Fe–Zn system

127 accepted literature values from 4 paper(s) (experimental 50, model 61, unspecified 16); 5 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 (8) · papers (bibliography) · Markdown

Accepted values by evidence class
Evidence class	Values
experimental	50
model	61
unspecified	16

Accepted values by property group
Property group	Values
invariant reaction	70
formation	42
activity / EMF / Gibbs energy	1
crystal structure	14

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
FeZn-00Reu-LB.tdb	G. Reumont, P. Perrot, J.M. Fiorani, J. Hertz, J. Phase Equilib., 21, 371-78(2000). doi:10.1361/105497100770339905	`d4504e582665577ae0efbb4b30c0f0d18a58aa7b8874740f1602267a9bba34ae`	viewer · TDB · JSON
FeZn-01Su.tdb	X. Su, N.-Y. Tang, J.M. Toguri, J. Alloys Compd., 325, 129-36(2001). doi:10.1016/S0925-8388(01)01273-7	`7ec69901e59741d29ef1ccf1b70dd7ab343781ae0b78dcff5d66479170d0efd5`	viewer · TDB · JSON
FeZn-05Su.tdb	X. Su, F. Yin, Z. Li, N.-Y. Tang, M. Zhao, J. Alloys Compd., 396, 156-63(2005). doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2004.12.031	`7315dc671e2b7ec86810fcab9f43e86d9e07d50fb798ccf496064180bc827e4e`	viewer · TDB · JSON
FeZn-09Xio.tdb	W. Xiong, Y. Kong, Y. Du, Z.-K. Liu, M. Selleby, W.-H. Sun, Calphad, 33, 433-40(2009). doi:10.1016/j.calphad.2009.01.002	`adfbe318ba501357566f35b08ed8124470a9a7657ee9756cad9d44f35937244f`	viewer · TDB · JSON
FeZn-11Tan.tdb	Y. Tang, X. Yuan, Y. Du, W. Xiong, J. Mining Metall. B, 47, 1-10(2011). doi:10.2298/JMMB1101001T	`fd6a097e34a77fe39eb5bc9ac59775076e347f488bc4c64960bfc05d926ec7b6`	viewer · TDB · JSON

