- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review B

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Machine-learned potential for fission gas diffusion in uranium oxide nuclear fuels

Audrey R. Miles1,2, Bartomeu Monserrat3,*, and Sarah C. Finkeldei1,†

  • *Contact author: bm418@cam.ac.uk
  • †Contact author: sfinkeld@uci.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. B 114, 175108 – Published 4 September, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/d775-mmsy

Abstract

We report a machine-learned interatomic potential for uranium dioxide with xenon gas, as well as a machine-learned potential for uranium dioxide. Training datasets were constructed by leveraging a combination of density functional theory calculations with a Hubbard U correction and molecular dynamics simulations. Query-by-committee active learning procedures further automated the augmentation of training datasets. The efficacy of employing an equivariant message-passing neural network for iterative potential fitting was demonstrated by reproducing DFT+U-level forces and energies, despite the training datasets being much smaller than those for recently reported uranium dioxide MLPs. We found that our machine-learned potential for UO2 achieves strong agreement with experimentally observed thermophysical and thermomechanical properties across a temperature range 300–3000 K. Our second machine-learned potential for uranium dioxide with xenon successfully replicates reference DFT+U incorporation energies of xenon into various lattice sites. We also employed this MLP to calculate migration barriers for xenon diffusion via tetravacancy defect cluster mechanisms. The superlative ability of these machine-learned potentials to capture the behavior of uranium dioxide with xenon inclusion across a range of temperatures and defect chemistries lays the foundation for larger-scale molecular dynamics simulations of fission gas transport through uranium oxide fuel matrices.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (130)

  1. IEA, The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy (2025).
  2. M. R. Tonks, D. Andersson, S. R. Phillpot, Y. Zhang, R. Williamson, C. R. Stanek, B. P. Uberuaga, and S. L. Hayes, Mechanistic materials modeling for nuclear fuel performance, Ann. Nucl. Energy 105, 11 (2017).
  3. J. K. Fink, Thermophysical properties of uranium dioxide, J. Nucl. Mater. 279, 1 (2000).
  4. C. B. Basak, A. K. Sengupta, and H. S. Kamath, Classical molecular dynamics simulation of UO2 to predict thermophysical properties, J. Alloys Compd. 360, 210 (2003).
  5. N.-D. Morelon, D. Ghaleb, J.-M. Delaye, and L. Van Brutzel, A new empirical potential for simulating the formation of defects and their mobility in uranium dioxide, Philos. Mag. 83, 1533 (2003).
  6. E. Yakub, C. Ronchi, and D. Staicu, Molecular dynamics simulation of premelting and melting phase transitions in stoichiometric uranium dioxide, J. Chem. Phys. 127, 094508 (2007).
  7. S. I. Potashnikov, A. S. Boyarchenkov, K. A. Nekrasov, and A. Y. Kupryazhkin, High-precision molecular dynamics simulation of UO2–PuO2: Pair potentials comparison in UO2, J. Nucl. Mater. 419, 217 (2011).
  8. M. S. Daw and M. I. Baskes, Embedded-atom method: Derivation and application to impurities, surfaces, and other defects in metals, Phys. Rev. B 29, 6443 (1984).
  9. M. W. D. Cooper, M. J. D. Rushton, and R. W. Grimes, A many-body potential approach to modelling the thermomechanical properties of actinide oxides, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 26, 105401 (2014).
  10. D. Bathellier, M. Lainet, M. Freyss, P. Olsson, and E. Bourasseau, A new heat capacity law for UO2, PuO2 and (U,Pu)O2 derived from molecular dynamics simulations and useable in fuel performance codes, J. Nucl. Mater. 549, 152877 (2021).
  11. J. E. Kelly, Generation IV International Forum: A decade of progress through international cooperation, Prog. Nucl. Energy 77, 240 (2014).
  12. J. Rest, M. W. D. Cooper, J. Spino, J. A. Turnbull, P. Van Uffelen, and C. T. Walker, Fission gas release from UO2 nuclear fuel: A review, J. Nucl. Mater. 513, 310 (2019).
