pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.04824 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-05 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Design rules for industrial-scale sintering of UB4-UBC composites with high uranium density

Riley Moeykens , Anthony Albert-Harrup , David Simonne , Mehmet Topsakal , Ericmoore Jossou
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 15:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords uranium borideUB4-UBC compositenuclear fueloxidation behaviorsinteringaccident-tolerant fuelhigh uranium densityborocarbothermic reduction
0
0 comments X

The pith

UB4-UBC composites achieve higher uranium loading than monolithic UB4 while showing promising oxidation resistance at elevated temperatures.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops design rules for industrial-scale sintering of UB4-UBC composites to reach higher uranium density. The authors synthesize the composites by borocarbothermic reduction, then track high-temperature structural evolution with in situ synchrotron X-ray diffraction and measure oxidation rates via combined SXRD and thermogravimetric analysis. They compare the results directly to other candidate fuels such as UB2, U3Si2, UC, and UN. The composite improves on pure UB4 in uranium content and oxidation behavior, which matters for creating safer, higher-performance fuel forms that can also act as burnable absorbers in advanced reactors.

Core claim

Uranium tetraboride and uranium monoboroncarbide composites synthesized by an industrially scalable borocarbothermic reduction method exhibit higher uranium loading than monolithic UB4 and display favorable high-temperature oxidation behavior as characterized by in situ synchrotron X-ray diffraction and thermogravimetric analysis, positioning the composite as an improved uranium boride-based fuel form for advanced nuclear reactors.

What carries the argument

The UB4-UBC composite structure that combines uranium tetraboride and uranium monoboroncarbide to increase uranium density while controlling oxidation kinetics during high-temperature exposure.

If this is right

  • The borocarbothermic reduction route supports sintering at industrial scale without specialized equipment.
  • Higher uranium density allows greater fuel efficiency or smaller core designs in advanced reactors.
  • Oxidation resistance at elevated temperature is competitive with or superior to UB2, U3Si2, UC, and UN.
  • The material retains dual functionality as both fuel and burnable neutron absorber.
  • In situ SXRD confirms phase stability through the temperature range relevant to reactor operation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If oxidation resistance persists under irradiation, the composite could lower fuel-failure risk during loss-of-coolant accidents.
  • Successful industrial scaling may reduce manufacturing costs relative to monolithic uranium borides.
  • Similar composite approaches could be tested in other metal boride systems to tune density and reactivity.
  • Long-term neutron irradiation studies would be required to confirm microstructural stability beyond the lab conditions.

Load-bearing premise

Laboratory-scale oxidation measurements in controlled air or steam will directly predict how the composite performs under irradiation and real reactor coolant conditions.

What would settle it

A post-irradiation examination after exposing the sintered composite to neutron flux and steam that shows faster oxidation or loss of structural integrity than measured in the lab TGA and SXRD tests.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.04824 by Anthony Albert-Harrup, David Simonne, Ericmoore Jossou, Mehmet Topsakal, Riley Moeykens.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Heating profile for synchrotron characterization of a UB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Temperature dependence of the Gibbs free energy of formation (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Effect of sintering temperature on the LXRD patterns of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SEM images of sintered UB4 (top) compared with those of the UB4–UBC composite at different regions of the pellet (bottom). The red regions illustrate the coalescing grains during sintering. 4 Discussion 4.1 High temperature phase stability The structural stability of the UB4 and UB4–UBC composite samples was investigated using the heating profiles shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SXRD patterns showing the temperature-dependent phase evolution of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temperature-dependent evolution of phase fractions and lattice parameters for pristine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Fractional mass change of UB4 and UB4–UBC with temperature under flowing dry air, measured by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). (b) The differential thermogravimetric (DTG) for UB4 and UB4–UBC under flowing dry air, measured by thermogravimetric analysis. directionally averaged linear coefficient of expansion was ≈30 % greater for the UB4 phase of the UB4–UBC composite compared with the UB4 phase of th… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: This figure shows XRD patterns comparing the oxidation behavior of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: In situ SXRD patterns showing the thermal stability of pristine and pre-oxidized of UB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Uranium borides are promising candidate fuel forms for use in advanced nuclear reactors due to their high thermal conductivity and potential for dual use as both fuel and burnable absorber materials. In this work, uranium tetraboride (UB$_4$) and uranium monoboroncarbide (UBC) composites were synthesized using an industrially scalable borocarbothermic reduction method. The high-temperature structural evolution of the as-synthesized borides was investigated using in situ synchrotron X-ray diffraction (SXRD). The oxidation behavior was further characterized using a combination of SXRD and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), allowing direct comparison with other potential accident-tolerant fuels such as UB$_2$, U$_3$Si$_2$, UC, and UN. The UB$_4$-UBC composite shows higher uranium loading than monolithic UB$_4$ and demonstrates promising oxidation behavior at elevated temperature, pointing to its potential as an improved uranium boride-based fuel form.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports synthesis of UB4-UBC composites via an industrially scalable borocarbothermic reduction route, followed by in-situ synchrotron X-ray diffraction (SXRD) to track high-temperature structural evolution and combined SXRD/TGA to assess oxidation behavior. Direct comparisons are made to monolithic UB4 and other candidate fuels (UB2, U3Si2, UC, UN). The central claims are that the composite achieves higher uranium loading than pure UB4 and exhibits promising oxidation resistance at elevated temperature, supporting its potential as an improved uranium boride fuel form.