Calculated three-phase invariants (model, mole fraction of the second component)
TDB file	T (K)	Phases at the invariant
FeZn-00Reu-LB.tdb	1056.68	BCC_A2 (x(Zn) 0.39797) + FE3ZN7_D82 (x(Zn) 0.75492) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.93449)
FeZn-00Reu-LB.tdb	944.41	FE3ZN7_D82 (x(Zn) 0.80708) + FEZN10 (x(Zn) 0.86138) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.98286)
FeZn-00Reu-LB.tdb	822.52	FE3ZN7_D82 (x(Zn) 0.7549) + FEZN4 (x(Zn) 0.79351) + FEZN10 (x(Zn) 0.86713)
FeZn-00Reu-LB.tdb	805.07	FEZN10 (x(Zn) 0.89688) + FEZN13 (x(Zn) 0.92788) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.99898)
FeZn-00Reu-LB.tdb	692.86	FEZN13 (x(Zn) 0.94125) + HCP_A3 (x(Zn) 0.99965) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.99998)
FeZn-00Reu-LB.tdb	692.86	FEZN13 (x(Zn) 0.94125) + HCP_A3 (x(Zn) 0.99965) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.99998)
FeZn-01Su.tdb	1293.09	BCC_A2 (x(Zn) 0.2455) + FCC_A1 (x(Zn) 0.28294) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.83845)
FeZn-01Su.tdb	1084.45	BCC_A2 (x(Zn) 0.3767) + FCC_A1 (x(Zn) 0.40105) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.90491)
FeZn-01Su.tdb	1056.65	BCC_A2 (x(Zn) 0.43043) + FE3ZN7_D82 (x(Zn) 0.72983) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.91088)
FeZn-01Su.tdb	944.98	FE3ZN7_D82 (x(Zn) 0.80681) + FEZN10 (x(Zn) 0.86925) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.96352)
FeZn-01Su.tdb	823.01	FE3ZN7_D82 (x(Zn) 0.77836) + FEZN4 (x(Zn) 0.80104) + FEZN10 (x(Zn) 0.86873)
FeZn-01Su.tdb	803	FEZN10 (x(Zn) 0.91423) + FEZN13 (x(Zn) 0.92857) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.99674)
FeZn-01Su.tdb	692.98	FEZN13 (x(Zn) 0.92857) + HCP_A3 (x(Zn) 0.99932) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.99988)
FeZn-05Su.tdb	1626.17	BCC_A2 (x(Zn) 0.15457) + FCC_A1 (x(Zn) 0.16221) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.33479)
FeZn-05Su.tdb	1559.32	BCC_A2 (x(Zn) 0.19087) + FCC_A1 (x(Zn) 0.19727) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.54784)
FeZn-05Su.tdb	1056.51	BCC_A2 (x(Zn) 0.42929) + FE3ZN7_D82 (x(Zn) 0.73198) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.89938)
FeZn-05Su.tdb	944.85	FE3ZN7_D82 (x(Zn) 0.80575) + FEZN10 (x(Zn) 0.86406) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.96012)
FeZn-05Su.tdb	823.01	FE3ZN7_D82 (x(Zn) 0.77439) + FEZN4 (x(Zn) 0.80068) + FEZN10 (x(Zn) 0.86404)
FeZn-05Su.tdb	802.96	FEZN10 (x(Zn) 0.91276) + FEZN13 (x(Zn) 0.92857) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.99638)
FeZn-05Su.tdb	692.66	FEZN13 (x(Zn) 0.92857) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.99989) + HCP_A3 (x(Zn) 0.99992)
FeZn-09Xio.tdb	1055.24	BCC_A2 (x(Zn) 0.42079) + FE3ZN7_D82 (x(Zn) 0.72043) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.91176)
FeZn-09Xio.tdb	941.39	FE3ZN7_D82 (x(Zn) 0.81554) + FEZN10 (x(Zn) 0.86058) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.96248)
FeZn-09Xio.tdb	824.1	FE3ZN7_D82 (x(Zn) 0.75317) + FEZN4 (x(Zn) 0.81034) + FEZN10 (x(Zn) 0.86082)
FeZn-09Xio.tdb	802.2	FEZN10 (x(Zn) 0.90832) + FEZN13 (x(Zn) 0.92937) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.99631)
FeZn-09Xio.tdb	692.63	FEZN13 (x(Zn) 0.9388) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.99989) + HCP_A3 (x(Zn) 0.99998)
FeZn-11Tan.tdb	1056.62	BCC_A2 (x(Zn) 0.46428) + FE3ZN7_D82 (x(Zn) 0.73038) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.92402)
FeZn-11Tan.tdb	945.49	FE3ZN7_D82 (x(Zn) 0.80023) + FEZN10 (x(Zn) 0.8635) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.96952)
FeZn-11Tan.tdb	823.96	FE3ZN7_D82 (x(Zn) 0.75961) + FEZN4 (x(Zn) 0.80199) + FEZN10 (x(Zn) 0.86538)
FeZn-11Tan.tdb	802.64	FEZN10 (x(Zn) 0.91341) + FEZN13 (x(Zn) 0.92938) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.99748)
FeZn-11Tan.tdb	692.65	FEZN13 (x(Zn) 0.93876) + LIQUID (x(Zn) 0.99993) + HCP_A3 (x(Zn) 0.99998)

Convex hulls: Materials Project DFT hull · OQMD DFT hull · CALPHAD hull FeZn-00Reu-LB · CALPHAD hull FeZn-01Su · CALPHAD hull FeZn-05Su · CALPHAD hull FeZn-09Xio

Invariant reactions (literature)