  13. H. Kleykamp, The chemical state of the fission products in oxide fuels, J. Nucl. Mater. 131, 221 (1985).
  14. M. Tonks, D. Andersson, R. Devanathan, R. Dubourg, A. El-Azab, M. Freyss, F. Iglesias, K. Kulacsy, G. Pastore, S. R. Phillpot, and M. Welland, Unit mechanisms of fission gas release: Current understanding and future needs, J. Nucl. Mater. 504, 300 (2018).
  15. D. R. Olander, Fundamental aspects of nuclear reactor fuel elements, Technical Report No. TID-26711-P1 (California University, Berkeley (USA), Dept. of Nuclear Engineering, 1976).
  16. S. Arnelinckx, Nuclear materials. By Brian R. T. Frost, Volumes 10A and 10B of Materials science and technology – A comprehensive treatment, edited by R. W. Cahn, P. Huusen, and E. J. Kramer, Weinheim, VCH 1994, XX, 557 pp. and XXII, 454 pp., hardcover, each DM 450.00, ISBN 3-527-26823-5 (Vol. 10A), ISBN 3-527-29236-5 (Vol. 10B), Adv. Mater. 7, 1047 (1995).
  17. D. R. Olander and D. Wongsawaeng, Re-solution of fission gas – A review: Part I. Intragranular bubbles, J. Nucl. Mater. 354, 94 (2006).
  18. M. Bertolus, M. Freyss, B. Dorado, G. Martin, K. Hoang, S. Maillard, R. Skorek, P. Garcia, C. Valot, A. Chartier, et al., Linking atomic and mesoscopic scales for the modelling of the transport properties of uranium dioxide under irradiation, J. Nucl. Mater. 462, 475 (2015).
  19. D. A. Andersson, P. Garcia, X. Y. Liu, G. Pastore, M. Tonks, P. Millett, B. Dorado, D. R. Gaston, D. Andrs, R. L. Williamson, et al., Atomistic modeling of intrinsic and radiation-enhanced fission gas (Xe) diffusion in UO2±x: Implications for nuclear fuel performance modeling, J. Nucl. Mater. 451, 225 (2014).
  20. T. Petit, C. Lemaignan, F. Jollet, B. Bigot, and A. Pasturel, Point defects in uranium dioxide, Philos. Mag. B 77, 779 (1998).
  21. M. Freyss, T. Petit, and J.-P. Crocombette, Point defects in uranium dioxide: Ab initio pseudopotential approach in the generalized gradient approximation, J. Nucl. Mater. 347, 44 (2005).
  22. J.-P. Crocombette, D. Torumba, and A. Chartier, Charge states of point defects in uranium oxide calculated with a local hybrid functional for correlated electrons, Phys. Rev. B 83, 184107 (2011).
  23. M. Iwasawa, Y. Chen, Y. Kaneta, T. Ohnuma, H. Y. Geng, and M. Kinoshita, First-principles calculation of point defects in uranium dioxide, Mater. Trans. 47, 2651 (2006).
  24. B. Dorado, B. Amadon, M. Freyss, and M. Bertolus, DFT+U calculations of the ground state and metastable states of uranium dioxide, Phys. Rev. B 79, 235125 (2009).
  25. B. Meredig, A. Thompson, H. A. Hansen, C. Wolverton, and A. van de Walle, Method for locating low-energy solutions within DFT+U, Phys. Rev. B 82, 195128 (2010).
  26. J. P. Allen and G. W. Watson, Occupation matrix control of d- and f-electron localisations using DFT +U, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16, 21016 (2014).
  27. W. D. Neilson, C. O. T. Galvin, S. J. Dillon, M. W. D. Cooper, and D. A. Andersson, Irradiation-induced creep in UO2: The role of grain boundaries, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, 103602 (2024).
  28. J. Pan, Scaling up system size in materials simulation, Nat. Comput. Sci. 1, 95 (2021).
  29. V. L. Deringer, M. A. Caro, and G. Csányi, Machine learning interatomic potentials as emerging tools for materials science, Adv. Mater. 31, 1902765 (2019).