Significance. If the experimental observations hold under the reported conditions, the work supplies concrete design rules for industrial-scale sintering of high-density boride composites and provides one of the few direct TGA/SXRD oxidation datasets for this class of materials, which could inform accident-tolerant fuel development.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: the TGA and in-situ SXRD protocols are described at a level that omits sample mass, heating rates, atmosphere control details, baseline subtraction procedures, and replicate statistics. Without these, the quantitative mass-gain curves and phase-evolution timelines cannot be independently assessed for robustness or compared to literature values for UB2, U3Si2, UC, and UN.
  2. [Results] Results section (oxidation subsection): the claim of 'promising oxidation behavior' rests on visual inspection of TGA curves and SXRD patterns, yet no tabulated mass-gain rates, onset temperatures, or normalized uranium-loss metrics are provided. This makes the comparative statement load-bearing for the central claim but currently unsupported by extractable numbers.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions for the TGA and SXRD plots should explicitly state the number of independent runs and any post-processing (e.g., smoothing or normalization) applied to the raw data.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract states 'higher uranium loading than monolithic UB4' but the manuscript does not report measured densities or theoretical uranium-atom densities for the composite versus pure UB4; a short table or calculation would clarify this point.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. We have addressed both major comments by expanding the Methods section with the requested experimental parameters and by adding quantitative tabulated data to support the oxidation claims in the Results section.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: the TGA and in-situ SXRD protocols are described at a level that omits sample mass, heating rates, atmosphere control details, baseline subtraction procedures, and replicate statistics. Without these, the quantitative mass-gain curves and phase-evolution timelines cannot be independently assessed for robustness or compared to literature values for UB2, U3Si2, UC, and UN.

    Authors: We agree that the original Methods section was insufficiently detailed. In the revised manuscript we have added the following: sample masses (15 mg for TGA, 5–10 mg for in-situ SXRD), heating rates (5 °C min⁻¹ for TGA oxidation runs and 10 °C min⁻¹ for SXRD), atmosphere control (50 mL min⁻¹ flowing air for oxidation; Ar for structural evolution), baseline subtraction (empty-crucible runs subtracted from all TGA traces), and replicate statistics (all measurements performed in triplicate with mean ± standard deviation reported). These additions enable direct comparison with literature values for UB₂, U₃Si₂, UC and UN. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section (oxidation subsection): the claim of 'promising oxidation behavior' rests on visual inspection of TGA curves and SXRD patterns, yet no tabulated mass-gain rates, onset temperatures, or normalized uranium-loss metrics are provided. This makes the comparative statement load-bearing for the central claim but currently unsupported by extractable numbers.

    Authors: We accept that the oxidation subsection relied too heavily on qualitative description. We have inserted a new table (Table 3) that reports quantitative metrics: mass-gain rates at 400 °C and 500 °C, oxidation-onset temperatures, and normalized uranium-loss values for the UB₄–UBC composite alongside UB₂, U₃Si₂, UC and UN. The table is accompanied by a brief paragraph that uses these numbers to substantiate the comparative claim of promising oxidation resistance. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; experimental claims rest on direct observations

full rationale

The manuscript describes synthesis of UB4-UBC composites via borocarbothermic reduction, followed by in-situ SXRD for structural evolution and TGA/SXRD for oxidation behavior. No equations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or derivation chains appear in the abstract or described content. Central claims of higher uranium loading and promising oxidation behavior are tied directly to measured data rather than any self-referential modeling or self-citation that reduces to inputs by construction. This is a standard experimental materials paper with no load-bearing mathematical steps to inspect for circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is purely experimental and introduces no mathematical derivations, so the ledger contains no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities beyond standard assumptions of the techniques used.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5483 in / 1073 out tokens · 24371 ms · 2026-05-15T15:59:47.640507+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Barin and G

