In–Ni–Sb system

23 accepted literature values from 1 paper(s) (experimental 9, model 14); 0 calculated phase diagram(s). 2 further extracted value(s) not accepted by the reader-agreement checks are only in the JSON/CSV.

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

Accepted values by evidence class
Evidence class	Values
experimental	9
model	14

Accepted values by property group
Property group	Values
invariant reaction	23

Invariant reactions (literature)

Invariant reactions reported in the literature for the In–Ni–Sb system (23)
T (K)	Reaction / phases	Compositions (mole fraction)	Class	Source	Location
1337.15	peritectic: L + λ + α = δ	L: In 0.05, Ni 0.8	model	[1] Cao 2013	Table VI, p. 13, row 1 report
1317.15	peritectic: L + λ + δ = ζ	L: In 0.24, Ni 0.69	model	[1] Cao 2013	Table VI, p. 13, row 2 report
1283.15	quasi-peritectic: L + δ = α + β	L: In 0.19, Ni 0.75	model	[1] Cao 2013	Table VI, p. 13, row 3 report
1280.15	quasi-peritectic: L + δ = ζ + β	L: In 0.23, Ni 0.71	model	[1] Cao 2013	Table VI, p. 13, row 4 report
1241.15	peritectic: L + β + α = ζ	L: In 0.24, Ni 0.74	model	[1] Cao 2013	Table VI, p. 13, row 5 report
1169.15	peritectic: L + ζ + ω(NiIn) = γ	L: In 0.55, Ni 0.41	model	[1] Cao 2013	Table VI, p. 13, row 6 report
1168.15	peritectic: L + ζ + ω(NiIn) = γ	L: In 0.55, Ni 0.41	experimental	[1] Cao 2013 cites Richter 1998 doi	Table VI, p. 13, row 7 report
1148.15	quasi-peritectic: L + ω(NiIn) = γ + ε	L: In 0.61, Ni 0.34	model	[1] Cao 2013	Table VI, p. 13, row 8 report
1128.15	quasi-peritectic: L + ω(NiIn) = γ + ε	L: In 0.57, Ni 0.38	experimental	[1] Cao 2013 cites Richter 1998 doi	Table VI, p. 13, row 9 report
1078.15	quasi-peritectic: L + γ = ε + ζ	L: In 0.53, Ni 0.36	experimental	[1] Cao 2013 cites Richter 1998 doi	Table VI, p. 13, row 11 report
1077.15	quasi-peritectic: L + γ = ε + ζ	L: In 0.65, Ni 0.26	model	[1] Cao 2013	Table VI, p. 13, row 10 report
795.15	eutectic: L = InSb + ζ	L: In 0.484, Ni 0.016	experimental	[1] Cao 2013 cites Richter 1998 doi	Table VI, p. 13, row 13 report
790.15	quasi-peritectic: L + ζ = InSb + NiSb2	L: In 0.357, Ni 0.015	model	[1] Cao 2013	Table VI, p. 13, row 14 report
777.15	quasi-peritectic: L + ζ = InSb + NiSb2	L: In 0.335, Ni 0.015	experimental	[1] Cao 2013 cites Richter 1998 doi	Table VI, p. 13, row 15 report
773.15	eutectic: L = InSb + ζ	L: In 0.38, Ni 0.016	model	[1] Cao 2013	Table VI, p. 13, row 12 report
773.15	eutectic: L = InSb + NiSb2 + Sb	L: In 0.29, Ni 0.0095	model	[1] Cao 2013	Table VI, p. 13, row 16 report
765.15	eutectic: L = InSb + NiSb2 + Sb	L: In 0.31, Ni 0.01	experimental	[1] Cao 2013 cites Richter 1998 doi	Table VI, p. 13, row 17 report
721.15	peritectic: ζ + ε + L = η	L: In 0.9, Ni 0.05	experimental	[1] Cao 2013 cites Richter 1998 doi	Table VI, p. 13, row 19 report
718.15	peritectic: ζ + ε + L = η	L: In 0.87, Ni 0.057	model	[1] Cao 2013	Table VI, p. 13, row 18 report
630.15	quasi-peritectic: ζ + L = InSb + η	L: In 0.96, Ni 0.02	experimental	[1] Cao 2013 cites Richter 1998 doi	Table VI, p. 13, row 21 report
609.15	quasi-peritectic: ζ + L = InSb + η	L: In 0.9, Ni 0.024	model	[1] Cao 2013	Table VI, p. 13, row 20 report
428.15	eutectic: L = InSb + η + In	L: In 0.997, Ni 5.000e-4	model	[1] Cao 2013	Table VI, p. 13, row 22 report
425.15	eutectic: L = InSb + η + In	L: In 0.99, Ni 0.005	experimental	[1] Cao 2013 cites Richter 1998 doi	Table VI, p. 13, row 23 report

Sources

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

Zhanmin Cao, Wei Xie, Kunpeng Wang, Guangwei Du, Zhiyu Qiao, Thermodynamic Assessment of the In-Ni-Sb System and Predictions for Thermally Stable Contacts to InSb, Journal of Elec Materi 42, 2615-2629 (2013). doi:10.1007/s11664-013-2599-7

Please cite

R. Arróyave, J. Saal, D. Shin, ORCHID-Values: thermodynamic and phase-equilibrium values read from the literature (version 2026.10; Version 1, machine-extracted), Zenodo (2026). doi:10.5281/zenodo.23735569
R. Arróyave, J. Saal, D. Shin, ORCHID data: umbrella record of the ORCHID datasets (version 2026.10; Version 1, machine-extracted), Zenodo (2026). doi:10.5281/zenodo.23736065

Also cite the original source of every value you use (paper_citation / paper_doi, and cited_dois for values the paper cites from earlier work); B. Hallstedt, The SGTE collection of binary datasets, Calphad 89 (2025) 102833, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.calphad.2025.102833 (CC BY 4.0), and the original assessment named in each file; A. Jain et al., The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation, APL Materials 1 (2013) 011002, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323 (CC BY 4.0); J. E. Saal et al., JOM 65 (2013) 1501, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-013-0755-4 and S. Kirklin et al., npj Comput. Mater. 1 (2015) 15010, https://doi.org/10.1038/npjcompumats.2015.10 (CC BY 4.0). Version 1, machine-extracted: values were read by language-model readers constrained to quote their source and checked automatically, and the release was then audited on the printed pages by adversarial audits, an independent second review of fit-facing records and a preliminary human review of a frozen sample. Flags such as accepted and ESPEI-ready record screening results, not certification; known issues are listed in the release notes.

@misc{orchid_literature_2026,
  author    = {Arr{\'o}yave, Raymundo and Saal, James and Shin, Dongwon},
  title     = {{ORCHID-Values: thermodynamic and phase-equilibrium values read from the literature}},
  version   = {2026.10},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  year      = {2026},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.23735569},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23735569},
  note      = {Version 1, machine-extracted}
}

@misc{orchid_data_2026,
  author    = {Arr{\'o}yave, Raymundo and Saal, James and Shin, Dongwon},
  title     = {{ORCHID data: umbrella record of the ORCHID datasets}},
  version   = {2026.10},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  year      = {2026},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.23736065},
  url       = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23736065},
  note      = {Version 1, machine-extracted}
}