  30. J. S. Smith, O. Isayev, and A. E. Roitberg, ANI-1: An extensible neural network potential with DFT accuracy at force field computational cost, Chem. Sci. 8, 3192 (2017).
  31. V. L. Deringer and G. Csányi, Machine learning based interatomic potential for amorphous carbon, Phys. Rev. B 95, 094203 (2017).
  32. S. Chiriki, S. Jindal, and S. S. Bulusu, Neural network potentials for dynamics and thermodynamics of gold nanoparticles, J. Chem. Phys. 146, 084314 (2017).
  33. M. Eckhoff and J. Behler, From molecular fragments to the bulk: Development of a neural network potential for MOF-5, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15, 3793 (2019).
  34. Y. Zhou, W. Zhang, E. Ma, and V. L. Deringer, Device-scale atomistic modelling of phase-change memory materials, Nat. Electron. 6, 746 (2023).
  35. K. Kobayashi, M. Okumura, H. Nakamura, M. Itakura, M. Machida, and M. W. D. Cooper, Machine learning molecular dynamics simulations toward exploration of high-temperature properties of nuclear fuel materials: Case study of thorium dioxide, Sci. Rep. 12, 9808 (2022).
  36. H. Chen, D. Yuan, H. Geng, W. Hu, and B. Huang, Development of a machine-learning interatomic potential for uranium under the moment tensor potential framework, Comput. Mater. Sci. 229, 112376 (2023).
  37. M. Hao and P. Guan, An artificial neural network potential for uranium metal at low pressures, Chin. Phys. B 32, 098401 (2023).
  38. V. V. Ladygin, P. Y. Korotaev, A. V. Yanilkin, and A. V. Shapeev, Lattice dynamics simulation using machine learning interatomic potentials, Comput. Mater. Sci. 172, 109333 (2020).
  39. H. Wang, X.-L. Pan, Y.-F. Wang, X.-R. Chen, Y.-X. Wang, and H.-Y. Geng, Lattice dynamics and elastic properties of α−U at high-temperature and high-pressure by machine learning potential simulations, J. Nucl. Mater. 572, 154029 (2022).
  40. L. Alzate-Vargas, K. N. Subedi, N. Lubbers, M. W. D. Cooper, R. M. Tutchton, T. Gibson, and R. A. Messerly, Toward machine learning interatomic potentials for modeling uranium mononitride, Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol. 6, 035064 (2025).
  41. L. Alzate-Vargas, K. N. Subedi, R. M. Tutchton, M. W. Cooper, T. Gibson, and R. A. Messerly, Atomistic modeling of uranium monocarbide with a machine learning interatomic potential, J. Nucl. Mater. 630, 156754 (2026).
  42. J. Goff, Y. Zhang, C. Negre, A. Rohskopf, and A. M. N. Niklasson, Shadow molecular dynamics and atomic cluster expansions for flexible charge models, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 19, 4255 (2023).
  43. E. Stippell, L. Alzate-Vargas, K. N. Subedi, R. M. Tutchton, M. W. D. Cooper, S. Tretiak, T. Gibson, and R. A. Messerly, Building a DFT+U machine learning interatomic potential for uranium dioxide, Artif. Intell. Chem. 2, 100042 (2024).
  44. E. T. Dubois, J. Tranchida, J. Bouchet, and J.-B. Maillet, Atomistic simulations of nuclear fuel UO2 with machine learning interatomic potentials, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, 025402 (2024).
  45. K. Konashi, N. Kato, K. Mori, and K. Kurosaki, Neural network potential for molecular dynamics calculation of UO2, J. Nucl. Mater. 607, 155660 (2025).
  46. S. Gumber, L. Alzate-Vargas, B. T. Nebgen, A. van Veelen, S. Kadvani, T. Gibson, and R. Messerly, Going beyond density functional theory accuracy: Leveraging experimental data to refine pre-trained machine learning interatomic potentials, arXiv:2506.10211.
  47. J. Behler, Atom-centered symmetry functions for constructing high-dimensional neural network potentials, J. Chem. Phys. 134, 074106 (2011).
  48. H. Wang, L. Zhang, J. Han, and W. E, DeePMD-kit: A deep learning package for many-body potential energy representation and molecular dynamics, Comput. Phys. Commun. 228, 178 (2018).