Invariant reactions reported in the literature for the Fe–Zn system (70)
T (K)	Reaction / phases	Compositions (mole fraction)	Class	Source	Location
1055.15	(αFe)+L -> Γ	(αFe): Zn 0.42; L: Zn 0.92; Γ: Zn 0.72	experimental	[1] Tang 2011 cites Gellings 1980 doi	Table 3, p. 7, row 3 report
1055.15	peritectic: (αFe) + L = Γ	(αFe): Zn 0.42; L: Zn 0.92; Γ: Zn 0.72	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Burton 1993	Table 5, p. 6, row 6 report
1055.15	L + α-Fe(b.c.c.) -> Γ	L: Zn 0.912; α-Fe(b.c.c.): Zn 0.415; Γ: Zn 0.732	model	[3] Su 2001	Table 2, p. 5, row 1 report
1055.15	peritectic: (αFe) + L = Γ	(αFe): Zn 0.418; L: Zn 0.918; Γ: Zn 0.721	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Conclusions	Table 5, p. 6, row 2 report
1055.15	L + α-Fe(b.c.c.) -> Γ	L: Zn 0.92; α-Fe(b.c.c.): Zn 0.42; Γ: Zn 0.72	experimental	[3] Su 2001 cites Burton 1993	Table 2, p. 5, row 2 report
1055.15	peritectic: (αFe) + L = Γ	(αFe): Zn 0.42; L: Zn 0.92; Γ: Zn 0.72	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 5, p. 6, row 5 report
1055.15	L + α-Fe(b.c.c.) -> Γ	Γ: Fe 0.3, Zn 0.7	unspecified	[3] Su 2001 cites Gellings 1980	Table 2, p. 5, row 3 report
1055.15	(αFe)+L -> Γ	(αFe): Zn 0.423; L: Zn 0.92; Γ: Zn 0.726	model	[1] Tang 2011 cites Xiong 2009 doi	Table 3, p. 7, row 2 report
1055.15	peritectic: (αFe) + L = Γ	(αFe): Zn 0.423; L: Zn 0.92; Γ: Zn 0.726	model	[2] Xiong 2009	Table 5, p. 6, row 1 report
1055.15	L + α-Fe(b.c.c.) -> Γ	Γ: Fe 0.3, Zn 0.7	experimental	[3] Su 2001 cites Truesdale 1936	Table 2, p. 5, row 4 report
1055.15	peritectic: (αFe) + L = Γ	Γ: Fe 0.3, Zn 0.7	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Gellings 1980	Table 5, p. 6, row 4 report
1055.15	(αFe)+L -> Γ	(αFe): Zn 0.432; L: Zn 0.9249; Γ: Zn 0.7316	model	[1] Tang 2011	Table 3, p. 7, row 1 report
1055.15	peritectic: (αFe) + L = Γ	(αFe): Zn 0.415; L: Zn 0.912; Γ: Zn 0.732	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Su 2001 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 3 report
1038.15	L + α-Fe(b.c.c.) -> Γ	Γ: Fe 0.3, Zn 0.7	experimental	[3] Su 2001 cites Hansen 1936	Table 2, p. 5, row 5 report
945.15	L + Γ -> δ	Γ: Fe 0.3, Zn 0.7; δ: Fe 0.090909, Zn 0.909091	experimental	[3] Su 2001 cites Truesdale 1936	Table 2, p. 5, row 10 report
945.15	peritectic: Γ + L = δ	Γ: Fe 0.3, Zn 0.7; δ: Fe 0.090909, Zn 0.909091	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Schramm 1936	Table 5, p. 6, row 10 report
945.15	L + Γ -> δ	Γ: Fe 0.3, Zn 0.7; δ: Fe 0.090909, Zn 0.909091	unspecified	[3] Su 2001 cites Gellings 1980	Table 2, p. 5, row 8 report
945.15	peritectic: Γ + L = δ	Γ: Zn 0.825; L: Zn 0.965; δ: Zn 0.865	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Burton 1993	Table 5, p. 6, row 13 report
945.15	L+Γ -> δ	L: Zn 0.965; Γ: Zn 0.825; δ: Zn 0.865	experimental	[1] Tang 2011 cites Gellings 1980 doi	Table 3, p. 7, row 6 report
945.15	peritectic: Γ + L = δ	Γ: Zn 0.825; L: Zn 0.964; δ: Zn 0.866	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Conclusions	Table 5, p. 6, row 8 report
945.15	L+Γ -> δ	L: Zn 0.9697; Γ: Zn 0.8022; δ: Zn 0.8636	model	[1] Tang 2011	Table 3, p. 7, row 4 report
