Mo–Re system

181 accepted literature values from 5 paper(s) (experimental 43, model 51, DFT 87); 4 calculated phase diagram(s). 17 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 (11) · papers (bibliography) · Markdown

Accepted values by evidence class
Evidence class	Values
experimental	43
model	51
DFT	87

Accepted values by property group
Property group	Values
invariant reaction	74
phase equilibrium	13
formation	94

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
MoRe-08Mao-oldsigma.tdb	P. Mao, K. Han, Y. Xin, J. Alloys Compd., 464, 190-96(2008). doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2007.10.060	`5598a1db773304a1dff7bd47928d319a6a495747215ab7e06ab00da38f48d0e0`	viewer · TDB · JSON
MoRe-09Far.tdb	S.A. Farzadfar, M. Levesque, M. Phejar, J.-M. Joubert, Calphad, 33, 502-10(2009). doi:10.1016/j.calphad.2009.02.001	`03fa07a828c4a7e38ddad4caec8b4af86757c35adf031f7fa9afa1d9aa8faa40`	viewer · TDB · JSON
MoRe-10Yan.tdb	Y. Yang, C. Zhang, S. Chen, D. Morgan, Y.A. Chang, Intermetallics, 18, 574-81(2010). doi:10.1016/j.intermet.2009.10.012	`e874a788ea9b1fc3bac199dbe5e3fcdc3c23fb0b45eb9b648c00c4549fbe865a`	viewer · TDB · JSON
MoRe-20Yen.tdb	S. Yen, S. Wu, M.A. Makhraja, K. Lo, A. Yeh, K. Yoshimi, C. Zhang, S. Lin, Calphad, 70, 101797(2020). doi:10.1016/j.calphad.2020.101797	`460a9ea23345d8e2ac22b588fe6f114d7d1a7260398cbc0d6e5e60c2682f25cc`	viewer · TDB · JSON

Calculated three-phase invariants (model, mole fraction of the second component)
TDB file	T (K)	Phases at the invariant
MoRe-08Mao-oldsigma.tdb	2967.48	LIQUID (x(Re) 0.60225) + SIGMA_OLD (x(Re) 0.70274) + HCP_A3 (x(Re) 0.87784)
MoRe-08Mao-oldsigma.tdb	2745.65	BCC_A2 (x(Re) 0.41154) + LIQUID (x(Re) 0.44135) + SIGMA_OLD (x(Re) 0.5441)
MoRe-08Mao-oldsigma.tdb	2225.92	SIGMA_OLD (x(Re) 0.70081) + CHI_A12 (x(Re) 0.77906) + HCP_A3 (x(Re) 0.8926)
MoRe-08Mao-oldsigma.tdb	1348.81	BCC_A2 (x(Re) 0.29306) + SIGMA_OLD (x(Re) 0.56811) + CHI_A12 (x(Re) 0.75679)
MoRe-08Mao-oldsigma.tdb	884.08	BCC_A2 (x(Re) 0.23973) + CHI_A12 (x(Re) 0.76592) + HCP_A3 (x(Re) 0.96373)
MoRe-09Far.tdb	2892.17	LIQUID (x(Re) 0.58457) + SIGMA_D8B (x(Re) 0.66965) + HCP_A3 (x(Re) 0.84231)
MoRe-09Far.tdb	2798.64	BCC_A2 (x(Re) 0.43508) + LIQUID (x(Re) 0.45468) + SIGMA_D8B (x(Re) 0.5408)
MoRe-09Far.tdb	2347.8	SIGMA_D8B (x(Re) 0.69702) + CHI_A12 (x(Re) 0.77364) + HCP_A3 (x(Re) 0.89283)
MoRe-09Far.tdb	1346.83	BCC_A2 (x(Re) 0.29168) + SIGMA_D8B (x(Re) 0.56409) + CHI_A12 (x(Re) 0.73862)
MoRe-10Yan.tdb	2919.52	LIQUID (x(Re) 0.58279) + SIGMA_D8B (x(Re) 0.68735) + HCP_A3 (x(Re) 0.81838)
MoRe-10Yan.tdb	2785.94	BCC_A2 (x(Re) 0.41751) + LIQUID (x(Re) 0.44224) + SIGMA_D8B (x(Re) 0.5303)
MoRe-10Yan.tdb	2269.42	SIGMA_D8B (x(Re) 0.70467) + CHI_A12 (x(Re) 0.77169) + HCP_A3 (x(Re) 0.92297)
MoRe-10Yan.tdb	1384.15	BCC_A2 (x(Re) 0.2976) + SIGMA_D8B (x(Re) 0.58647) + CHI_A12 (x(Re) 0.74569)
MoRe-20Yen.tdb	2922.99	LIQUID (x(Re) 0.59402) + SIGMA_D8B (x(Re) 0.68149) + HCP_A3 (x(Re) 0.81847)
MoRe-20Yen.tdb	2755.53	BCC_A2 (x(Re) 0.41078) + LIQUID (x(Re) 0.41975) + SIGMA_D8B (x(Re) 0.5576)
MoRe-20Yen.tdb	2268.61	SIGMA_D8B (x(Re) 0.69192) + CHI_A12 (x(Re) 0.77544) + HCP_A3 (x(Re) 0.91951)
MoRe-20Yen.tdb	1372.12	BCC_A2 (x(Re) 0.31577) + SIGMA_D8B (x(Re) 0.56222) + CHI_A12 (x(Re) 0.75444)