  49. J. Zhong, L. Zhang, and T. Bo, Active learning-enhanced neuroevolution potential for predictive modeling of UO2 thermophysical properties, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. (2026).
  50. I. Batatia, S. Batzner, D. P. Kovács, A. Musaelian, G. N. C. Simm, R. Drautz, C. Ortner, B. Kozinsky, and G. Csányi, The design space of E(3)-equivariant atom-centered interatomic potentials, Nat. Mach. Intell. 7, 56 (2025).
  51. I. Batatia, D. P. Kovács, G. Simm, C. Ortner, and G. Csányi, MACE: Higher order equivariant message passing neural networks for fast and accurate force fields, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana, 2022), pp. 11423–11436.
  52. S. Plimpton, Fast parallel algorithms for short-range molecular dynamics, J. Comput. Phys. 117, 1 (1995).
  53. R. Meyer, Fuel behavior under abnormal conditions (NUREG/KM-0004) (2013).
  54. S. Glasstone and A. Sesonske, Nuclear Reactor Engineering (Springer US, Boston, 1994).
  55. J. Behler and G. Csányi, Machine learning potentials for extended systems: A perspective, Eur. Phys. J. B 94, 142 (2021).
  56. N. Artrith and J. Behler, High-dimensional neural network potentials for metal surfaces: A prototype study for copper, Phys. Rev. B 85, 045439 (2012).
  57. E. V. Podryabinkin and A. V. Shapeev, Active learning of linearly parametrized interatomic potentials, Comput. Mater. Sci. 140, 171 (2017).
  58. L. Zhang, D.-Y. Lin, H. Wang, R. Car, and W. E, Active learning of uniformly accurate interatomic potentials for materials simulation, Phys. Rev. Mater. 3, 023804 (2019).
  59. C. Schran, J. Behler, and D. Marx, Automated fitting of neural network potentials at coupled cluster accuracy: Protonated water clusters as testing ground, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 88 (2020).
  60. N. Bernstein, G. Csányi, and V. L. Deringer, De novo exploration and self-guided learning of potential-energy surfaces, npj Comput. Mater. 5, 99 (2019).
  61. J. S. Smith, B. Nebgen, N. Lubbers, O. Isayev, and A. E. Roitberg, Less is more: Sampling chemical space with active learning, J. Chem. Phys. 148, 241733 (2018).
  62. J. S. Smith, B. Nebgen, N. Mathew, J. Chen, N. Lubbers, L. Burakovsky, S. Tretiak, H. A. Nam, T. Germann, S. Fensin, and K. Barros, Automated discovery of a robust interatomic potential for aluminum, Nat. Commun. 12, 1257 (2021).
  63. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/d775-mmsy for further details about the employed ML architecture, training dataset composition and augmentation protocol, additional benchmarking results, and DFT convergence studies.
  64. T. Furlanello, Z. Lipton, M. Tschannen, L. Itti, and A. Anandkumar, Born again neural networks, in Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (PMLR, 2018), pp. 1607–1616.
  65. S. Matin, A. E. A. Allen, E. Shinkle, A. Pachalieva, G. T. Craven, B. Nebgen, J. S. Smith, R. Messerly, Y. W. Li, S. Tretiak, K. Barros, and N. Lubbers, Teacher-student training improves accuracy and efficiency of machine learning interatomic potentials, Digital Discovery 4, 2502 (2025).
  66. S. Gong, Y. Zhang, Z. Mu, Z. Pu, H. Wang, X. Han, Z. Yu, M. Chen, T. Zheng, Z. Wang, et al., A predictive machine learning force-field framework for liquid electrolyte development, Nat. Mach. Intell. 7, 543 (2025).
  67. S. Matin, E. Shinkle, Y. Pimonova, G. T. Craven, A. Pachalieva, Y. W. Li, K. Barros, and N. Lubbers, Ensemble knowledge distillation for machine learning interatomic potentials, arXiv:2503.14293.