945.15	peritectic: Γ + L = δ	Γ: Fe 0.3, Zn 0.7; δ: Fe 0.090909, Zn 0.909091	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Gellings 1980	Table 5, p. 6, row 11 report
945.15	L + Γ -> δ	L: Zn 0.964; Γ: Zn 0.807; δ: Zn 0.869	model	[3] Su 2001	Table 2, p. 5, row 6 report
945.15	peritectic: Γ + L = δ	Γ: Zn 0.807; L: Zn 0.964; δ: Zn 0.869	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Su 2001 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 9 report
945.15	L + Γ -> δ	Γ: Fe 0.3, Zn 0.7; δ: Fe 0.090909, Zn 0.909091	experimental	[3] Su 2001 cites Schramm 1936	Table 2, p. 5, row 9 report
945.15	L + Γ -> δ	L: Zn 0.965; Γ: Zn 0.813; δ: Zn 0.87	experimental	[3] Su 2001 cites Burton 1993	Table 2, p. 5, row 7 report
941.15	peritectic: Γ + L = δ	Γ: Zn 0.827; L: Zn 0.973; δ: Zn 0.856	model	[2] Xiong 2009	Table 5, p. 6, row 7 report
941.15	L+Γ -> δ	L: Zn 0.973; Γ: Zn 0.827; δ: Zn 0.856	model	[1] Tang 2011 cites Xiong 2009 doi	Table 3, p. 7, row 5 report
938.15	peritectic: Γ + L = δ	Γ: Zn 0.825; L: Zn 0.975; δ: Zn 0.865	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 5, p. 6, row 12 report
920.15	L + Γ -> δ	Γ: Fe 0.3, Zn 0.7; δ: Fe 0.090909, Zn 0.909091	experimental	[3] Su 2001 cites Hansen 1936	Table 2, p. 5, row 11 report
823.85	Γ+δ -> Γ1	Γ: Zn 0.7597; δ: Zn 0.8654; Γ1: Zn 0.802	model	[1] Tang 2011	Table 3, p. 7, row 7 report
823.15	Γ+δ -> Γ1	Γ: Zn 0.765; δ: Zn 0.865; Γ1: Zn 0.81	experimental	[1] Tang 2011 cites Gellings 1980 doi	Table 3, p. 7, row 9 report
823.15	peritectoid: Γ + δ = Γ1	Γ: Zn 0.765; δ: Zn 0.865; Γ1: Zn 0.81	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 5, p. 6, row 18 report
823.15	Γ + δ -> Γ1	Γ: Zn 0.778; δ: Zn 0.801; Γ1: Zn 0.869	model	[3] Su 2001	Table 2, p. 5, row 21 report
823.15	peritectoid: Γ + δ = Γ1	Γ: Zn 0.768; δ: Zn 0.856; Γ1: Zn 0.81	model	[2] Xiong 2009	Table 5, p. 6, row 14 report
823.15	peritectoid: Γ + δ = Γ1	Γ: Fe 0.3, Zn 0.7; δ: Fe 0.090909, Zn 0.909091; Γ1: Fe 0.2, Zn 0.8	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Gellings 1980	Table 5, p. 6, row 17 report
823.15	Γ + δ -> Γ1	Γ: Fe 0.3, Zn 0.7; δ: Fe 0.090909, Zn 0.909091; Γ1: Fe 0.2, Zn 0.8	unspecified	[3] Su 2001 cites Gellings 1980	Table 2, p. 5, row 23 report
823.15	Γ + δ -> Γ1	Γ: Fe 0.3, Zn 0.7; δ: Fe 0.090909, Zn 0.909091; Γ1: Fe 0.2, Zn 0.8	experimental	[3] Su 2001 cites Burton 1993	Table 2, p. 5, row 22 report
823.15	peritectoid: Γ + δ = Γ1	Γ: Zn 0.766; δ: Zn 0.865; Γ1: Zn 0.809	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Conclusions	Table 5, p. 6, row 15 report
823.15	peritectoid: Γ + δ = Γ1	Γ: Zn 0.778; δ: Zn 0.869; Γ1: Zn 0.801	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Su 2001 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 16 report
823.15	Γ+δ -> Γ1	Γ: Zn 0.768; δ: Zn 0.856; Γ1: Zn 0.81	model	[1] Tang 2011 cites Xiong 2009 doi	Table 3, p. 7, row 8 report
823.15	peritectoid: Γ + δ = Γ1	Γ: Zn 0.765; δ: Zn 0.865; Γ1: Zn 0.81	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Burton 1993	Table 5, p. 6, row 19 report