    I. Barin and G. Platzki.Thermochemical Data of Pure Substances. Vol. 304. Weinheim: VCH, 1989

    work page 1989

  2. [2]

    Bauer, J.-F

    J. Bauer, J.-F. Halet and J.-Y. Saillard. ‘Rare earth metal borocarbides: Examples of co- ordination compounds in solid-state chemistry1Dedicated to Professor Roald Hoffmann on the occasion of his 60th birthday.1’. In:Coordination Chemistry Reviews178-180 (1998), pp. 723–753.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-8545(98)00106-4

    work page doi:10.1016/s0010-8545(98)00106-4 1998

  3. [3]

    Beckman and R

    G. Beckman and R. Kiessling. ‘Thermal Expansion Coefficients for Uranium Boride and β-Uranium Silicide’. In:Nature178.4546 (1956), pp. 1341–1341.doi:10.1038/1781341a0

    work page doi:10.1038/1781341a0 1956

  4. [4]

    P. K. Bhowmik, P. Sabharwall, B. J. Heidrich and R. Howard.Accelerating Nuclear Fuels and Materials Qualification by Multi-Level Irradiation Experiment Campaign. Tech. rep. Idaho Falls, ID, United States: Idaho National Laboratory (INL), 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    B. Bian, S. Taheriniya, G. M. Muralikrishna, S. Sen, C. Gammer, I. Steinbach, S. V. Divinski and G. Wilde. ‘Coupling of alloy chemistry, diffusion and structure by grain boundary engineering in Ni–Cr–Fe’. In:Acta Materialia264 (2024), p. 119602.doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.actamat.2023.119602

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2023.119602 2024

  6. [6]

    Blum and F

    P. Blum and F. Bertaut. ‘Contribution à l’étude des borures à teneur élevée en bore’. In: Acta Crystallographica7.1 (Jan. 1954), pp. 81–86.doi:10.1107/S0365110X54000151

    work page doi:10.1107/s0365110x54000151 1954

  7. [7]

    P. Burr, E. Kardoulaki, R. Holmes and S. Middleburgh. ‘Defect evolution in burnable absorber candidate material: Uranium diboride, UB2’. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials513 (2019), pp. 45–55.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2018.10.039

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2018.10.039 2019

  8. [8]

    Carmack, Frank, S

    J. Carmack, Frank, S. M. Bragg-Sitton and L. Lance.Overview of the U.S. DOE Accident Tolerant Fuel Development Program. 2013

    work page 2013

  9. [9]

    Degueldre, J

    C. Degueldre, J. Bertsch and M. Martin. ‘Post irradiation examination of nuclear fuel: Toward a complete analysis’. In:Progress in Nuclear Energy92 (2016), pp. 242–253.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2016.03.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2016.03.025 2016

  10. [10]

    Faibish.Accelerated Fuel Qualification White Paper

    R. Faibish.Accelerated Fuel Qualification White Paper. Tech. rep. Accelerated Fuel Qualifica- tion Working Group White Paper Task Force, 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [13]

    Gonzales, J

    A. Gonzales, J. K. Watkins, A. R. Wagner, B. J. Jaques and E. S. Sooby. ‘Challenges and opportunities to alloyed and composite fuel architectures to mitigate high uranium density fuel oxidation: uranium silicide’. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials553 (2021), p. 153026.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2021.153026

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2021.153026 2021

  12. [14]

    H. Guo, J. Wang, D. Chen, W. Tian, S. Cao, D. Chen, C. Tan, Q. Deng and Z. Qin. ‘Boro/carbothermal reduction synthesis of uranium tetraboride and its oxidation behavior in dry air’. In:Journal of the American Ceramic Society102.3 (2019), pp. 1049–1056.doi: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1111 / jace . 15987. eprint: https : / / ceramics . onlinelibrary . wil...

    work page doi:10.1111/jace.15987 2019

  13. [15]

    Technical Bulletin A2-S1

    High Temperature Ceramic Adhesives. Technical Bulletin A2-S1. Manufacturer technical bulletin

    work page

  14. [16]

    Nuclear Power Technology Development Section

    International Atomic Energy Agency.Thermophysical Properties of Materials for Nuclear Engineering: A Tutorial and Collection of Data. Nuclear Power Technology Development Section. Vienna, Austria, 2008

    work page 2008

  15. [17]