Convex hulls: Materials Project DFT hull · OQMD DFT hull · CALPHAD hull MoRe-08Mao-oldsigma · CALPHAD hull MoRe-09Far · CALPHAD hull MoRe-10Yan

Invariant reactions (literature)

Invariant reactions reported in the literature for the Mo–Re system (74)
T (K)	Reaction / phases	Compositions (mole fraction)	Class	Source	Location
2973	peritectic: σ + liquid = (Mo)	(Mo): Re 0.42	experimental	[1] Mao 2008 cites Savitskii 1959	Table 1, p. 2, row 1 report
2966	peritectic: Liquid + (Re) = σ	(Re): Re 0.87; σ: Re 0.7; Liquid: Re 0.6	model	[1] Mao 2008	Table 1, p. 2, row 8 report
2966	peritectic: liquid+hcp -> σ	hcp: Re 0.87; σ: Re 0.7; liq: Re 0.6	model	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Mao 2008	Table 2, p. 3, row 4 report
2966	Liquid + hcp -> σ	hcp: Re 0.87; σ: Re 0.7	model	[3] Yang 2010 cites Mao 2008 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 6 report
2920	peritectic: liquid+hcp -> σ	hcp: Re 0.82; σ: Re 0.69; liq: Re 0.58	model	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Yang 2010 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 6 report
2920	Liquid + hcp -> σ	Liquid: Re 0.58; hcp: Re 0.82; σ: Re 0.69	model	[3] Yang 2010	Table 1, p. 2, row 8 report
2918	peritectic: Liquid + (Re) = σ	σ: Re 0.68	experimental	[1] Mao 2008 cites Dickinson 1959	Table 1, p. 2, row 7 report
2918	Liquid + hcp -> σ	Liquid: Re 0.6; hcp: Re 0.82; σ: Re 0.7	model	[3] Yang 2010 cites Brewer 1980	Table 1, p. 2, row 5 report
2918	peritectic: liquid+hcp -> σ	σ: Re 0.69	experimental	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Dickinson 1958	Table 2, p. 3, row 1 report
2918	peritectic: Liquid + hcp ⇔ σ	σ: Re 0.69	experimental	[4] Farzadfar 2009 cites Dickinson 1959	Table 7, p. 7, row 3 report
2892	peritectic: Liquid + hcp ⇔ σ	L: Re 0.58; hcp: Re 0.84; σ: Re 0.67	model	[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 7, p. 7, row 4 report
2892	peritectic: liquid+hcp -> σ	hcp: Re 0.84; σ: Re 0.67; liq: Re 0.58	model	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Farzadfar 2009 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 5 report
2892	Liquid + hcp -> σ	Liquid: Re 0.58; hcp: Re 0.84; σ: Re 0.67	model	[3] Yang 2010 cites Farzadfar 2009 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 7 report
2890	eutectic: liquid+hcp -> σ	hcp: Re 0.875; σ: Re 0.74; liq: Re 0.75	model	[2] Mathieu 2013	Table 2, p. 3, row 8 report
2887	peritectic: liquid+hcp -> σ	hcp: Re 0.855; σ: Re 0.716; liq: Re 0.71	model	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Dupin 2012	Table 2, p. 3, row 7 report
2843	peritectic: Liquid + (Re) = σ	(Re): Re 0.9; σ: Re 0.62	experimental	[1] Mao 2008 cites Savitskii 1959	Table 1, p. 2, row 6 report
2843	peritectic: liquid+hcp -> σ	hcp: Re 0.87; σ: Re 0.6	experimental	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Savitskii 1959	Table 2, p. 3, row 3 report
2799	eutectic: Liquid ⇔ bcc + σ	L: Re 0.45; bcc: Re 0.43; σ: Re 0.54	model	[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 7, p. 7, row 2 report
2799	eutectic: liquid -> σ+bcc	σ: Re 0.54; bcc: Re 0.43; liq: Re 0.45	model	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Farzadfar 2009 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 13 report
2799	eutectic: Liquid -> bcc + σ	Liquid: Re 0.45; σ: Re 0.54; BCC: Re 0.43	model	[5] Yen 2020 cites Mao 2008	Table VI, p. 39, row 3 report
2799	eutectic: Liquid -> bcc + σ	Liquid: Re 0.45; bcc: Re 0.43; σ: Re 0.54	model	[3] Yang 2010 cites Farzadfar 2009 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 3 report
2793	peritectic: liquid+hcp -> σ	hcp: Re 0.85; liq: Re 0.72	experimental	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Knapton 1959	Table 2, p. 3, row 2 report
2793	peritectic: Liquid + (Re) = σ	(Re): Re 0.85; σ: Re 0.72	experimental	[1] Mao 2008 cites Knapton 1959	Table 1, p. 2, row 5 report