803.85	δ+L -> ζ	δ: Zn 0.913; L: Zn 0.9974; ζ: Zn 0.9294	model	[1] Tang 2011	Table 3, p. 7, row 10 report
803.15	δ+L -> ζ	δ: Zn 0.92; L: Zn 0.995; ζ: Zn 0.927	experimental	[1] Tang 2011 cites Gellings 1980 doi	Table 3, p. 7, row 12 report
803.15	L + δ -> ζ	δ: Fe 0.090909, Zn 0.909091; ζ: Fe 0.071429, Zn 0.928571	experimental	[3] Su 2001 cites Schramm 1936	Table 2, p. 5, row 15 report
803.15	peritectic: δ + L = ζ	δ: Fe 0.090909, Zn 0.909091; ζ: Fe 0.071429, Zn 0.928571	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Gellings 1980	Table 5, p. 6, row 24 report
803.15	peritectic: δ + L = ζ	δ: Zn 0.92; L: Zn 0.995; ζ: Zn 0.927	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 5, p. 6, row 25 report
803.15	peritectic: δ + L = ζ	δ: Zn 0.914; L: Zn 0.996; ζ: Zn 0.928	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Conclusions	Table 5, p. 6, row 21 report
803.15	L + δ -> ζ	δ: Fe 0.090909, Zn 0.909091; ζ: Fe 0.071429, Zn 0.928571	unspecified	[3] Su 2001 cites Gellings 1980	Table 2, p. 5, row 14 report
803.15	L + δ -> ζ	δ: Fe 0.090909, Zn 0.909091; ζ: Fe 0.071429, Zn 0.928571	experimental	[3] Su 2001 cites Burton 1993	Table 2, p. 5, row 13 report
803.15	peritectic: δ + L = ζ	δ: Zn 0.914; L: Zn 0.996; ζ: Zn 0.929	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Su 2001 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 22 report
803.15	L + δ -> ζ	L: Zn 0.997; δ: Zn 0.914; ζ: Fe 0.071429, Zn 0.928571	model	[3] Su 2001	Table 2, p. 5, row 12 report
803.15	peritectic: δ + L = ζ	δ: Fe 0.090909, Zn 0.909091; ζ: Fe 0.071429, Zn 0.928571	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Schramm 1936	Table 5, p. 6, row 23 report
799.15	δ+L -> ζ	δ: Zn 0.914; L: Zn 0.9985; ζ: Zn 0.93	model	[1] Tang 2011 cites Xiong 2009 doi	Table 3, p. 7, row 11 report
799.15	peritectic: δ + L = ζ	δ: Zn 0.914; L: Zn 0.9985; ζ: Zn 0.93	model	[2] Xiong 2009	Table 5, p. 6, row 20 report
692.68	eutectic: L = ζ + (Zn)	L: Zn 0.99989; ζ: Zn 0.94; (Zn): Zn 1	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Kubaschewski 1982	Table 5, p. 6, row 32 report
692.65	eutectic: L = ζ + (Zn)	L: Zn 0.9995; ζ: Zn 0.944; (Zn): Zn 0.999899	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Conclusions	Table 5, p. 6, row 27 report
692.65	L+ζ -> (Zn)	L: Zn 0.99998; ζ: Zn 0.939; (Zn): Zn 0.999886	model	[1] Tang 2011 cites Xiong 2009 doi	Table 3, p. 7, row 14 report
692.65	L+ζ -> (Zn)	L: Zn 0.99988; ζ: Zn 0.9388; (Zn): Zn 0.999886	model	[1] Tang 2011	Table 3, p. 7, row 13 report
692.63	eutectic: L = ζ + (Zn)	L: Zn 0.999981; ζ: Zn 0.939; (Zn): Zn 0.999886	model	[2] Xiong 2009	Table 5, p. 6, row 26 report
692.61	eutectic: L = ζ + (Zn)	L: Zn 0.999878; ζ: Zn 0.929; (Zn): Zn 1	model	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Su 2001 doi	Table 5, p. 6, row 28 report
692.6	eutectic: L -> ζ + Zn(h.c.p.)	L: Zn 0.9999; ζ: Fe 0.071429, Zn 0.928571	model	[3] Su 2001	Table 2, p. 5, row 16 report
692.55	eutectic: L = ζ + (Zn)	ζ: Fe 0.071429, Zn 0.928571	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Gellings 1980	Table 5, p. 6, row 31 report
692.55	eutectic: L -> ζ + Zn(h.c.p.)	ζ: Fe 0.071429, Zn 0.928571	unspecified	[3] Su 2001 cites Gellings 1980	Table 2, p. 5, row 18 report