    Ishizawa, T

    N. Ishizawa, T. Miyata, I. Minato, F. Marumo and S. Iwai. ‘A structural investigation of α-Al2O3 at 2170 K’. In:Acta Crystallographica Section B36.2 (Feb. 1980), pp. 228–230.doi: 10.1107/S0567740880002981. 15 REFERENCES REFERENCES

    work page doi:10.1107/s0567740880002981 1980

  16. [18]

    Jolkkonen, P

    M. Jolkkonen, P. Malkki, K. Johnson and J. Wallenius. ‘Uranium nitride fuels in superheated steam’. In:Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology54.5 (2017), pp. 513–519.doi:10.1080/ 00223131.2017.1291372. eprint:https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2017.1291372

    work page doi:10.1080/00223131.2017.1291372 2017

  17. [19]

    Jossou, L

    E. Jossou, L. Malakkal, B. Szpunar, D. Oladimeji and J. A. Szpunar. ‘A first principles study of the electronic structure, elastic and thermal properties of UB2’. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials490 (2017), pp. 41–48.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2017.04.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2017.04.006 2017

  18. [20]

    S. N. Kabekkodu, A. Dosen and T. N. Blanton. ‘PDF-5+: A Comprehensive Powder Diffraction File for Materials Characterization’. In:Powder Diffraction39.2 (2024), pp. 47–59.doi: 10.1017/S0885715624000150

    work page doi:10.1017/s0885715624000150 2024

  19. [21]

    Kardoulaki, D

    E. Kardoulaki, D. Frazer, J. White, U. Carvajal, A. Nelson, D. Byler, T. Saleh, B. Gong, T. Yao, J. Lian and K. McClellan. ‘Fabrication and thermophysical properties of UO2-UB2 and UO2-UB4 composites sintered via spark plasma sintering’. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials 544 (2021), p. 152690.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2020.152690

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2020.152690 2021

  20. [22]

    Kardoulaki, J

    E. Kardoulaki, J. White, D. Byler, D. Frazer, A. Shivprasad, T. Saleh, B. Gong, T. Yao, J. Lian and K. McClellan. ‘Thermophysical and mechanical property assessment of UB2 and UB4 sintered via spark plasma sintering’. In:Journal of Alloys and Compounds818 (2020), p. 153216.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2019.153216

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2019.153216 2020

  21. [23]

    N. R. Koenig and B. A. Webb.Properties of Ceramic and Cermet Fuels for Sodium Graphite Reactors. Tech. rep. Atomics International, 1960

    work page 1960

  22. [24]

    M. Lang, C. L. Tracy, R. I. Palomares, F. Zhang, D. Severin, M. Bender, C. Trautmann, C. Park, V. B. Prakapenka, V. A. Skuratov and R. C. Ewing. ‘Characterization of ion-induced radiation effects in nuclear materials using synchrotron x-ray techniques’. In:Journal of Materials Research30.9 (May 2015), pp. 1366–1379.doi:10.1557/jmr.2015.6

    work page doi:10.1557/jmr.2015.6 2015

  23. [25]

    Lyon and W

    W. Lyon and W. Baily. ‘The solid-liquid phase diagram for the UO2-PuO2 system’. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials22.3 (1967), pp. 332–339.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022- 3115(67)90051-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0022- 1967

  24. [26]

    X-ray diffraction analysis software

    Materials Data, Inc.JADE Pro. X-ray diffraction analysis software. Materials Data, Inc., 2023

    work page 2023

  25. [27]

    K. J. Matterson and H. Jones. ‘A STUDY OF THE TETRABORIDES OF URANIUM AND THORIUM’. In:Trans. Brit. Ceram. Soc.Vol: 60 (July 1961)

    work page 1961

  26. [28]

    Menovsky, J

    A. Menovsky, J. Franse and J. Klaasse. ‘The crystal growth of uranium tetraboride UB4 from the melt’. In:Journal of Crystal Growth70.1 (1984), pp. 519–522.doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0022-0248(84)90311-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-0248(84)90311-7 1984

  27. [29]

    Mistarihi, F

    Q. Mistarihi, F. Martini, J. Buckley, S. Middleburgh, T. Abram and J. Turner. ‘The oxidation of uranium diboride in flowing air atmospheres’. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials580 (2023), p. 154417.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2023.154417

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2023.154417 2023

  28. [30]

    P. Rogl. ‘Actinoidmetal Boron Carbides’. In:The Physics and Chemistry of Carbides, Nitrides and Borides. Springer, 1990, pp. 269–277

    work page 1990

  29. [31]

    P. Rogl, B. Rupp, I. Felner and P. Fischer. ‘Crystal Chemistry and Magnetism of Ternary Actinoid Boron Carbides UB1-xC1+x and U1-xMxB2C with M = Sc, Lu, and Th’. In:Journal of Solid State Chemistry104.2 (1993), pp. 377–390.doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/jssc. 1993.1173

    work page doi:10.1006/jssc 1993

  30. [32]

    P. Rogl, J. Bauer and J. Debuigne. ‘The ternary system uranium-boron-carbon’. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials165.1 (1989), pp. 74–82.doi: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / 0022 - 3115(89)90504-7

    work page 1989

  31. [33]

    Rousseau, L

    G. Rousseau, L. Desgranges, F. Charlot, N. Millot, J. Nièpce, M. Pijolat, F. Valdivieso, G. Baldinozzi and J. Bérar. ‘A detailed study of UO2 to U3O8 oxidation phases and the associated rate-limiting steps’. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials355.1 (2006), pp. 10–20.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2006.03.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2006.03.015 2006

  32. [34]

    K. A. Terrani, N. A. Capps, M. J. Kerr, C. A. Back, A. T. Nelson, B. D. Wirth, S. L. Hayes and C. R. Stanek. ‘Accelerating nuclear fuel development and qualification: Modeling and simulation integrated with separate-effects testing’. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials539 (2020), p. 152267.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2020.152267. 16 REFERENCES REFERENCES

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2020.152267 2020

  33. [35]

    Thomas, A

    J. Thomas, A. Figueroa Bengoa, S. T. Nori, R. Ren, P. Kenesei, J. Almer, J. Hunter, J. Harp and M. A. Okuniewski. ‘The application of synchrotron micro-computed tomography to characterize the three-dimensional microstructure in irradiated nuclear fuel’. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials537 (2020), p. 152161.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2020. 152161

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2020 2020

  34. [36]

    B. H. Toby and R. B. Von Dreele. ‘GSAS-II: the genesis of a modern open-source all purpose crystallography software package’. In:Journal of Applied Crystallography46.2 (Apr. 2013), pp. 544–549.doi:10.1107/S0021889813003531

    work page doi:10.1107/s0021889813003531 2013

  35. [37]

    Matthew Weinberg

    J. Turner, J. Buckley, R. Worth, M. Salata-Barnett, M. Schmidt and T. Abram. ‘UN-UB2 Composite fuel material; improved water tolerance with integral burnable absorber’. In: Journal of Nuclear Materials559 (2022), p. 153471.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jnucmat.2021.153471

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2022

  36. [38]

    Turner, F

    J. Turner, F. Martini, J. Buckley, G. Phillips, S. Middleburgh and T. Abram. ‘Synthesis of candidate advanced technology fuel: Uranium diboride (UB2) via carbo/borothermic reduction of UO2’. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials540 (2020), p. 152388.doi: https : //doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2020.152388

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2020.152388 2020

  37. [39]

    Turner and T

    J. Turner and T. Abram. ‘Steam performance of UB2/U3Si2 composite fuel pellets, compared to U3Si2 reference behaviour’. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials529 (2020), p. 151919.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2019.151919

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2019.151919 2020

  38. [40]

    J. K. Watkins, A. R. Wagner, A. Gonzales, B. J. Jaques and E. S. Sooby. ‘Challenges and opportunities to alloyed and composite fuel architectures to mitigate high uranium density fuel oxidation: Uranium diboride and uranium carbide’. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials560 (2022), p. 153502.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2021.153502

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2021.153502 2022

  39. [41]

    Zalkin and D

    A. Zalkin and D. H. Templeton. ‘The crystal structures of CeB4 ThB4 and UB4’. In:Acta Crystallographica6.3 (Mar. 1953), pp. 269–272.doi:10.1107/S0365110X53000764

    work page doi:10.1107/s0365110x53000764 1953

  40. [42]

    Zalkind, G

    S. Zalkind, G. Rafailov, I. Halevy, T. Livneh, A. Rubin, H. Maimon and D. Schweke. ‘Uranium oxidation kinetics monitored by in-situ X-ray diffraction’. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials 485 (2017), pp. 202–206.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2016.12.021. 17

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2016.12.021 2017