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 13 report
1890.15	eutectic: ε + μ ↔ Liq.		experimental	[1] Danon 2003 cites Ichise 1989 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 15 report
1865.15	eutectic: Liq. ↔ μ + bcc	μ: Ta 0.5384; bcc: Ta 0.95; L: Ta 0.6834	model	[1] Danon 2003 cites Srikanth 1994 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 12 report
1865	eutectic: L <-> β + μ	L: Ta 0.683; β: Ta 0.959; μ: Ta 0.538	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Srikanth 1994 doi	Table 6, p. 14, row 13 report
1803.15	eutectic: ε + μ ↔ Liq.		experimental	[1] Danon 2003 cites Wetzig 1968 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 16 report
1726.15	eutectic: Liq. ↔ ε + bcc(δ)	ε: Ta 0.272; L: Ta 0.0686	model	[1] Danon 2003	Table 1, p. 5, row 18 report
1726	eutectic: L <-> δ + λ	L: Ta 0.067; δ: Ta 0.042; λ: Ta 0.272	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Danon 2003 doi	Table 6, p. 14, row 22 report
1721	eutectic: L -> (δFe) + ε	L: Ta 0.0629; (δFe): Ta 0.0228; ε: Ta 0.2983	model	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 2, p. 3, row 14 report
1716	eutectic: L <-> δ + λ	L: Ta 0.075; δ: Ta 0.021; λ: Ta 0.277	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 6, p. 14, row 23 report
1716	eutectic: L <-> δ + λ	L: Ta 0.072; λ: Ta 0.277	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 6, p. 14, row 19 report
1716	eutectic: L -> (δFe) + ε	L: Ta 0.072; ε: Ta 0.277	unspecified	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Witusiewicz 2011 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 13 report
1715.15	eutectic: Liq. ↔ ε + bcc(δ)	ε: Ta 0.2729; L: Ta 0.0797	model	[1] Danon 2003 cites Coelho 1994	Table 1, p. 5, row 17 report
1715	eutectic: L <-> δ + λ	L: Ta 0.08; δ: Ta 0.018; λ: Ta 0.273	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Coelho 1994	Table 6, p. 14, row 21 report
1714.15	eutectic: Liq. ↔ ε + bcc(δ)		experimental	[1] Danon 2003 cites Ichise 1989 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 19 report
1714	eutectic: L <-> δ + λ		experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Ichise 1989 doi	Table 6, p. 14, row 17 report
1714	eutectic: L -> (δFe) + ε		experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Ichise 1989 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 11 report
1713.15	eutectic: Liq. ↔ ε + bcc(δ)	ε: Ta 0.333; L: Ta 0.079	experimental	[1] Danon 2003 cites Sinha 1967	Table 1, p. 5, row 20 report
1713	eutectic: L <-> δ + λ	L: Ta 0.079; δ: Ta 0.028; λ: Ta 0.333	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Sinha 1967	Table 6, p. 14, row 18 report
1713	eutectic: L -> (δFe) + ε	L: Ta 0.079; (δFe): Ta 0.028; ε: Ta 0.333	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Sinha 1967	Table 2, p. 3, row 12 report
1703.15	eutectic: Liq. ↔ ε + bcc(δ)	ε: Ta 0.265; L: Ta 0.079	model	[1] Danon 2003 cites Srikanth 1994 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 21 report
1703	eutectic: L <-> δ + λ	L: Ta 0.079; δ: Ta 0.024; λ: Ta 0.265	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Srikanth 1994 doi	Table 6, p. 14, row 20 report
1648	μ + (Ta)	μ: Ta 0.56; (Ta): Ta 0.947	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 5, p. 4, row 2 report
1623	μ + (Ta)	μ: Ta 0.553; (Ta): Ta 0.938	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 5, p. 4, row 1 report
1516	(δFe) -> (γFe) + ε		unspecified	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Witusiewicz 2011 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 18 report
1516	eutectoid: δ <-> γ + λ		experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 6, p. 14, row 27 report
1512.15	eutectoid: bcc(δ) ↔ ε + γ	ε: Ta 0.3333; γ: Ta 0.005	experimental	[1] Danon 2003 cites Sinha 1967	Table 1, p. 5, row 22 report
1512	eutectoid: δ <-> γ + λ	δ: Ta 0.011; γ: Ta 0.005; λ: Ta 0.333	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Sinha 1967	Table 6, p. 14, row 24 report
1512	(δFe) -> (γFe) + ε	(δFe): Ta 0.011; (γFe): Ta 0.005; ε: Ta 0.333	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Sinha 1967	Table 2, p. 3, row 15 report
1511	eutectoid: δ <-> γ + λ	δ: Ta 0.015; γ: Ta 0.011; λ: Ta 0.298	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 6, p. 14, row 31 report
1504	(δFe) -> (γFe) + ε	(δFe): Ta 0.0156; (γFe): Ta 0.00917; ε: Ta 0.3101	model	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 2, p. 3, row 19 report
1501.15	eutectoid: bcc(δ) ↔ ε + γ	ε: Ta 0.268; γ: Ta 0.0083	model	[1] Danon 2003 cites Srikanth 1994 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 23 report
1501	eutectoid: δ <-> γ + λ	δ: Ta 0.013; γ: Ta 0.008; λ: Ta 0.268	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Srikanth 1994 doi	Table 6, p. 14, row 28 report
1493.15	eutectoid: bcc(δ) ↔ ε + γ	ε: Ta 0.27; γ: Ta 0.01	model	[1] Danon 2003	Table 1, p. 5, row 25 report