692.55	eutectic: L = ζ + (Zn)	ζ: Fe 0.071429, Zn 0.928571	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Schramm 1936	Table 5, p. 6, row 30 report
692.55	eutectic: L -> ζ + Zn(h.c.p.)	ζ: Fe 0.071429, Zn 0.928571	experimental	[3] Su 2001 cites Schramm 1936	Table 2, p. 5, row 19 report
692.55	eutectic: L -> ζ + Zn(h.c.p.)	L: Zn 0.9998; ζ: Fe 0.071429, Zn 0.928571	experimental	[3] Su 2001 cites Truesdale 1936	Table 2, p. 5, row 20 report
692.55	eutectic: L = ζ + (Zn)	L: Zn 0.99979; ζ: Fe 0.071429, Zn 0.928571; (Zn): Zn 0.99997	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Truesdale 1936	Table 5, p. 6, row 29 report
692.55	eutectic: L -> ζ + Zn(h.c.p.)	ζ: Fe 0.071429, Zn 0.928571	experimental	[3] Su 2001 cites Burton 1993	Table 2, p. 5, row 17 report
692.55	L+ζ -> (Zn)	L: Zn 0.99989; ζ: Zn 0.94; (Zn): Zn 1	experimental	[1] Tang 2011 cites Gellings 1980 doi	Table 3, p. 7, row 15 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–Zn system (12)
Phase	Value	T (K)	Class	Source	Location
Γ1	-11.258 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	298.15	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 1, p. 5, row 2 report
Γ1	-11.125 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	773	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 1, p. 5, row 3 report
Γ1	-10.884 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	298.15	experimental	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Reutner 1980 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 1 report
Γ2	-11.872 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	298.15	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 1, p. 5, row 8 report
Γ2	-11.765 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	773	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 1, p. 5, row 9 report
Γ2	-11.764 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	298.15	experimental	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Reutner 1980 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 7 report
δ1	-11.479 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	298.15	experimental	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Reutner 1980 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 13 report
δ1	-10.358 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	773	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 1, p. 5, row 15 report
δ1	-10.069 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	298.15	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 1, p. 5, row 14 report
ζ	-11.672 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	298.15	experimental	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Reutner 1980 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 19 report
ζ	-9.031 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	773	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 1, p. 5, row 21 report
ζ	-9.008 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	298.15	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 1, p. 5, row 20 report