2786	eutectic: liquid -> σ+bcc	σ: Re 0.53; bcc: Re 0.42; liq: Re 0.44	model	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Yang 2010 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 14 report
2786	eutectic: Liquid -> bcc + σ	Liquid: Re 0.44; bcc: Re 0.42; σ: Re 0.53	model	[3] Yang 2010	Table 1, p. 2, row 4 report
2786	eutectic: Liquid -> bcc + σ	Liquid: Re 0.44; σ: Re 0.53; BCC: Re 0.42	DFT	[5] Yen 2020 cites Yang 2010	Table VI, p. 39, row 4 report
2778	eutectic: Liquid + (Mo) + σ	Liquid: Re 0.489	experimental	[1] Mao 2008 cites Dickinson 1959	Table 1, p. 2, row 3 report
2778	eutectic: Liquid ⇔ bcc + σ	L: Re 0.49; bcc: Re 0.425; σ: Re 0.53	experimental	[4] Farzadfar 2009 cites Dickinson 1959	Table 7, p. 7, row 1 report
2778	eutectic: Liquid -> bcc + σ	bcc: Re 0.43; σ: Re 0.52	model	[3] Yang 2010 cites Brewer 1980	Table 1, p. 2, row 1 report
2778	eutectic: Liquid -> bcc + σ	σ: Re 0.52; BCC: Re 0.43	experimental	[5] Yen 2020 cites Savitskii 1959	Table VI, p. 39, row 1 report
2778	eutectic: liquid -> σ+bcc	σ: Re 0.53; bcc: Re 0.425; liq: Re 0.49	experimental	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Dickinson 1958	Table 2, p. 3, row 10 report
2777	eutectic: liquid -> σ+bcc	σ: Re 0.502; bcc: Re 0.408; liq: Re 0.442	model	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Dupin 2012	Table 2, p. 3, row 15 report
2773	peritectic: liquid+σ -> bcc	σ: Re 0.49	experimental	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Savitskii 1959	Table 2, p. 3, row 9 report
2755	eutectic: Liquid -> bcc + σ	Liquid: Re 0.42; σ: Re 0.558; BCC: Re 0.411	model	[5] Yen 2020	Table VI, p. 39, row 6 report
2745	eutectic: Liquid -> bcc + σ	Liquid: Re 0.46; σ: Re 0.54; BCC: Re 0.41	experimental	[5] Yen 2020 cites Okamoto 2010 doi	Table VI, p. 39, row 2 report
2745	eutectic: Liquid -> bcc + σ	Liquid: Re 0.46; bcc: Re 0.41; σ: Re 0.54	model	[3] Yang 2010 cites Mao 2008 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 2 report
2745	eutectic: Liquid + (Mo) + σ	(Mo): Re 0.41; σ: Re 0.54; Liquid: Re 0.46	model	[1] Mao 2008	Table 1, p. 2, row 4 report
2745	eutectic: liquid -> σ+bcc	σ: Re 0.54; bcc: Re 0.41; liq: Re 0.46	model	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Mao 2008	Table 2, p. 3, row 12 report
2737	eutectic: liquid -> σ+bcc	σ: Re 0.531; bcc: Re 0.38; liq: Re 0.383	model	[2] Mathieu 2013	Table 2, p. 3, row 16 report
2737	eutectic: Liquid -> bcc + σ	Liquid: Re 0.383; σ: Re 0.531; BCC: Re 0.38	model	[5] Yen 2020 cites Mathieu 2013	Table VI, p. 39, row 5 report
2713	eutectic: Liquid + (Mo) + σ	(Mo): Re 0.43; Liquid: Re 0.5	experimental	[1] Mao 2008 cites Knapton 1959	Table 1, p. 2, row 2 report
2713	eutectic: liquid -> σ+bcc	bcc: Re 0.43; liq: Re 0.5	experimental	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Knapton 1959	Table 2, p. 3, row 11 report
2353	peritectoid: σ + (Re) = χ	χ: Re 0.75	experimental	[1] Mao 2008 cites Dickinson 1959	Table 1, p. 2, row 11 report
2348	peritectoid: σ + hcp ⇔ χ	σ: Re 0.7; χ: Re 0.76	experimental	[4] Farzadfar 2009 cites Dickinson 1959	Table 7, p. 7, row 7 report
2348	peritectoid: σ+hcp -> χ	σ: Re 0.7; χ: Re 0.76	experimental	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Dickinson 1958	Table 2, p. 3, row 17 report
2343	peritectoid: σ + hcp ⇔ χ	σ: Re 0.7; hcp: Re 0.89; χ: Re 0.77	model	[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 7, p. 7, row 8 report
2343	σ + hcp -> χ	σ: Re 0.7; hcp: Re 0.89; χ: Re 0.77	model	[3] Yang 2010 cites Farzadfar 2009 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 11 report
2343	peritectoid: σ+hcp -> χ	σ: Re 0.7; hcp: Re 0.89; χ: Re 0.77	model	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Farzadfar 2009 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 21 report
2273	σ + hcp -> χ	χ: Re 0.76	model	[3] Yang 2010 cites Brewer 1980	Table 1, p. 2, row 9 report
2269	peritectoid: σ+hcp -> χ	σ: Re 0.7; hcp: Re 0.92; χ: Re 0.77	model	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Yang 2010 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 22 report
2269	σ + hcp -> χ	σ: Re 0.7; hcp: Re 0.92; χ: Re 0.77	model	[3] Yang 2010	Table 1, p. 2, row 12 report
2225	peritectoid: σ+hcp -> χ	σ: Re 0.7; hcp: Re 0.89; χ: Re 0.78	model	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Mao 2008	Table 2, p. 3, row 20 report
2186	peritectoid: σ+hcp -> χ	σ: Re 0.693; hcp: Re 0.884; χ: Re 0.767	model	[2] Mathieu 2013	Table 2, p. 3, row 24 report
2129	peritectoid: σ + (Re) = χ	σ: Re 0.7; (Re): Re 0.89; χ: Re 0.78	model	[1] Mao 2008	Table 1, p. 2, row 12 report
2129	peritectoid: σ+hcp -> χ	σ: Re 0.693; hcp: Re 0.913; χ: Re 0.774	model	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Dupin 2012	Table 2, p. 3, row 23 report
2129	σ + hcp -> χ	σ: Re 0.7; hcp: Re 0.89; χ: Re 0.78	model	[3] Yang 2010 cites Mao 2008 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 10 report
2123	peritectoid: σ + (Re) = χ	χ: Re 0.78	experimental	[1] Mao 2008 cites Savitskii 1959	Table 1, p. 2, row 10 report
2123	peritectoid: σ+hcp -> χ	σ: Re 0.67; hcp: Re 0.91; χ: Re 0.78	experimental	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Savitskii 1959	Table 2, p. 3, row 19 report
2073	peritectoid: σ + (Re) = χ	χ: Re 0.765	experimental	[1] Mao 2008 cites Knapton 1959	Table 1, p. 2, row 9 report
2073	peritectoid: σ+hcp -> χ	hcp: Re 0.91	experimental	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Knapton 1959	Table 2, p. 3, row 18 report
1398	σ -> bcc + χ	χ: Re 0.76	model	[3] Yang 2010 cites Brewer 1980	Table 1, p. 2, row 13 report
1398	eutectoid: σ -> bcc+χ	σ: Re 0.57; bcc: Re 0.29; χ: Re 0.76	experimental	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Knapton 1959	Table 2, p. 3, row 25 report
1398	eutectoid: σ ⇔ bcc + χ	bcc: Re 0.29; χ: Re 0.77	experimental	[4] Farzadfar 2009 cites Knapton 1958	Table 7, p. 7, row 9 report
1384	eutectoid: σ -> bcc+χ	σ: Re 0.59; bcc: Re 0.3; χ: Re 0.75	model	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Yang 2010 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 28 report
1384	σ -> bcc + χ	σ: Re 0.59; bcc: Re 0.3; χ: Re 0.75	model	[3] Yang 2010	Table 1, p. 2, row 16 report
1375	eutectoid: σ + (Mo) + χ	σ: Re 0.57; (Mo): Re 0.29; χ: Re 0.76	experimental	[1] Mao 2008 cites Savitskii 1959	Table 1, p. 2, row 14 report
1375	σ -> bcc + χ	σ: Re 0.57; bcc: Re 0.29; χ: Re 0.76	model	[3] Yang 2010 cites Mao 2008 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 14 report
1375	eutectoid: σ -> bcc+χ	σ: Re 0.57; bcc: Re 0.29; χ: Re 0.76	model	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Mao 2008	Table 2, p. 3, row 26 report
1373	eutectoid: σ + (Mo) + χ		experimental	[1] Mao 2008 cites Knapton 1959	Table 1, p. 2, row 13 report
1346	σ -> bcc + χ	σ: Re 0.56; bcc: Re 0.29; χ: Re 0.74	model	[3] Yang 2010 cites Farzadfar 2009 doi	Table 1, p. 2, row 15 report
1346	eutectoid: σ -> bcc+χ	σ: Re 0.56; bcc: Re 0.29; χ: Re 0.74	model	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Farzadfar 2009 doi	Table 2, p. 3, row 27 report
1346	eutectoid: σ ⇔ bcc + χ	σ: Re 0.56; bcc: Re 0.29; χ: Re 0.74	model	[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 7, p. 7, row 10 report
1322	eutectoid: σ -> bcc+χ	σ: Re 0.574; bcc: Re 0.271; χ: Re 0.74	model	[2] Mathieu 2013	Table 2, p. 3, row 30 report
1300	eutectoid: σ -> bcc+χ	σ: Re 0.575; bcc: Re 0.271; χ: Re 0.747	model	[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Dupin 2012	Table 2, p. 3, row 29 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, Mo–Re system (94)
Phase	Compound	Value	T (K)	Class	MP DFT (kJ/mol-atom)	OQMD DFT (kJ/mol-atom)	Source	Location
Mo2Re	Mo2Re	-10.4 kJ/mol-atom		model		41.296 (oqmd-1592123)	[1] Mao 2008	Table 2, p. 2, row 7 report
Mo5Re		-10 kJ/mol-atom		model			[1] Mao 2008	Table 2, p. 2, row 6 report
MoRe	MoRe	-11.1 kJ/mol-atom		model	10.105 (mp-aaacrjzh)	10.663 (oqmd-304791)	[1] Mao 2008	Table 2, p. 2, row 8 report
MoRe2	MoRe2	-9.7 kJ/mol-atom		model		12.872 (oqmd-1436045)	[1] Mao 2008	Table 2, p. 2, row 9 report
MoRe5	MoRe5	-7.4 kJ/mol-atom		model		6.962 (oqmd-1450671)	[1] Mao 2008	Table 2, p. 2, row 10 report
\sigma		-12.01 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 9 report
\sigma		-11.05 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 20 report
\sigma		-10.42 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 22 report
\sigma		-9.61 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 6 report
\sigma		-9.29 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 15 report
\sigma		-8.91 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 19 report
\sigma		-8.71 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 17 report
\sigma		-7.91 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 26 report
\sigma		-7.67 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 12 report
\sigma		-6.33 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 23 report
\sigma		-5.77 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 28 report
\sigma		-4.99 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 25 report
\sigma		-4.89 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 30 report
\sigma		-3.84 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 8 report
\sigma		-3.83 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 29 report
\sigma		-3.64 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 10 report
\sigma		-2.34 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 14 report
\sigma		-2.14 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 2 report
\sigma		-1.92 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 7 report
\sigma		-1.73 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 21 report
\sigma		-1.45 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 5 report
\sigma		-0.82 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 11 report
\sigma		-0.69 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 4 report
\sigma		-0.52 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 16 report
\sigma		-0.34 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 18 report
\sigma		0.31 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 13 report
\sigma		0.85 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 3 report
\sigma		1.83 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 9 report
\sigma		1.95 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 27 report
\sigma		2.57 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 24 report
\sigma		3.23 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 26 report
\sigma		5.26 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 23 report
\sigma		5.34 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 30 report
\sigma		5.72 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 12 report
\sigma		6.85 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 29 report
\sigma		10.2 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 10 report
\sigma		10.31 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 21 report
\sigma		10.6 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 14 report
\sigma		12.15 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 18 report
\sigma		12.57 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 11 report
\sigma		12.85 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 5 report
\sigma		13.08 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 27 report
\sigma		13.51 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 2 report
\sigma		14.15 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 24 report
bcc		7 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1773	experimental			[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 4, p. 4, row 3 report
σ		0.68 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 31 report
σ		0.99 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 20 report
σ		1.62 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 22 report
σ		2.54 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[3] Yang 2010	Table 4, p. 4, row 1 report
σ		3.57 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 19 report
σ		3.65 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 15 report
σ		3.78 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 17 report
σ		4.43 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[3] Yang 2010	Table 4, p. 4, row 2 report
σ		4.69 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 6 report
σ		5.37 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 28 report
σ		5.99 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[3] Yang 2010	Table 4, p. 4, row 3 report
σ		6.6 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 25 report
σ		10 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 8 report
σ		10.46 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 31 report
σ		12.37 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 7 report
σ		12.42 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 16 report
σ		13.7 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 13 report
σ		14.05 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 4 report
σ		16.05 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 4, p. 5, row 3 report
σ		18 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1773	experimental			[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 4, p. 4, row 2 report
σ: Re10(Mo,Re)4(Mo,Re)16		2.54 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[3] Yang 2010	Table 4, p. 4, row 1 report
σ: Re10(Mo,Re)4(Mo,Re)16		4.43 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[3] Yang 2010	Table 4, p. 4, row 2 report
σ: Re10(Mo,Re)4(Mo,Re)16		5.99 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[3] Yang 2010	Table 4, p. 4, row 3 report
χ		-1.26 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 5, p. 5, row 13 report
χ		-0.8 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	1773	experimental			[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 4, p. 4, row 1 report
χ		-0.76 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[3] Yang 2010	Table 4, p. 4, row 7 report
χ		-0.24 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 5, p. 5, row 14 report
χ		3.46 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 5, p. 5, row 15 report
χ		5.59 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 5, p. 5, row 6 report
χ		9.24 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 5, p. 5, row 10 report
χ		10.84 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 5, p. 5, row 12 report
χ		11.45 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 5, p. 5, row 8 report
χ		13.98 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 5, p. 5, row 5 report
χ		14.56 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[3] Yang 2010	Table 4, p. 4, row 5 report
χ		16.86 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 5, p. 5, row 9 report
χ		17.81 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 5, p. 5, row 11 report
χ		18.97 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[3] Yang 2010	Table 4, p. 4, row 6 report
χ		19.32 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 5, p. 5, row 7 report
χ		26.65 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 5, p. 5, row 2 report
χ		27.31 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 5, p. 5, row 3 report
χ		28.11 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[2] Mathieu 2013 cites Crivello 2013	Table 5, p. 5, row 4 report
χ: (Mo,Re)10(Mo,Re)24Re24		-0.76 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[3] Yang 2010	Table 4, p. 4, row 7 report
χ: (Mo,Re)10(Mo,Re)24Re24		14.56 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[3] Yang 2010	Table 4, p. 4, row 5 report
χ: (Mo,Re)10(Mo,Re)24Re24		18.97 kJ/mol (basis unstated)	0	DFT			[3] Yang 2010	Table 4, p. 4, row 6 report

Other properties

Phase equilibrium (13)

Phase equilibrium, Mo–Re system
Property	T (K)	Phases / composition	Class	Source	Location
Phase assemblage		σ alloy: Mo 0.41, Re 0.59	experimental	[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 11 report
Phase assemblage	1273	χ + hcp + bcc alloy: Mo 0.4, Re 0.6	experimental	[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 9 report
Phase composition	1473	σ σ: Mo 0.319, Re 0.681	experimental	[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 8 report
Phase composition	1473	σ + bcc σ: Mo 0.46, Re 0.54	experimental	[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 12 report
Phase composition	1473	χ + hcp χ: Mo 0.22, Re 0.78	experimental	[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 2 report
Phase composition	1473	χ + σ + hcp + bcc χ: Mo 0.23, Re 0.77	experimental	[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 6 report
Phase composition	1873	σ σ: Mo 0.404, Re 0.596	experimental	[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 10 report
Phase composition	1873	σ + bcc σ: Mo 0.48, Re 0.52	experimental	[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 13 report
Phase composition	1873	σ + χ σ: Mo 0.299, Re 0.701; χ: Mo 0.27, Re 0.73	experimental	[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 7 report
Phase composition	1873	χ + hcp χ: Mo 0.22, Re 0.78	experimental	[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 3 report
Phase composition	1873	χ + hcp χ: Mo 0.21, Re 0.79; hcp: Mo 0.07, Re 0.93	experimental	[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 1 report
Phase composition	1873	χ + σ χ: Mo 0.249, Re 0.751; σ: Mo 0.31, Re 0.69	experimental	[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 4 report
Phase composition	1873	χ + σ χ: Mo 0.26, Re 0.74	experimental	[4] Farzadfar 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 5 report

Sources

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

Pingli Mao, Ke Han, Yan Xin, Thermodynamic assessment of the Mo–Re binary system, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 464, 190-196 (2008). doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2007.10.060
R. Mathieu, N. Dupin, J.-C. Crivello, K. Yaqoob, A. Breidi, J.-M. Fiorani et al., CALPHAD description of the Mo–Re system focused on the sigma phase modeling, Calphad 43, 18-31 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.calphad.2013.08.002
Ying Yang, Chuan Zhang, Shuanglin Chen, Dane Morgan, Y. Austin Chang, First-principles calculation aided thermodynamic modeling of the Mo–Re system, Intermetallics 18, 574-581 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.intermet.2009.10.012
S.A. Farzadfar, M. Levesque, M. Phejar, J.-M. Joubert, Thermodynamic assessment of the Molybdenum–Rhenium system, Calphad 33, 502-510 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.calphad.2009.02.001
Shao-yu Yen, Shu-chang Wu, M. Anshar Makhraja, Kai-chi Lo, An-chou Yeh, Kyosuke Yoshimi et al., Phase equilibria and thermodynamic assessment of the Mo–Nb-Re ternary system, Calphad 70, 101797 (2020). doi:10.1016/j.calphad.2020.101797

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}
}