  68. M. W. D. Cooper, N. Kuganathan, P. A. Burr, M. J. D. Rushton, R. W. Grimes, C. R. Stanek, and D. A. Andersson, Development of Xe and Kr empirical potentials for CeO2, ThO2, UO2 and PuO2, combining DFT with high temperature MD, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 28, 405401 (2016).
  69. I. Batatia, P. Benner, Y. Chiang, A. M. Elena, D. P. Kovács, J. Riebesell, X. R. Advincula, M. Asta, M. Avaylon, W. J. Baldwin, et al., A foundation model for atomistic materials chemistry, Chem. Phys. 163, 184110 (2025).
  70. B. Deng, P. Zhong, K. Jun, J. Riebesell, K. Han, C. J. Bartel, and G. Ceder, CHGNet: Pretrained universal neural network potential for charge-informed atomistic modeling, Nat. Mach. Intell. 5, 1031 (2023).
  71. F. Cappia, K. Wright, D. Frazer, K. Bawane, B. Kombaiah, W. Williams, S. Finkeldei, F. Teng, J. Giglio, M. N. Cinbiz, et al., Detailed characterization of a PWR fuel rod at high burnup in support of LOCA testing, J. Nucl. Mater. 569, 153881 (2022).
  72. E. E. Lewis, Chapter 1 - Nuclear reactions, in Fundamentals of Nuclear Reactor Physics, edited by E. E. Lewis (Academic Press, Burlington, VT, 2008), pp. 1–27.
  73. K. Geelhood, Fuel performance considerations and data needs for burnup above 62 GWd/MTU, Technical Report No. PNNL-29368 (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2019), https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1931/ML19317D098.pdf.
  74. T. K. Kim, L. Boing, and B. Dixon, Nuclear waste attributes of near-term deployable small modular reactors, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 56, 1100 (2024).
  75. J. Lamontagne, L. Desgranges, C. Valot, J. Noirot, T. Blay, I. Roure, and B. Pasquet, Fission gas bubbles characterisation in irradiated UO2 fuel by SEM, EPMA and SIMS, Microchim. Acta 155, 183 (2006).
  76. R. Manzel and C. T. Walker, EPMA and SEM of fuel samples from PWR rods with an average burn-up of around 100 MWd/kgHM, J. Nucl. Mater. 301, 170 (2002).
  77. G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid metals, Phys. Rev. B 47, 558 (1993).
  78. G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996).
  79. G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Efficiency of ab-initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set, Comput. Mater. Sci. 6, 15 (1996).
  80. P. E. Blöchl, Projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B 50, 17953 (1994).
  81. G. Kresse and D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758 (1999).
  82. J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996).
  83. J. P. Perdew, A. Ruzsinszky, G. I. Csonka, O. A. Vydrov, G. E. Scuseria, L. A. Constantin, X. Zhou, and K. Burke, Restoring the density-gradient expansion for exchange in solids and surfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 136406 (2008).
  84. P. E. Blöchl, O. Jepsen, and O. K. Andersen, Improved tetrahedron method for Brillouin-zone integrations, Phys. Rev. B 49, 16223 (1994).
  85. J. L. Bao, L. Gagliardi, and D. G. Truhlar, Self-interaction error in density functional theory: An appraisal, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 9, 2353 (2018).
  86. V. I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen, and O. K. Andersen, Band theory and Mott insulators: Hubbard U instead of Stoner I, Phys. Rev. B 44, 943 (1991).
  87. S. L. Dudarev, D. N. Manh, and A. P. Sutton, Effect of Mott-Hubbard correlations on the electronic structure and structural stability of uranium dioxide, Philos. Mag. B 75, 613 (1997).
  88. M. W. D. Cooper, S. T. Murphy, and D. A. Andersson, The defect chemistry of UO2±x from atomistic simulations, J. Nucl. Mater. 504, 251 (2018).
  89. J.-L. Chen and N. Kaltsoyannis, DFT+U study of uranium dioxide and plutonium dioxide with occupation matrix control, J. Phys. Chem. C 126, 11426 (2022).
  90. A. Kotani and T. Yamazaki, Systematic analysis of core photoemission spectra for actinide di-oxides and rare-earth sesqui-oxides, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 108, 117 (1992).