Other properties

Formation (30)

Formation, Fe–Zn system
Property	Value	T (K)	Phases / composition	Class	Source	Location
Entropy of formation printed: ΔfS(Γ1)	-9.41 J/mol (basis unstated)/K	298.15	Γ1 alloy: Fe 0.31, Zn 0.69	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 1, p. 5, row 5 report
Entropy of formation printed: ΔfS(Γ1)	-9.166 J/mol (basis unstated)/K	298.15	Γ1 alloy: Fe 0.25, Zn 0.75	experimental	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Reutner 1980 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 4 report
Entropy of formation printed: ΔfS(Γ2)	-10.634 J/mol (basis unstated)/K	298.15	Γ2 alloy: Fe 0.2, Zn 0.8	experimental	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Reutner 1980 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 10 report
Entropy of formation printed: ΔfS(Γ2)	-10.47 J/mol (basis unstated)/K	298.15	Γ2 alloy: Fe 0.21, Zn 0.79	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 1, p. 5, row 11 report
Entropy of formation printed: ΔfS(δ1)	-9.24 J/mol (basis unstated)/K	298.15	δ1 alloy: Fe 0.12, Zn 0.88	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 1, p. 5, row 17 report
Entropy of formation printed: ΔfS(δ1)	-11.08 J/mol (basis unstated)/K	298.15	δ1 alloy: Fe 0.1, Zn 0.9	experimental	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Reutner 1980 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 16 report
Entropy of formation printed: ΔfS(ζ)	-9.19 J/mol (basis unstated)/K	298.15	ζ alloy: Fe 0.08, Zn 0.92	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 1, p. 5, row 23 report
Entropy of formation printed: ΔfS(ζ)	-12.22 J/mol (basis unstated)/K	298.15	ζ alloy: Fe 0.07, Zn 0.93	experimental	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Reutner 1980 doi	Table 1, p. 5, row 22 report
Entropy of formation printed: ΔfS(Γ1)	-9.3 J/mol (basis unstated)/K	773	Γ1 alloy: Fe 0.3, Zn 0.7	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 1, p. 5, row 6 report
Entropy of formation printed: ΔfS(Γ2)	-10.63 J/mol (basis unstated)/K	773	Γ2 alloy: Fe 0.24, Zn 0.76	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 1, p. 5, row 12 report
Entropy of formation printed: ΔfS(δ1)	-9.65 J/mol (basis unstated)/K	773	δ1 alloy: Fe 0.125, Zn 0.875	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 1, p. 5, row 18 report
Entropy of formation printed: ΔfS(ζ)	-9.33 J/mol (basis unstated)/K	773	ζ alloy: Fe 0.07, Zn 0.93	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 1, p. 5, row 24 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-4.8 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	617	Γ1 alloy: Fe 0.25, Zn 0.75	model	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Petersen 1988 doi	Table 2, p. 6, row 3 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-5.2 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	617	Γ1 alloy: Fe 0.25, Zn 0.75	unspecified	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Dauphin 1987	Table 2, p. 6, row 2 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-5.9 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	617	Γ1 alloy: Fe 0.25, Zn 0.75	unspecified	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Costa 2000	Table 2, p. 6, row 4 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-5.2 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 2	617	Γ1 alloy: Fe 0.25, Zn 0.75	unspecified	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Gellings 1980	Table 2, p. 6, row 1 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-4.9 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	617	Γ1 alloy: Fe 0.25, Zn 0.75	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 2, p. 6, row 5 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-5.5 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 2	617	Γ2 alloy: Fe 0.2, Zn 0.8	unspecified	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Gellings 1980	Table 2, p. 6, row 6 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-4.8 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	617	Γ2 alloy: Fe 0.2, Zn 0.8	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 2, p. 6, row 8 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-5.2 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	617	Γ2 alloy: Fe 0.2, Zn 0.8	unspecified	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Dauphin 1987	Table 2, p. 6, row 7 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-5.2 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	617	δ1 alloy: Fe 0.1, Zn 0.9	model	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Petersen 1988 doi	Table 2, p. 6, row 11 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-4.6 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	617	δ1 alloy: Fe 0.1, Zn 0.9	unspecified	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Dauphin 1987	Table 2, p. 6, row 10 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-5.2 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 2	617	δ1 alloy: Fe 0.1, Zn 0.9	unspecified	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Gellings 1980	Table 2, p. 6, row 9 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-5.7 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	617	δ1 alloy: Fe 0.1, Zn 0.9	unspecified	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Costa 2000	Table 2, p. 6, row 12 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-3.6 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	617	δ1 alloy: Fe 0.1, Zn 0.9	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 2, p. 6, row 13 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-3.9 kJ/mol (basis unstated) ± 2	617	ζ alloy: Fe 0.07, Zn 0.93	unspecified	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Gellings 1980	Table 2, p. 6, row 14 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-2.5 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	617	ζ alloy: Fe 0.07, Zn 0.93	model	[4] Reumont 2000	Table 2, p. 6, row 18 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-2 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	617	ζ alloy: Fe 0.07, Zn 0.93	model	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Petersen 1988 doi	Table 2, p. 6, row 16 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-4.1 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	617	ζ alloy: Fe 0.07, Zn 0.93	unspecified	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Dauphin 1987	Table 2, p. 6, row 15 report
Gibbs energy of formation printed: ΔfG	-4.3 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	617	ζ alloy: Fe 0.07, Zn 0.93	unspecified	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Costa 2000	Table 2, p. 6, row 17 report

