Nb–Si–Ti system

17 accepted literature values from 1 paper(s) (experimental 4, unspecified 13); 0 calculated phase diagram(s). 3 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	4
unspecified	13

Accepted values by property group
Property group	Values
invariant reaction	13
phase equilibrium	4

Invariant reactions (literature)

Invariant reactions reported in the literature for the Nb–Si–Ti system (13)
T (K)	Reaction / phases	Compositions (mole fraction)	Class	Source	Location
2628.15	other: Liquid -> αNb(Ti)5Si3 + βNb(Ti)5Si3	L: Nb 0.495, Si 0.372, Ti 0.133; Liquid: Nb 0.495, Si 0.372, Ti 0.133	unspecified	[1] Geng 2009	Table 4, p. 8, row 4 report
2412.15	other: Liquid -> αNb(Ti)5Si3 + Ti(Nb)5Si4	L: Nb 0.318, Si 0.483, Ti 0.199; Liquid: Nb 0.318, Si 0.483, Ti 0.199	unspecified	[1] Geng 2009	Table 4, p. 8, row 2 report
2402.15	quasi-peritectic: L + αNb(Ti)5Si3 -> Ti(Nb)5Si4 + βNb(Ti)5Si3	L: Nb 0.373, Si 0.494, Ti 0.133	unspecified	[1] Geng 2009	Table 4, p. 8, row 12 report
2342.15	other: Liquid -> αNb(Ti)5Si3 + Ti(Nb)5Si3	L: Nb 0.147, Si 0.365, Ti 0.489; Liquid: Nb 0.147, Si 0.365, Ti 0.489	unspecified	[1] Geng 2009	Table 4, p. 8, row 3 report
2317.15	quasi-peritectic: L + αNb(Ti)5Si3 -> Ti(Nb)5Si3 + Ti(Nb)5Si4	L: Nb 0.134, Si 0.416, Ti 0.452	unspecified	[1] Geng 2009	Table 4, p. 8, row 8 report
2245.15	quasi-peritectic: L + βNb(Ti)5Si3 -> (Nb,Ti)3Si + αNb(Ti)5Si3	L: Nb 0.786, Si 0.204, Ti 0.01	unspecified	[1] Geng 2009	Table 4, p. 8, row 13 report
2132.15	quasi-peritectic: L + βNb(Ti)5Si3 -> Nb(Ti)Si2 + Ti(Nb)5Si4	L: Nb 0.407, Si 0.575, Ti 0.018	unspecified	[1] Geng 2009	Table 4, p. 8, row 11 report
1904.15	quasi-peritectic: L + αNb(Ti)5Si3 -> (Nb,Ti)3Si + Ti(Nb)5Si3	L: Nb 0.224, Si 0.2, Ti 0.576	unspecified	[1] Geng 2009	Table 4, p. 8, row 9 report
1793.15	other: Liquid -> Nb(Ti)Si2 + Ti(Nb)Si2	L: Nb 0.039, Si 0.669, Ti 0.293; Liquid: Nb 0.039, Si 0.669, Ti 0.293	unspecified	[1] Geng 2009	Table 4, p. 8, row 1 report
1771.15	quasi-peritectic: L + Nb(Ti)Si2 -> Ti(Nb)Si2 + Ti(Nb)5Si4	L: Nb 0.043, Si 0.625, Ti 0.332	unspecified	[1] Geng 2009	Table 4, p. 8, row 6 report
1762.15	quasi-peritectic: L + Ti(Nb)5Si4 -> Ti(Nb)Si2 + Ti(Nb)Si	L: Nb 0.022, Si 0.625, Ti 0.353	unspecified	[1] Geng 2009	Table 4, p. 8, row 7 report
1623.15	quasi-peritectic: L + (Nb,Ti)3Si -> Bcc + Ti(Nb)5Si3	L: Nb 0.099, Si 0.139, Ti 0.762	unspecified	[1] Geng 2009	Table 4, p. 8, row 10 report
1610.15	quasi-peritectic: L + Nb(Ti)Si2 -> Si + Ti(Nb)Si2	L: Nb 0.02, Si 0.821, Ti 0.159	unspecified	[1] Geng 2009	Table 4, p. 8, row 5 report

Other properties

Phase equilibrium (4)

Phase equilibrium, Nb–Si–Ti system
Property	T (K)	Phases / composition	Class	Source	Location
Phase assemblage	1273.15	Diamond Si alloy: Si 1, Ti 0	experimental	[1] Geng 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 3 report
Phase assemblage	1473.15	Diamond Si alloy: Si 1, Ti 0	experimental	[1] Geng 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 6 report
Phase composition	1273.15	Nb(Ti)Si2 Nb(Ti)Si2: Nb 0.2855, Si 0.6801, Ti 0.0344	experimental	[1] Geng 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 1 report
Phase composition	1473.15	Nb(Ti)Si2 Nb(Ti)Si2: Nb 0.2849, Si 0.6803, Ti 0.0348	experimental	[1] Geng 2009	Table 1, p. 2, row 4 report

Sources

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

Tai Geng, Changrong Li, Jing Bao, Xinqing Zhao, Zhenmin Du, Cuiping Guo, Thermodynamic assessment of the Nb–Si–Ti system, Intermetallics 17, 343-357 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.intermet.2008.11.011

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}
}