  91. Q. Yin, A. Kutepov, K. Haule, G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, and W. E. Pickett, Electronic correlation and transport properties of nuclear fuel materials, Phys. Rev. B 84, 195111 (2011).
  92. G. Beridze and P. M. Kowalski, Benchmarking the DFT+U method for thermochemical calculations of uranium molecular compounds and solids, J. Phys. Chem. A 118, 11797 (2014).
  93. J.-B. Morée, R. Outerovitch, and B. Amadon, First-principles calculation of the Coulomb interaction parameters U and J for actinide dioxides, Phys. Rev. B 103, 045113 (2021).
  94. K. Ikushima, S. Tsutsui, Y. Haga, H. Yasuoka, R. E. Walstedt, N. M. Masaki, A. Nakamura, S. Nasu, and Y. Ōnuki, First-order phase transition in UO2: U235 and O17 NMR study, Phys. Rev. B 63, 104404 (2001).
  95. E. Blackburn, R. Caciuffo, N. Magnani, P. Santini, P. J. Brown, M. Enderle, and G. H. Lander, Spherical neutron spin polarimetry of anisotropic magnetic fluctuations in UO2, Phys. Rev. B 72, 184411 (2005).
  96. S. B. Wilkins, R. Caciuffo, C. Detlefs, J. Rebizant, E. Colineau, F. Wastin, and G. H. Lander, Direct observation of electric-quadrupolar order in UO2, Phys. Rev. B 73, 060406(R) (2006).
  97. S. Zhou, H. Ma, E. Xiao, K. Gofryk, C. Jiang, M. E. Manley, D. H. Hurley, and C. A. Marianetti, Capturing the ground state of uranium dioxide from first principles: Crystal distortion, magnetic structure, and phonons, Phys. Rev. B 106, 125134 (2022).
  98. W. D. Neilson, J. Rizk, M. W. D. Cooper, and D. A. Andersson, Oxygen potential, uranium diffusion, and defect chemistry in UO2±x: A density functional theory study, J. Phys. Chem. C 128, 21559 (2024).
  99. B. Dorado, M. Freyss, B. Amadon, M. Bertolus, G. Jomard, and P. Garcia, Advances in first-principles modelling of point defects in UO2: F electron correlations and the issue of local energy minima, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 25, 333201 (2013).
  100. D. P. Kovács, I. Batatia, E. S. Arany, and G. Csányi, Evaluation of the MACE force field architecture: From medicinal chemistry to materials science, J. Chem. Phys. 159, 044118 (2023).
  101. G. Clavier, N. Desbiens, E. Bourasseau, V. Lachet, N. Brusselle-Dupend, and B. Rousseau, Computation of elastic constants of solids using molecular simulation: comparison of constant volume and constant pressure ensemble methods, Mol. Simul. 43, 1413 (2017).
  102. G. Clavier and A. P. Thompson, Computation of the thermal elastic constants for arbitrary manybody potentials in LAMMPS using the stress-fluctuation formalism, Comput. Phys. Commun. 286, 108674 (2023).
  103. J. H. Irving and J. G. Kirkwood, The statistical mechanical theory of transport processes. IV. The equations of hydrodynamics, J. Chem. Phys. 18, 817 (1950).
  104. Z. Clarence, Elasticity and Anelasticity of Metals (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1948).
  105. F. A. Kröger and H. J. Vink, Relations between the concentrations of imperfections in solids, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 5, 208 (1958).
  106. B. J. Berne, G. Ciccotti, and D. F. Coker, in Classical and Quantum Dynamics in Condensed Phase Simulations: Proceedings of the International School of Physics (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998).
  107. G. Henkelman and H. Jónsson, Improved tangent estimate in the nudged elastic band method for finding minimum energy paths and saddle points, J. Chem. Phys. 113, 9978 (2000).
  108. E. L. Kolsbjerg, M. N. Groves, and B. Hammer, An automated nudged elastic band method, J. Chem. Phys. 145, 094107 (2016).
  109. S. Makri, C. Ortner, and J. R. Kermode, A preconditioning scheme for minimum energy path finding methods, J. Chem. Phys. 150, 094109 (2019).