Activity / EMF / Gibbs energy (1)

Activity / EMF / Gibbs energy, Fe–Zn system
Property	Value	T (K)	Phases / composition	Class	Source	Location	Quote
Chemical potential printed: zinc chemical potential	-2 kJ	1055		experimental	[4] Reumont 2000 cites Dauphin 1987	p. 5 report	The agreement with the graphical estimation of [1987Dau] is good except the peritectic invariant at 1055 K given as 22 kJ by these authors.

Crystal structure (14)

Crystal structure, Fe–Zn system
Property	Value	T (K)	Phases / composition	Class	Source	Location
Lattice a	8.994 Å	298.15	Γ	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Belin 2000 doi	Table 2, p. 4, row 1 report
Lattice a	17.963 Å	298.15	Γ1	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Koster 1981	Table 2, p. 4, row 2 report
Lattice a	12.787 Å	298.15	δ	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Belin 2000 doi	Table 2, p. 4, row 3 report
Lattice a	13.41 Å	298.15	ζ	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Uwakweh 2000 doi	Table 2, p. 4, row 4 report
Lattice b	7.606 Å	298.15	ζ	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Uwakweh 2000 doi	Table 2, p. 4, row 4 report
Lattice c	57.222 Å	298.15	δ	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Belin 2000 doi	Table 2, p. 4, row 3 report
Lattice c	5.076 Å	298.15	ζ	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Uwakweh 2000 doi	Table 2, p. 4, row 4 report
lattice alpha	90 °	298.15	Γ	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Belin 2000 doi	Table 2, p. 4, row 1 report
lattice alpha	90 °	298.15	Γ1	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Koster 1981	Table 2, p. 4, row 2 report
lattice alpha	120 °	298.15	δ	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Belin 2000 doi	Table 2, p. 4, row 3 report
lattice alpha	90 °	298.15	ζ	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Uwakweh 2000 doi	Table 2, p. 4, row 4 report
lattice beta	127.3 °	298.15	ζ	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Uwakweh 2000 doi	Table 2, p. 4, row 4 report
lattice gamma	90 °	298.15	δ	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Belin 2000 doi	Table 2, p. 4, row 3 report
lattice gamma	90 °	298.15	ζ	experimental	[2] Xiong 2009 cites Uwakweh 2000 doi	Table 2, p. 4, row 4 report

Sources

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

Y. Tang, X. Yuan, Y. Du, W. Xiong, Thermodynamic modeling of the Fe−Zn system using exponential temperature dependence for the excess Gibbs energy, J min metall B Metall 47, 1-10 (2011). doi:10.2298/jmmb1101001t
Wei Xiong, Yi Kong, Yong Du, Zi-Kui Liu, Malin Selleby, Wei-Hua Sun, Thermodynamic investigation of the galvanizing systems, I: Refinement of the thermodynamic description for the Fe–Zn system, Calphad 33, 433-440 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.calphad.2009.01.002
Xuping Su, Nai-Yong Tang, Jim M. Toguri, Thermodynamic evaluation of the Fe–Zn system, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 325, 129-136 (2001). doi:10.1016/s0925-8388(01)01273-7
G. Reumont, P. Perrot, J. M. Fiorani, J. Hertz, Thermodynamic assessment of the Fe-Zn system, JPE 21, 371-378 (2000). doi:10.1361/105497100770339905

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}
}