1493.15	eutectoid: bcc(δ) ↔ ε + γ	ε: Ta 0.0333; γ: Ta 0.0096	experimental	[1] Danon 2003 cites Genders 1936	Table 1, p. 5, row 24 report
1493	eutectoid: δ <-> γ + λ	δ: Ta 0.015; γ: Ta 0.01; λ: Ta 0.27	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Danon 2003 doi	Table 6, p. 14, row 30 report
1493	eutectoid: δ <-> γ + λ	δ: Ta 0.015; γ: Ta 0.01; λ: Ta 0.333	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Genders 1936	Table 6, p. 14, row 25 report
1493	(δFe) -> (γFe) + ε	(δFe): Ta 0.015; (γFe): Ta 0.01; ε: Ta 0.333	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Genders 1936	Table 2, p. 3, row 16 report
1489.15	eutectoid: bcc(δ) ↔ ε + γ	ε: Ta 0.2899; γ: Ta 0.0081	model	[1] Danon 2003 cites Coelho 1994	Table 1, p. 5, row 26 report
1489	eutectoid: δ <-> γ + λ	δ: Ta 0.013; γ: Ta 0.008; λ: Ta 0.29	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Coelho 1994	Table 6, p. 14, row 29 report
1488.15	eutectoid: bcc(δ) ↔ ε + γ	ε: Ta 0.3333; γ: Ta 0.0086	experimental	[1] Danon 2003 cites Fischer 1970 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 27 report
1488	(δFe) -> (γFe) + ε	(δFe): Ta 0.014; (γFe): Ta 0.009; ε: Ta 0.333	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Fischer 1970 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 17 report
1488	eutectoid: δ <-> γ + λ	δ: Ta 0.014; γ: Ta 0.009; λ: Ta 0.333	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Fischer 1970 doi	Table 6, p. 14, row 26 report
1250.15	peritectoid: bcc(α) ↔ γ + ε	γ: Ta 0.0043; ε: Ta 0.3082	model	[1] Danon 2003 cites Coelho 1994	Table 1, p. 5, row 28 report
1250	peritectoid: γ + λ <-> α	γ: Ta 0.004; λ: Ta 0.308; α: Ta 0.008	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Coelho 1994	Table 6, p. 14, row 37 report
1247.15	α + γ + ε	α: Ta 0.0032; γ: Ta 0.002; ε: Ta 0.3333	experimental	[1] Danon 2003 cites Genders 1936	Table 1, p. 6, row 2 report
1247	peritectoid: γ + λ <-> α	γ: Ta 0.002; λ: Ta 0.333; α: Ta 0.003	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Genders 1936	Table 6, p. 14, row 34 report
1247	(γFe) + ε -> (αFe)	(γFe): Ta 0.002; ε: Ta 0.333; (αFe): Ta 0.003	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Genders 1936	Table 2, p. 3, row 22 report
1246	peritectoid: γ + λ <-> α	α: Ta 0.006	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 6, p. 14, row 35 report
1246	(γFe) + ε -> (αFe)	(αFe): Ta 0.006	unspecified	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Witusiewicz 2011 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 23 report
1245.15	peritectoid: bcc(α) ↔ γ + ε	γ: Ta 0.003; ε: Ta 0.3333	experimental	[1] Danon 2003 cites Sinha 1967	Table 1, p. 5, row 29 report
1245	peritectoid: γ + λ <-> α	γ: Ta 0.003; λ: Ta 0.333; α: Ta 0.006	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Sinha 1967	Table 6, p. 14, row 32 report
1245	(γFe) + ε -> (αFe)	(γFe): Ta 0.003; ε: Ta 0.333; (αFe): Ta 0.006	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Sinha 1967	Table 2, p. 3, row 20 report
1245	(γFe) + ε -> (αFe)	(γFe): Ta 0.00392; ε: Ta 0.3218; (αFe): Ta 0.00836	model	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 2, p. 3, row 24 report
1242	peritectoid: γ + λ <-> α	γ: Ta 0.004; λ: Ta 0.319; α: Ta 0.008	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 6, p. 14, row 39 report
1238.15	α + γ + ε	α: Ta 0.0071; γ: Ta 0.004; ε: Ta 0.3333	experimental	[1] Danon 2003 cites Fischer 1970 doi	Table 1, p. 6, row 1 report
1238	(γFe) + ε -> (αFe)	(γFe): Ta 0.004; ε: Ta 0.333; (αFe): Ta 0.007	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Fischer 1970 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 21 report
1238	peritectoid: γ + λ <-> α	γ: Ta 0.004; λ: Ta 0.333; α: Ta 0.007	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Fischer 1970 doi	Table 6, p. 14, row 33 report
1220.15	α + γ + ε	α: Ta 0.0046; γ: Ta 0.002; ε: Ta 0.276	model	[1] Danon 2003 cites Srikanth 1994 doi	Table 1, p. 6, row 3 report
1220	peritectoid: γ + λ <-> α	γ: Ta 0.002; λ: Ta 0.276; α: Ta 0.005	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Srikanth 1994 doi	Table 6, p. 14, row 36 report
1199.15	α + γ + ε	α: Ta 0.0022; γ: Ta 0.001; ε: Ta 0.2786	model	[1] Danon 2003	Table 1, p. 6, row 4 report
1199	peritectoid: γ + λ <-> α	γ: Ta 0.001; λ: Ta 0.279; α: Ta 0.002	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Danon 2003 doi	Table 6, p. 14, row 38 report
1043	other: α(pm) <-> α(fm), λ	α(pm): Ta 4.000e-4; α(fm): Ta 4.000e-4; λ: Ta 0.285	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Danon 2003 doi	Table 6, p. 14, row 40 report
1041	other: α(pm) <-> α(fm), λ		experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 6, p. 14, row 41 report
1041	other: α(pm) <-> α(fm), λ	α(pm): Ta 0.004; α(fm): Ta 0.004; λ: Ta 0.328	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 6, p. 14, row 42 report

Formation enthalpies

Literature values in kJ/mol-atom where the per-atom basis is known. DFT columns: the lowest-energy entry at the same composition (Materials Project 2026.04.13, OQMD v1.8; different energy references, never averaged), from dft_parity.json.

Enthalpies of formation, Fe–Ta system (25)
Phase	Value	T (K)	Class	Source	Location
Fe0.359Ta0.641	-5.8 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 2.1	298.15	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 4, p. 10, row 7 report
Fe0.477Ta0.523	-7.1 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 1.4	298.15	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 4, p. 10, row 6 report
Fe0.638Ta0.362	-5.4 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 1.5	298.15	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 4, p. 10, row 5 report
Fe0.678Ta0.322	-5.7 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 1.8	298.15	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 4, p. 10, row 4 report
Fe0.844Ta0.156	-2.6 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 1.9	298.15	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 4, p. 10, row 3 report
Fe1Ta12	6.15538 kJ/mol-atom	0	DFT	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 9, p. 6, row 7 report
Fe2Ta11	28.3285 kJ/mol-atom	0	DFT	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 9, p. 6, row 6 report
Fe3Ta10	31.9038 kJ/mol-atom	0	DFT	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 9, p. 6, row 5 report
Fe8Ta5	-8.73 kJ/mol-atom	0	DFT	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 9, p. 6, row 4 report
Fe9Ta4	-6.68769 kJ/mol-atom	0	DFT	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 9, p. 6, row 3 report
Laves phase (ε)	-20.118 kJ/mol (basis unstated)		unspecified	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 7, p. 6, row 8 report
Laves phase (ε)	-19.99 kJ/mol (basis unstated)		model	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites De 1988	Table 7, p. 6, row 6 report
Laves phase (ε)	-19.767 kJ/mol (basis unstated)		unspecified	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 7, p. 6, row 7 report
Laves phase (ε)	-19.25 kJ/mol (basis unstated)		model	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Gerassimov 1972	Table 7, p. 6, row 5 report
Laves phase (ε)	-18.61 kJ/mol (basis unstated)		DFT	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Pavlu 2012 doi	Table 7, p. 6, row 4 report
Laves phase (ε)	-6.3 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	298.15	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Meschel 2006 doi	Table 7, p. 6, row 3 report
Laves phase (ε)	-5.7 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	298.15	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Witusiewicz 2011 doi	Table 7, p. 6, row 1 report
Laves phase (ε)	-5.4 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	298.15	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Witusiewicz 2011 doi	Table 7, p. 6, row 2 report
Mu phase (μ)	-22.586 kJ/mol (basis unstated)		model	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites De 1988	Table 7, p. 6, row 11 report
Mu phase (μ)	-20.529 kJ/mol (basis unstated)		unspecified	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 7, p. 6, row 14 report
Mu phase (μ)	-19.868 kJ/mol (basis unstated)		unspecified	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 7, p. 6, row 12 report
Mu phase (μ)	-17.684 kJ/mol (basis unstated)		unspecified	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 7, p. 6, row 13 report
Mu phase (μ)	-17.224 kJ/mol (basis unstated)		unspecified	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 7, p. 6, row 15 report
Mu phase (μ)	-7.1 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	298.15	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Witusiewicz 2011 doi	Table 7, p. 6, row 9 report
Mu phase (μ)	-5.8 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	298.15	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Witusiewicz 2011 doi	Table 7, p. 6, row 10 report

Other properties

Phase transition (71)

Phase transition, Fe–Ta system
Property	Value	T (K)	Phases / composition	Class	Source	Location	Quote
Phase transition	1041 K	1041	α(pm) ↔ α(fm), λ alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 19 report
Phase transition	1041 K	1041	α(pm) ↔ α(fm), λ alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 18 report
Phase transition	1043 K	1043	α(pm) ↔ α(fm), λ alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 17 report
Phase transition	1241 K	1241	λ + γ ↔ α (pm) alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 14 report
Phase transition	1242 K	1242	λ + γ ↔ α (pm) alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 16 report
Phase transition	1251 K	1251	λ + γ ↔ α (pm) alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 15 report
Phase transition	1511 K	1511	δ ↔ λ + γ alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 13 report
Phase transition	1513 K	1513	δ ↔ λ + γ alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 11 report
Phase transition	1520 K	1520	δ ↔ λ + γ alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 12 report
Phase transition	1685 K	1685	L ↔ δ + λ alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 7 report
Phase transition	1704 K	1704	L ↔ δ + λ alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 9 report
Phase transition	1716 K	1716	L ↔ δ + λ alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 10 report
Phase transition	1719 K	1719	L ↔ δ + λ alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 6 report
Phase transition	1724 K	1724	L ↔ δ + λ alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 8 report
Phase transition	1945 K	1945	L/L + λ alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 4 report
Phase transition	1950 K	1950	L/L + λ alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 2 report
Phase transition	1959 K	1959	L/L + λ alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 3 report
Phase transition	1959 K	1959	L/L + λ alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 5 report
Phase transition	1960 K	1960	L/L + λ alloy: Fe 0.844, Ta 0.156	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 1 report
Phase transition	1966 K	1966	L + μ/μ alloy: Fe 0.438, Ta 0.562	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 54 report
Phase transition	2000 K	2000	L ⇌ μ + (Ta)	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015	p. 3 report	In addition to the spike corresponding to the liquidus, Fe70.8 at% Ta and Fe-87.2 at% Ta alloys show another spike (Fig. 2a, b) in their cooling curves around ∼2000 K, which corresponds to the invariant L ⇌ μ + (Ta).
Phase transition	2025 K	2025	L ↔ β + μ alloy: Fe 0.358, Ta 0.642	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 63 report
Phase transition	2028 K	2028	L/L + μ alloy: Fe 0.438, Ta 0.562	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 51 report
Phase transition	2029 K	2029	L/L + μ alloy: Fe 0.358, Ta 0.642	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 60 report
Phase transition	2030 K	2030	L ↔ β + μ alloy: Fe 0.358, Ta 0.642	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 61 report
Phase transition	2030 K	2030	congruent melting: L <-> Ta3Fe2 L: Ta 0.605; Ta3Fe2: Ta 0.605	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 6, p. 14, row 8 report
Phase transition	2035 K	2035	congruent melting: L <-> λ L: Ta 0.339; λ: Ta 0.33	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Srikanth 1994 doi	Table 6, p. 14, row 2 report
Phase transition	2037 K	2037	L/L + μ alloy: Fe 0.358, Ta 0.642	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 56 report
Phase transition	2038 K	2038	L/L + μ alloy: Fe 0.358, Ta 0.642	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 57 report
Phase transition	2041 K	2041	L + μ/μ alloy: Fe 0.438, Ta 0.562	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 55 report
Phase transition	2041 K	2041	L ↔ β + μ alloy: Fe 0.358, Ta 0.642	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 62 report
Phase transition	2042 K	2042	L/L + μ alloy: Fe 0.358, Ta 0.642	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 59 report
Phase transition	2047 K	2047	congruent melting: L <-> λ L: Ta 0.386; λ: Ta 0.386	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Danon 2003 doi	Table 6, p. 14, row 3 report
Phase transition	2048 K	2048	L + μ/μ alloy: Fe 0.476, Ta 0.524	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 49 report
Phase transition	2048 K	2048	L -> ε L: Ta 0.326; ε: Ta 0.326	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Elliott 1958	Table 2, p. 3, row 1 report
Phase transition	2048 K	2048	congruent melting: L <-> λ L: Ta 0.326; λ: Ta 0.326	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Elliot 1958	Table 6, p. 14, row 1 report
Phase transition	2055 K	2055	L + λ ↔ μ alloy: Fe 0.549, Ta 0.451	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 40 report
Phase transition	2055 K	2055	L/L + μ alloy: Fe 0.438, Ta 0.562	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 52 report
Phase transition	2057 K	2057	L + μ/μ alloy: Fe 0.476, Ta 0.524	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 50 report
Phase transition	2057 K	2057	L/L + μ alloy: Fe 0.358, Ta 0.642	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 58 report
Phase transition	2058 K	2058	L + μ/μ alloy: Fe 0.476, Ta 0.524	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 48 report
Phase transition	2058 K	2058	L/L + μ alloy: Fe 0.476, Ta 0.524	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 46 report
Phase transition	2058 K	2058	L/L + μ alloy: Fe 0.476, Ta 0.524	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 45 report
Phase transition	2059 K	2059	L + μ/μ alloy: Fe 0.438, Ta 0.562	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 53 report
Phase transition	2060 K	2060	L + λ ↔ μ alloy: Fe 0.549, Ta 0.451	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 43 report
Phase transition	2060 K	2060	L + λ ↔ μ alloy: Fe 0.549, Ta 0.451	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 39 report
Phase transition	2060 K	2060	L/L + μ alloy: Fe 0.476, Ta 0.524	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 47 report
Phase transition	2061 K	2061	L + λ ↔ μ alloy: Fe 0.549, Ta 0.451	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 41 report
Phase transition	2065 K	2065	L/L + μ alloy: Fe 0.476, Ta 0.524	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 44 report
Phase transition	2068 K	2068	L + λ ↔ μ alloy: Fe 0.549, Ta 0.451	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 42 report
Phase transition	2088 K	2088	L + λ/λ alloy: Fe 0.678, Ta 0.322	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 26 report
Phase transition	2088 K	2088	L + λ/λ alloy: Fe 0.678, Ta 0.322	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 28 report
Phase transition	2088 K	2088	L + λ/λ alloy: Fe 0.678, Ta 0.322	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 27 report
Phase transition	2090 K	2090	L/L + λ alloy: Fe 0.549, Ta 0.451	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 34 report
Phase transition	2094 K	2094	L/L + λ alloy: Fe 0.549, Ta 0.451	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 37 report
Phase transition	2102 K	2102	L/L + λ alloy: Fe 0.549, Ta 0.451	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 38 report
Phase transition	2103 K	2103	L + λ/λ alloy: Fe 0.678, Ta 0.322	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 24 report
Phase transition	2116 K	2116	L + λ/λ alloy: Fe 0.678, Ta 0.322	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 25 report
Phase transition	2116 K	2116	L/L + λ alloy: Fe 0.549, Ta 0.451	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 36 report
Phase transition	2120 K	2120	L/L + λ alloy: Fe 0.678, Ta 0.322	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 21 report
Phase transition	2126 K	2126	λ/L + λ alloy: Fe 0.638, Ta 0.362	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 33 report
Phase transition	2129 K	2129	L/L + λ alloy: Fe 0.678, Ta 0.322	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 23 report
Phase transition	2131 K	2131	L/L + λ alloy: Fe 0.638, Ta 0.362	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 31 report
Phase transition	2131 K	2131	congruent melting: L <-> λ L: Ta 0.35; λ: Ta 0.35	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 6, p. 14, row 5 report
Phase transition	2136 K	2136	L -> ε L: Ta 0.348; ε: Ta 0.348	unspecified	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Witusiewicz 2011 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 3 report
Phase transition	2136 K	2136	L/L + λ alloy: Fe 0.678, Ta 0.322	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 22 report
Phase transition	2136 K	2136	congruent melting: L <-> λ L: Ta 0.348; λ: Ta 0.348	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 6, p. 14, row 4 report
Phase transition	2136 K	2136	λ/L + λ alloy: Fe 0.638, Ta 0.362	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 32 report
Phase transition	2137 K	2137	L -> ε L: Ta 0.3598; ε: Ta 0.3598	model	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 2, p. 3, row 4 report
Phase transition	2137 K	2137	L/L + λ alloy: Fe 0.678, Ta 0.322	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 3, p. 8, row 20 report
Phase transition	2152 K	2152	L -> ε L: Ta 0.334; ε: Ta 0.334	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Keitz 1998	Table 2, p. 3, row 2 report

Phase equilibrium (13)

Phase equilibrium, Fe–Ta system
Property	T (K)	Phases / composition	Class	Source	Location
Phase assemblage		λ alloy: Fe 0.638, Ta 0.362	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 2, p. 2, row 13 report
Phase assemblage		λ + (αFe) alloy: Fe 0.85, Ta 0.15	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 2, p. 2, row 1 report
Phase assemblage		λ + (αFe)b alloy: Fe 0.68, Ta 0.32	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 2, p. 2, row 3 report
Phase assemblage		μ + Ta3Fe2b alloy: Fe 0.48, Ta 0.52	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 2, p. 2, row 9 report
Phase assemblage		μ + β alloy: Fe 0.36, Ta 0.64	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 2, p. 2, row 11 report
Phase assemblage		μ + λ + Ta3Fe2b alloy: Fe 0.55, Ta 0.45	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 2, p. 2, row 7 report
Phase assemblage	1673	λ + (αFe) alloy: Fe 0.85, Ta 0.15	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 2, p. 2, row 2 report
Phase assemblage	1973	λ alloy: Fe 0.68, Ta 0.32	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 2, p. 2, row 4 report
Phase assemblage	1973	μ + Ta3Fe2b alloy: Fe 0.48, Ta 0.52	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 2, p. 2, row 8 report
Phase assemblage	1973	μ + Ta3Fe2b alloy: Fe 0.44, Ta 0.56	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 2, p. 2, row 10 report
Phase assemblage	1973	μ + β alloy: Fe 0.36, Ta 0.64	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 2, p. 2, row 12 report
Phase assemblage	2073	λ alloy: Fe 0.638, Ta 0.362	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 2, p. 2, row 5 report
Phase assemblage	2073	μ + λ + Ta3Fe2b alloy: Fe 0.55, Ta 0.45	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011	Table 2, p. 2, row 6 report

Formation (11)

Formation, Fe–Ta system
Property	Value	T (K)	Phases / composition	Class	Source	Location
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG°	-19.793 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1070	ε alloy: Fe 0.6667, Ta 0.3333	model	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 11, p. 8, row 2 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG°	-19.628 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1070	ε alloy: Fe 0.6667, Ta 0.3333	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Barbi 1970 doi	Table 11, p. 8, row 1 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG°	-19.458 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1185	ε alloy: Fe 0.6667, Ta 0.3333	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Barbi 1970 doi	Table 11, p. 8, row 3 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG°	-19.384 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1185	ε alloy: Fe 0.6667, Ta 0.3333	model	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 11, p. 8, row 4 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG°	-19.06 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1260	ε alloy: Fe 0.6667, Ta 0.3333	model	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 11, p. 8, row 8 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG°	-22.381 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1260	ε alloy: Fe 0.6667, Ta 0.3333	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Rezukhina 1973	Table 11, p. 8, row 7 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG°	-22.299 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1300	ε alloy: Fe 0.6667, Ta 0.3333	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Rezukhina 1973	Table 11, p. 8, row 9 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG°	-19.287 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1300	ε alloy: Fe 0.6667, Ta 0.3333	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Barbi 1970 doi	Table 11, p. 8, row 5 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG°	-18.891 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1300	ε alloy: Fe 0.6667, Ta 0.3333	model	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 11, p. 8, row 6 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG°	-18.725 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1340	ε alloy: Fe 0.6667, Ta 0.3333	model	[2] Rajkumar 2015	Table 11, p. 8, row 12 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG°	-22.217 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1340	ε alloy: Fe 0.6667, Ta 0.3333	experimental	[2] Rajkumar 2015 cites Rezukhina 1973	Table 11, p. 8, row 11 report

Crystal structure (27)

Crystal structure, Fe–Ta system
Property	Value	T (K)	Phases / composition	Class	Source	Location
Lattice a	2.8665 Å	298.15	α, (αFe) alloy: Ta 0	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Massalski 1990	Table 1, p. 2, row 1 report
Lattice a	4.816 Å	298.15	λ, ε, TaFe2 λ: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33; λ, ε, TaFe2: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Kuo 1953 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 7 report
Lattice a	4.8 Å	298.15	λ, ε, TaFe2 λ: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33; λ, ε, TaFe2: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Wallbaum 1941	Table 1, p. 2, row 6 report
Lattice a	4.8 Å	298.15	λ, ε, TaFe2 alloy: Ta 0.333333	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Raman 1966	Table 1, p. 2, row 9 report
Lattice a	4.81 Å	298.15	λ, ε, TaFe2 λ: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33; λ, ε, TaFe2: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Jellinghaus 1935 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 5 report
Lattice a	4.806 Å	298.15	λ, ε, TaFe2 alloy: Ta 0.333333	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Jones 1972 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 11 report
Lattice a	4.86 Å	298.15	λ, ε, TaFe2 λ: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33; λ, ε, TaFe2: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Raman 1966	Table 1, p. 2, row 10 report
Lattice a	4.817 Å	298.15	λ, ε, TaFe2 λ: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33; λ, ε, TaFe2: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Elliot 1958	Table 1, p. 2, row 8 report
Lattice a	4.827 Å	298.15	λ, ε, TaFe2 λ: Fe 0.666, Ta 0.334; λ, ε, TaFe2: Fe 0.666, Ta 0.334	unspecified	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites von Keitz A 1998	Table 1, p. 2, row 12 report
Lattice a	4.911 Å	298.15	μ, TaFe, Ta6Fe7 μ: Fe 0.51, Ta 0.49; μ, TaFe, Ta6Fe7: Fe 0.51, Ta 0.49	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Raman 1966	Table 1, p. 2, row 13 report
Lattice a	4.95 Å	298.15	μ, TaFe, Ta6Fe7 μ: Fe 0.46, Ta 0.54; μ, TaFe, Ta6Fe7: Fe 0.46, Ta 0.54	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Raman 1966	Table 1, p. 2, row 14 report
Lattice a	4.919 Å	298.15	μ, TaFe, Ta6Fe7 μ: Fe 0.5, Ta 0.5; μ, TaFe, Ta6Fe7: Fe 0.5, Ta 0.5	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Kripyakevich 1968	Table 1, p. 2, row 15 report
Lattice a	8.3 Å	1073.15	UNKNOWN alloy: Fe 0.35, Ta 0.65	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Lin 1999 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 16 report
Lattice a	3.6467 Å	1188.15	γ, (γFe) alloy: Ta 0	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Massalski 1990	Table 1, p. 2, row 4 report
Lattice a	2.9315 Å	1753.15	δ, (δFe) alloy: Ta 0	model	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Massalski 1990	Table 1, p. 2, row 2 report
Lattice c	7.868 Å	298.15	λ, ε, TaFe2 λ: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33; λ, ε, TaFe2: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Kuo 1953 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 7 report
Lattice c	7.84 Å	298.15	λ, ε, TaFe2 λ: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33; λ, ε, TaFe2: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Wallbaum 1941	Table 1, p. 2, row 6 report
Lattice c	7.84 Å	298.15	λ, ε, TaFe2 alloy: Ta 0.333333	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Raman 1966	Table 1, p. 2, row 9 report
Lattice c	7.888 Å	298.15	λ, ε, TaFe2 λ: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33; λ, ε, TaFe2: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Jellinghaus 1935 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 5 report
Lattice c	7.846 Å	298.15	λ, ε, TaFe2 alloy: Ta 0.333333	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Jones 1972 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 11 report
Lattice c	7.914 Å	298.15	λ, ε, TaFe2 λ: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33; λ, ε, TaFe2: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Raman 1966	Table 1, p. 2, row 10 report
Lattice c	7.822 Å	298.15	λ, ε, TaFe2 λ: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33; λ, ε, TaFe2: Fe 0.67, Ta 0.33	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Elliot 1958	Table 1, p. 2, row 8 report
Lattice c	7.878 Å	298.15	λ, ε, TaFe2 λ: Fe 0.666, Ta 0.334; λ, ε, TaFe2: Fe 0.666, Ta 0.334	unspecified	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites von Keitz A 1998	Table 1, p. 2, row 12 report
Lattice c	26.98 Å	298.15	μ, TaFe, Ta6Fe7 μ: Fe 0.51, Ta 0.49; μ, TaFe, Ta6Fe7: Fe 0.51, Ta 0.49	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Raman 1966	Table 1, p. 2, row 13 report
Lattice c	27.07 Å	298.15	μ, TaFe, Ta6Fe7 μ: Fe 0.46, Ta 0.54; μ, TaFe, Ta6Fe7: Fe 0.46, Ta 0.54	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Raman 1966	Table 1, p. 2, row 14 report
Lattice c	27 Å	298.15	μ, TaFe, Ta6Fe7 μ: Fe 0.5, Ta 0.5; μ, TaFe, Ta6Fe7: Fe 0.5, Ta 0.5	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Kripyakevich 1968	Table 1, p. 2, row 15 report
Lattice c	4.85 Å	1073.15	UNKNOWN alloy: Fe 0.35, Ta 0.65	experimental	[3] Witusiewicz 2011 cites Lin 1999 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 16 report

Sources

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

A Danon, C Servant, Contribution to a thermodynamic database and phase equilibria calculations for low activation Ta-containing steels, Journal of Nuclear Materials 321, 8-18 (2003). doi:10.1016/s0022-3115(03)00196-x
V.B. Rajkumar, K.C. Hari Kumar, Gibbs energy modeling of Fe–Ta system by Calphad method assisted by experiments and ab initio calculations, Calphad 48, 157-165 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.calphad.2014.12.006
V.T. Witusiewicz, A.A. Bondar, U. Hecht, V.M. Voblikov, O.S. Fomichov, V.M. Petyukh et al., Experimental study and thermodynamic re-assessment of the binary Fe–Ta system, Intermetallics 19, 1059-1075 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.intermet.2011.03.018

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}
}