  110. E. Bitzek, P. Koskinen, F. Gähler, M. Moseler, and P. Gumbsch, Structural relaxation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 170201 (2006).
  111. S. Smidstrup, A. Pedersen, K. Stokbro, and H. Jónsson, Improved initial guess for minimum energy path calculations, J. Chem. Phys. 140, 214106 (2014).
  112. M. T. Hutchings, High-temperature studies of UO2 and ThO2 using neutron scattering techniques, J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 2 83, 1083 (1987).
  113. J. P. Hiernaut, G. J. Hyland, and C. Ronchi, Premelting transition in uranium dioxide, Int. J. Thermophys. 14, 259 (1993).
  114. C. Ronchi and G. J. Hyland, Analysis of recent measurements of the heat capacity of uranium dioxide, J. Alloys Compd. 213-214, 159 (1994).
  115. A. S. Dworkin and M. A. Bredig, Diffuse transition and melting in fluorite and antifluorite type of compounds. Heat content of potassium sulfide from 298 to 1260.degree.K, J. Phys. Chem. 72, 1277 (1968).
  116. J. Ralph and G. J. Hyland, Empirical confirmation of a bredig transition in UO2, J. Nucl. Mater. 132, 76 (1985).
  117. T. R. Pavlov, M. R. Wenman, L. Vlahovic, D. Robba, R. J. M. Konings, P. Van Uffelen, and R. W. Grimes, Measurement and interpretation of the thermo-physical properties of UO2 at high temperatures: The viral effect of oxygen defects, Acta Mater. 139, 138 (2017).
  118. C. Ronchi, M. Sheindlin, M. Musella, and G. J. Hyland, Thermal conductivity of uranium dioxide up to 2900K from simultaneous measurement of the heat capacity and thermal diffusivity, J. Appl. Phys. 85, 776 (1999).
  119. C. Affortit and J. Marcon, Specific heat of uranium and plutonium oxides at high temperatures, Rev. Int. Hautes Temp. Refract. 7, 236 (1970).
  120. A. E. Thompson and C. Wolverton, First-principles study of noble gas impurities and defects in UO2, Phys. Rev. B 84, 134111 (2011).
  121. H. Y. Geng, Y. Chen, Y. Kaneta, M. Kinoshita, and Q. Wu, Interplay of defect cluster and the stability of xenon in uranium dioxide from density functional calculations, Phys. Rev. B 82, 094106 (2010).
  122. P. V. Nerikar, X.-Y. Liu, B. P. Uberuaga, C. R. Stanek, S. R. Phillpot, and S. B. Sinnott, Thermodynamics of fission products in UO2±x, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 21, 435602 (2009).
  123. A. E. Thompson and C. Wolverton, Pathway and energetics of xenon migration in uranium dioxide, Phys. Rev. B 87, 104105 (2013).
  124. K. Govers, S. E. Lemehov, and M. Verwerft, On the solution and migration of single Xe atoms in uranium dioxide – An interatomic potentials study, J. Nucl. Mater. 405, 252 (2010).
  125. A. Chartier, L. Van Brutzel, and M. Freyss, Atomistic study of stability of xenon nanoclusters in uranium oxide, Phys. Rev. B 81, 174111 (2010).
  126. R. G. J. Ball and R. W. Grimes, Diffusion of Xe in UO2, J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 86, 1257 (1990).
  127. R. W. Grimes and C. R. A. Catlow, The stability of fission products in uranium dioxide, Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 335, 609 (1991).
  128. D. A. Andersson, B. P. Uberuaga, P. V. Nerikar, C. Unal, and C. R. Stanek, U and Xe transport in UO2±x: Density functional theory calculations, Phys. Rev. B 84, 054105 (2011).
  129. D. Andersson, Density functional theory calculations applied to nuclear fuels, Handbook of Materials Modeling (Springer, Cham, 2020), pp. 2121–2140.
  130. www.csd3.cam.ac.uk.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. B 114, 175108– Published 4 September, 2026
  • Received 10 December 2025
  • Revised 18 June 2026
  • Accepted 6 July 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation