Optimization of a label-free biosensor vertically characterized based on a periodic lattice of high aspect ratio SU-8 nano-pillars with a simplified 2D theoretical model

We have recently demonstrated a biosensor based on a lattice of SU8 pillars on a 1 μm SiO2/Si wafer by measuring vertically reflectivity as a function of wavelength. The biodetection has been proven with the combination of Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA) protein and its antibody (antiBSA). A BSA layer is attached to the pillars; the biorecognition of antiBSA involves a shift in the reflectivity curve, related with the concentration of antiBSA. A detection limit in the order of 2 ng/ml is achieved for a rhombic lattice of pillars with a lattice parameter (a) of 800 nm, a height (h) of 420 nm and a diameter(d) of 200 nm. These results correlate with calculations using 3D-finite difference time domain method. A 2D simplified model is proposed, consisting of a multilayer model where the pillars are turned into a 420 nm layer with an effective refractive index obtained by using Beam Propagation Method (BPM) algorithm. Results provided by this model are in good correlation with experimental data, reaching a reduction in time from one day to 15 minutes, giving a fast but accurate tool to optimize the design and maximizing sensitivity, and allows analyzing the influence of different variables (diameter, height and lattice parameter). Sensitivity is obtained for a variety of configurations, reaching a limit of detection under 1 ng/ml. Optimum design is not only chosen because of its sensitivity but also its feasibility, both from fabrication (limited by aspect ratio and proximity of the pillars) and fluidic point of view. (© 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web 1. INTRODUCTION. LINGUISTIC TOOLS AND ANNOTATIONS: THEIR LIGHTS AND SHADOWS Computational Linguistics is already a consolidated research area. It builds upon the results of other two major ones, namely Linguistics and Computer Science and Engineering, and it aims at developing computational models of human language (or natural language, as it is termed in this area). Possibly, its most well-known applications are the different tools developed so far for processing human language, such as machine translation systems and speech recognizers or dictation programs. These tools for processing human language are commonly referred to as linguistic tools. Apart from the examples mentioned above, there are also other types of linguistic tools that perhaps are not so well-known, but on which most of the other applications of Computational Linguistics are built. These other types of linguistic tools comprise POS taggers, natural language parsers and semantic taggers, amongst others. All of them can be termed linguistic annotation tools. Linguistic annotation tools are important assets. In fact, POS and semantic taggers (and, to a lesser extent, also natural language parsers) have become critical resources for the computer applications that process natural language. Hence, any computer application that has to analyse a text automatically and ‘intelligently’ will include at least a module for POS tagging. The more an application needs to ‘understand’ the meaning of the text it processes, the more linguistic tools and/or modules it will incorporate and integrate. However, linguistic annotation tools have still some limitations, which can be summarised as follows: 1. Normally, they perform annotations only at a certain linguistic level (that is, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, etc.). 2. They usually introduce a certain rate of errors and ambiguities when tagging. This error rate ranges from 10 percent up to 50 percent of the units annotated for unrestricted, general texts. 3. Their annotations are most frequently formulated in terms of an annotation schema designed and implemented ad hoc. A priori, it seems that the interoperation and the integration of several linguistic tools into an appropriate software architecture could most likely solve the limitations stated in (1). Besides, integrating several linguistic annotation tools and making them interoperate could also minimise the limitation stated in (2). Nevertheless, in the latter case, all these tools should produce annotations for a common level, which would have to be combined in order to correct their corresponding errors and inaccuracies. Yet, the limitation stated in (3) prevents both types of integration and interoperation from being easily achieved. In addition, most high-level annotation tools rely on other lower-level annotation tools and their outputs to generate their own ones. For example, sense-tagging tools (operating at the semantic level) often use POS taggers (operating at a lower level, i.e., the morphosyntactic) to identify the grammatical category of the word or lexical unit they are annotating. Accordingly, if a faulty or inaccurate low-level annotation tool is to be used by other higher-level one in its process, the errors and inaccuracies of the former should be minimised in advance. Otherwise, these errors and inaccuracies would be transferred to (and even magnified in) the annotations of the high-level annotation tool. Therefore, it would be quite useful to find a way to (i) correct or, at least, reduce the errors and the inaccuracies of lower-level linguistic tools; (ii) unify the annotation schemas of different linguistic annotation tools or, more generally speaking, make these tools (as well as their annotations) interoperate. Clearly, solving (i) and (ii) should ease the automatic annotation of web pages by means of linguistic tools, and their transformation into Semantic Web pages (Berners-Lee, Hendler and Lassila, 2001). Yet, as stated above, (ii) is a type of interoperability problem. There again, ontologies (Gruber, 1993; Borst, 1997) have been successfully applied thus far to solve several interoperability problems. Hence, ontologies should help solve also the problems and limitations of linguistic annotation tools aforementioned. Thus, to summarise, the main aim of the present work was to combine somehow these separated approaches, mechanisms and tools for annotation from Linguistics and Ontological Engineering (and the Semantic Web) in a sort of hybrid (linguistic and ontological) annotation model, suitable for both areas. This hybrid (semantic) annotation model should (a) benefit from the advances, models, techniques, mechanisms and tools of these two areas; (b) minimise (and even solve, when possible) some of the problems found in each of them; and (c) be suitable for the Semantic Web. The concrete goals that helped attain this aim are presented in the following section. 2. GOALS OF THE PRESENT WORK As mentioned above, the main goal of this work was to specify a hybrid (that is, linguistically-motivated and ontology-based) model of annotation suitable for the Semantic Web (i.e. it had to produce a semantic annotation of web page contents). This entailed that the tags included in the annotations of the model had to (1) represent linguistic concepts (or linguistic categories, as they are termed in ISO/DCR (2008)), in order for this model to be linguistically-motivated; (2) be ontological terms (i.e., use an ontological vocabulary), in order for the model to be ontology-based; and (3) be structured (linked) as a collection of ontology-based triples, as in the usual Semantic Web languages (namely RDF(S) and OWL), in order for the model to be considered suitable for the Semantic Web. Besides, to be useful for the Semantic Web, this model should provide a way to automate the annotation of web pages. As for the present work, this requirement involved reusing the linguistic annotation tools purchased by the OEG research group (http://www.oeg-upm.net), but solving beforehand (or, at least, minimising) some of their limitations. Therefore, this model had to minimise these limitations by means of the integration of several linguistic annotation tools into a common architecture. Since this integration required the interoperation of tools and their annotations, ontologies were proposed as the main technological component to make them effectively interoperate. From the very beginning, it seemed that the formalisation of the elements and the knowledge underlying linguistic annotations within an appropriate set of ontologies would be a great step forward towards the formulation of such a model (henceforth referred to as OntoTag). Obviously, first, to combine the results of the linguistic annotation tools that operated at the same level, their annotation schemas had to be unified (or, preferably, standardised) in advance. This entailed the unification (id. standardisation) of their tags (both their representation and their meaning), and their format or syntax. Second, to merge the results of the linguistic annotation tools operating at different levels, their respective annotation schemas had to be (a) made interoperable and (b) integrated. And third, in order for the resulting annotations to suit the Semantic Web, they had to be specified by means of an ontology-based vocabulary, and structured by means of ontology-based triples, as hinted above. Therefore, a new annotation scheme had to be devised, based both on ontologies and on this type of triples, which allowed for the combination and the integration of the annotations of any set of linguistic annotation tools. This annotation scheme was considered a fundamental part of the model proposed here, and its development was, accordingly, another major objective of the present work. All these goals, aims and objectives could be re-stated more clearly as follows: Goal 1: Development of a set of ontologies for the formalisation of the linguistic knowledge relating linguistic annotation. Sub-goal 1.1: Ontological formalisation of the EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) de facto standards for morphosyntactic and syntactic annotation, in a way that helps respect the triple structure recommended for annotations in these works (which is isomorphic to the triple structures used in the context of the Semantic Web). Sub-goal 1.2: Incorporation into this preliminary ontological formalisation of other existing standards and standard proposals relating the levels mentioned above, such as those currently under development within ISO/TC 37 (the ISO Technical Committee dealing with Terminology, which deals also with linguistic resources and annotations). Sub-goal 1.3: Generalisation and extension of the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and ISO/TC 37 to the semantic level, for which no ISO/TC 37 standards have been developed yet. Sub-goal 1.4: Ontological formalisation of the generalisations and/or extensions obtained in the previous sub-goal as generalisations and/or extensions of the corresponding ontology (or ontologies). Sub-goal 1.5: Ontological formalisation of the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the previously developed ontology (or ontologies). Goal 2: Development of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, a standard-based abstract scheme for the hybrid (linguistically-motivated and ontological-based) annotation of texts. Sub-goal 2.1: Development of the standard-based morphosyntactic annotation level of OntoTag’s scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996a) and also the recommendations included in the ISO/MAF (2008) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.2: Development of the standard-based syntactic annotation level of the hybrid abstract scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996b) and the ISO/SynAF (2010) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.3: Development of the standard-based semantic annotation level of OntoTag’s (abstract) scheme. Sub-goal 2.4: Development of the mechanisms for a convenient integration of the three annotation levels already mentioned. These mechanisms should take into account the recommendations included in the ISO/LAF (2009) standard draft. Goal 3: Design of OntoTag’s (abstract) annotation architecture, an abstract architecture for the hybrid (semantic) annotation of texts (i) that facilitates the integration and interoperation of different linguistic annotation tools, and (ii) whose results comply with OntoTag’s annotation scheme. Sub-goal 3.1: Specification of the decanting processes that allow for the classification and separation, according to their corresponding levels, of the results of the linguistic tools annotating at several different levels. Sub-goal 3.2: Specification of the standardisation processes that allow (a) complying with the standardisation requirements of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, as well as (b) combining the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.3: Specification of the merging processes that allow for the combination of the output annotations and the interoperation of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.4: Specification of the merge processes that allow for the integration of the results and the interoperation of those tools performing their annotations at different levels. Goal 4: Generation of OntoTagger’s schema, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract scheme for a concrete set of linguistic annotations. These linguistic annotations result from the tools and the resources available in the research group, namely • Bitext’s DataLexica (http://www.bitext.com/EN/datalexica.asp), • LACELL’s (POS) tagger (http://www.um.es/grupos/grupo-lacell/quees.php), • Connexor’s FDG (http://www.connexor.eu/technology/machinese/glossary/fdg/), and • EuroWordNet (Vossen et al., 1998). This schema should help evaluate OntoTag’s underlying hypotheses, stated below. Consequently, it should implement, at least, those levels of the abstract scheme dealing with the annotations of the set of tools considered in this implementation. This includes the morphosyntactic, the syntactic and the semantic levels. Goal 5: Implementation of OntoTagger’s configuration, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract architecture for this set of linguistic tools and annotations. This configuration (1) had to use the schema generated in the previous goal; and (2) should help support or refute the hypotheses of this work as well (see the next section). Sub-goal 5.1: Implementation of the decanting processes that facilitate the classification and separation of the results of those linguistic resources that provide annotations at several different levels (on the one hand, LACELL’s tagger operates at the morphosyntactic level and, minimally, also at the semantic level; on the other hand, FDG operates at the morphosyntactic and the syntactic levels and, minimally, at the semantic level as well). Sub-goal 5.2: Implementation of the standardisation processes that allow (i) specifying the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation according to the requirements of OntoTagger’s schema, as well as (ii) combining these shared level results. In particular, all the tools selected perform morphosyntactic annotations and they had to be conveniently combined by means of these processes. Sub-goal 5.3: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the combination (and possibly the improvement) of the annotations and the interoperation of the tools that share some level of annotation (in particular, those relating the morphosyntactic level, as in the previous sub-goal). Sub-goal 5.4: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the integration of the different standardised and combined annotations aforementioned, relating all the levels considered. Sub-goal 5.5: Improvement of the semantic level of this configuration by adding a named entity recognition, (sub-)classification and annotation subsystem, which also uses the named entities annotated to populate a domain ontology, in order to provide a concrete application of the present work in the two areas involved (the Semantic Web and Corpus Linguistics). 3. MAIN RESULTS: ASSESSMENT OF ONTOTAG’S UNDERLYING HYPOTHESES The model developed in the present thesis tries to shed some light on (i) whether linguistic annotation tools can effectively interoperate; (ii) whether their results can be combined and integrated; and, if they can, (iii) how they can, respectively, interoperate and be combined and integrated. Accordingly, several hypotheses had to be supported (or rejected) by the development of the OntoTag model and OntoTagger (its implementation). The hypotheses underlying OntoTag are surveyed below. Only one of the hypotheses (H.6) was rejected; the other five could be confirmed. H.1 The annotations of different levels (or layers) can be integrated into a sort of overall, comprehensive, multilayer and multilevel annotation, so that their elements can complement and refer to each other. • CONFIRMED by the development of: o OntoTag’s annotation scheme, o OntoTag’s annotation architecture, o OntoTagger’s (XML, RDF, OWL) annotation schemas, o OntoTagger’s configuration. H.2 Tool-dependent annotations can be mapped onto a sort of tool-independent annotations and, thus, can be standardised. • CONFIRMED by means of the standardisation phase incorporated into OntoTag and OntoTagger for the annotations yielded by the tools. H.3 Standardisation should ease: H.3.1: The interoperation of linguistic tools. H.3.2: The comparison, combination (at the same level and layer) and integration (at different levels or layers) of annotations. • H.3 was CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s ontology-based configuration: o Interoperation, comparison, combination and integration of the annotations of three different linguistic tools (Connexor’s FDG, Bitext’s DataLexica and LACELL’s tagger); o Integration of EuroWordNet-based, domain-ontology-based and named entity annotations at the semantic level. o Integration of morphosyntactic, syntactic and semantic annotations. H.4 Ontologies and Semantic Web technologies (can) play a crucial role in the standardisation of linguistic annotations, by providing consensual vocabularies and standardised formats for annotation (e.g., RDF triples). • CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s RDF-triple-based annotation schemas. H.5 The rate of errors introduced by a linguistic tool at a given level, when annotating, can be reduced automatically by contrasting and combining its results with the ones coming from other tools, operating at the same level. However, these other tools might be built following a different technological (stochastic vs. rule-based, for example) or theoretical (dependency vs. HPS-grammar-based, for instance) approach. • CONFIRMED by the results yielded by the evaluation of OntoTagger. H.6 Each linguistic level can be managed and annotated independently. • REJECTED: OntoTagger’s experiments and the dependencies observed among the morphosyntactic annotations, and between them and the syntactic annotations. In fact, Hypothesis H.6 was already rejected when OntoTag’s ontologies were developed. We observed then that several linguistic units stand on an interface between levels, belonging thereby to both of them (such as morphosyntactic units, which belong to both the morphological level and the syntactic level). Therefore, the annotations of these levels overlap and cannot be handled independently when merged into a unique multileveled annotation. 4. OTHER MAIN RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS First, interoperability is a hot topic for both the linguistic annotation community and the whole Computer Science field. The specification (and implementation) of OntoTag’s architecture for the combination and integration of linguistic (annotation) tools and annotations by means of ontologies shows a way to make these different linguistic annotation tools and annotations interoperate in practice. Second, as mentioned above, the elements involved in linguistic annotation were formalised in a set (or network) of ontologies (OntoTag’s linguistic ontologies). • On the one hand, OntoTag’s network of ontologies consists of − The Linguistic Unit Ontology (LUO), which includes a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of linguistic elements (i.e., units) identifiable in a written text; − The Linguistic Attribute Ontology (LAO), which includes also a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of features that characterise the linguistic units included in the LUO; − The Linguistic Value Ontology (LVO), which includes the corresponding formalisation of the different values that the attributes in the LAO can take; − The OIO (OntoTag’s Integration Ontology), which  Includes the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the LUO, the LAO and the LVO;  Can be viewed as a knowledge representation ontology that describes the most elementary vocabulary used in the area of annotation. • On the other hand, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the knowledge included in the different standards and recommendations for linguistic annotation released so far, such as those developed within the EAGLES and the SIMPLE European projects or by the ISO/TC 37 committee: − As far as morphosyntactic annotations are concerned, OntoTag’s ontologies formalise the terms in the EAGLES (1996a) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Morphosyntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/MAF, 2008) standard; − As for syntactic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the terms in the EAGLES (1996b) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Syntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/SynAF, 2010) standard draft; − Regarding semantic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies generalise and extend the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and, since no stable standards or standard drafts have been released for semantic annotation by ISO/TC 37 yet, they incorporate the terms in SIMPLE (2000) instead; − The terms coming from all these recommendations and standards were supplemented by those within the ISO Data Category Registry (ISO/DCR, 2008) and also of the ISO Linguistic Annotation Framework (ISO/LAF, 2009) standard draft when developing OntoTag’s ontologies. Third, we showed that the combination of the results of tools annotating at the same level can yield better results (both in precision and in recall) than each tool separately. In particular, 1. OntoTagger clearly outperformed two of the tools integrated into its configuration, namely DataLexica and FDG in all the combination sub-phases in which they overlapped (i.e. POS tagging, lemma annotation and morphological feature annotation). As far as the remaining tool is concerned, i.e. LACELL’s tagger, it was also outperformed by OntoTagger in POS tagging and lemma annotation, and it did not behave better than OntoTagger in the morphological feature annotation layer. 2. As an immediate result, this implies that a) This type of combination architecture configurations can be applied in order to improve significantly the accuracy of linguistic annotations; and b) Concerning the morphosyntactic level, this could be regarded as a way of constructing more robust and more accurate POS tagging systems. Fourth, Semantic Web annotations are usually performed by humans or else by machine learning systems. Both of them leave much to be desired: the former, with respect to their annotation rate; the latter, with respect to their (average) precision and recall. In this work, we showed how linguistic tools can be wrapped in order to annotate automatically Semantic Web pages using ontologies. This entails their fast, robust and accurate semantic annotation. As a way of example, as mentioned in Sub-goal 5.5, we developed a particular OntoTagger module for the recognition, classification and labelling of named entities, according to the MUC and ACE tagsets (Chinchor, 1997; Doddington et al., 2004). These tagsets were further specified by means of a domain ontology, namely the Cinema Named Entities Ontology (CNEO). This module was applied to the automatic annotation of ten different web pages containing cinema reviews (that is, around 5000 words). In addition, the named entities annotated with this module were also labelled as instances (or individuals) of the classes included in the CNEO and, then, were used to populate this domain ontology. • The statistical results obtained from the evaluation of this particular module of OntoTagger can be summarised as follows. On the one hand, as far as recall (R) is concerned, (R.1) the lowest value was 76,40% (for file 7); (R.2) the highest value was 97, 50% (for file 3); and (R.3) the average value was 88,73%. On the other hand, as far as the precision rate (P) is concerned, (P.1) its minimum was 93,75% (for file 4); (R.2) its maximum was 100% (for files 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10); and (R.3) its average value was 98,99%. • These results, which apply to the tasks of named entity annotation and ontology population, are extraordinary good for both of them. They can be explained on the basis of the high accuracy of the annotations provided by OntoTagger at the lower levels (mainly at the morphosyntactic level). However, they should be conveniently qualified, since they might be too domain- and/or language-dependent. It should be further experimented how our approach works in a different domain or a different language, such as French, English, or German. • In any case, the results of this application of Human Language Technologies to Ontology Population (and, accordingly, to Ontological Engineering) seem very promising and encouraging in order for these two areas to collaborate and complement each other in the area of semantic annotation. Fifth, as shown in the State of the Art of this work, there are different approaches and models for the semantic annotation of texts, but all of them focus on a particular view of the semantic level. Clearly, all these approaches and models should be integrated in order to bear a coherent and joint semantic annotation level. OntoTag shows how (i) these semantic annotation layers could be integrated together; and (ii) they could be integrated with the annotations associated to other annotation levels. Sixth, we identified some recommendations, best practices and lessons learned for annotation standardisation, interoperation and merge. They show how standardisation (via ontologies, in this case) enables the combination, integration and interoperation of different linguistic tools and their annotations into a multilayered (or multileveled) linguistic annotation, which is one of the hot topics in the area of Linguistic Annotation. And last but not least, OntoTag’s annotation scheme and OntoTagger’s annotation schemas show a way to formalise and annotate coherently and uniformly the different units and features associated to the different levels and layers of linguistic annotation. This is a great scientific step ahead towards the global standardisation of this area, which is the aim of ISO/TC 37 (in particular, Subcommittee 4, dealing with the standardisation of linguistic annotations and resources).

Coupled Nonlinear Ginzburg-Landau and Mechanics Model for Martensitic Transformations in Polycrystals

Las transformaciones martensíticas (MT) se definen como un cambio en la estructura del cristal para formar una fase coherente o estructuras de dominio multivariante, a partir de la fase inicial con la misma composición, debido a pequeños intercambios o movimientos atómicos cooperativos. En el siglo pasado se han descubierto MT en diferentes materiales partiendo desde los aceros hasta las aleaciones con memoria de forma, materiales cerámicos y materiales inteligentes. Todos muestran propiedades destacables como alta resistencia mecánica, memoria de forma, efectos de superelasticidad o funcionalidades ferroicas como la piezoelectricidad, electro y magneto-estricción etc. Varios modelos/teorías se han desarrollado en sinergia con el desarrollo de la física del estado sólido para entender por qué las MT generan microstructuras muy variadas y ricas que muestran propiedades muy interesantes. Entre las teorías mejor aceptadas se encuentra la Teoría Fenomenológica de la Cristalografía Martensítica (PTMC, por sus siglas en inglés) que predice el plano de hábito y las relaciones de orientación entre la austenita y la martensita. La reinterpretación de la teoría PTMC en un entorno de mecánica del continuo (CM-PTMC) explica la formación de los dominios de estructuras multivariantes, mientras que la teoría de Landau con dinámica de inercia desentraña los mecanismos físicos de los precursores y otros comportamientos dinámicos. La dinámica de red cristalina desvela la reducción de la dureza acústica de las ondas de tensión de red que da lugar a transformaciones débiles de primer orden en el desplazamiento. A pesar de las diferencias entre las teorías estáticas y dinámicas dado su origen en diversas ramas de la física (por ejemplo mecánica continua o dinámica de la red cristalina), estas teorías deben estar inherentemente conectadas entre sí y mostrar ciertos elementos en común en una perspectiva unificada de la física. No obstante las conexiones físicas y diferencias entre las teorías/modelos no se han tratado hasta la fecha, aun siendo de importancia crítica para la mejora de modelos de MT y para el desarrollo integrado de modelos de transformaciones acopladas de desplazamiento-difusión. Por lo tanto, esta tesis comenzó con dos objetivos claros. El primero fue encontrar las conexiones físicas y las diferencias entre los modelos de MT mediante un análisis teórico detallado y simulaciones numéricas. El segundo objetivo fue expandir el modelo de Landau para ser capaz de estudiar MT en policristales, en el caso de transformaciones acopladas de desplazamiento-difusión, y en presencia de dislocaciones. Comenzando con un resumen de los antecedente, en este trabajo se presentan las bases físicas de los modelos actuales de MT. Su capacidad para predecir MT se clarifica mediante el ansis teórico y las simulaciones de la evolución microstructural de MT de cúbicoatetragonal y cúbicoatrigonal en 3D. Este análisis revela que el modelo de Landau con representación irreducible de la deformación transformada es equivalente a la teoría CM-PTMC y al modelo de microelasticidad para predecir los rasgos estáticos durante la MT, pero proporciona una mejor interpretación de los comportamientos dinámicos. Sin embargo, las aplicaciones del modelo de Landau en materiales estructurales están limitadas por su complejidad. Por tanto, el primer resultado de esta tesis es el desarrollo del modelo de Landau nolineal con representación irreducible de deformaciones y de la dinámica de inercia para policristales. La simulación demuestra que el modelo propuesto es consistente fcamente con el CM-PTMC en la descripción estática, y también permite una predicción del diagrama de fases con la clásica forma ’en C’ de los modos de nucleación martensítica activados por la combinación de temperaturas de enfriamiento y las condiciones de tensión aplicada correlacionadas con la transformación de energía de Landau. Posteriomente, el modelo de Landau de MT es integrado con un modelo de transformación de difusión cuantitativa para elucidar la relajación atómica y la difusión de corto alcance de los elementos durante la MT en acero. El modelo de transformaciones de desplazamiento y difusión incluye los efectos de la relajación en borde de grano para la nucleación heterogenea y la evolución espacio-temporal de potenciales de difusión y movilidades químicas mediante el acoplamiento de herramientas de cálculo y bases de datos termo-cinéticos de tipo CALPHAD. El modelo se aplica para estudiar la evolución microstructural de aceros al carbono policristalinos procesados por enfriamiento y partición (Q&P) en 2D. La microstructura y la composición obtenida mediante la simulación se comparan con los datos experimentales disponibles. Los resultados muestran el importante papel jugado por las diferencias en movilidad de difusión entre la fase austenita y martensita en la distibución de carbono en las aceros. Finalmente, un modelo multi-campo es propuesto mediante la incorporación del modelo de dislocación en grano-grueso al modelo desarrollado de Landau para incluir las diferencias morfológicas entre aceros y aleaciones con memoria de forma con la misma ruptura de simetría. La nucleación de dislocaciones, la formación de la martensita ’butterfly’, y la redistribución del carbono después del revenido son bien representadas en las simulaciones 2D del estudio de la evolución de la microstructura en aceros representativos. Con dicha simulación demostramos que incluyendo las dislocaciones obtenemos para dichos aceros, una buena comparación frente a los datos experimentales de la morfología de los bordes de macla, la existencia de austenita retenida dentro de la martensita, etc. Por tanto, basado en un modelo integral y en el desarrollo de códigos durante esta tesis, se ha creado una herramienta de modelización multiescala y multi-campo. Dicha herramienta acopla la termodinámica y la mecánica del continuo en la macroescala con la cinética de difusión y los modelos de campo de fase/Landau en la mesoescala, y también incluye los principios de la cristalografía y de la dinámica de red cristalina en la microescala. ABSTRACT Martensitic transformation (MT), in a narrow sense, is defined as the change of the crystal structure to form a coherent phase, or multi-variant domain structures out from a parent phase with the same composition, by small shuffles or co-operative movements of atoms. Over the past century, MTs have been discovered in different materials from steels to shape memory alloys, ceramics, and smart materials. They lead to remarkable properties such as high strength, shape memory/superelasticity effects or ferroic functionalities including piezoelectricity, electro- and magneto-striction, etc. Various theories/models have been developed, in synergy with development of solid state physics, to understand why MT can generate these rich microstructures and give rise to intriguing properties. Among the well-established theories, the Phenomenological Theory of Martensitic Crystallography (PTMC) is able to predict the habit plane and the orientation relationship between austenite and martensite. The re-interpretation of the PTMC theory within a continuum mechanics framework (CM-PTMC) explains the formation of the multivariant domain structures, while the Landau theory with inertial dynamics unravels the physical origins of precursors and other dynamic behaviors. The crystal lattice dynamics unveils the acoustic softening of the lattice strain waves leading to the weak first-order displacive transformation, etc. Though differing in statics or dynamics due to their origins in different branches of physics (e.g. continuum mechanics or crystal lattice dynamics), these theories should be inherently connected with each other and show certain elements in common within a unified perspective of physics. However, the physical connections and distinctions among the theories/models have not been addressed yet, although they are critical to further improving the models of MTs and to develop integrated models for more complex displacivediffusive coupled transformations. Therefore, this thesis started with two objectives. The first one was to reveal the physical connections and distinctions among the models of MT by means of detailed theoretical analyses and numerical simulations. The second objective was to expand the Landau model to be able to study MTs in polycrystals, in the case of displacive-diffusive coupled transformations, and in the presence of the dislocations. Starting with a comprehensive review, the physical kernels of the current models of MTs are presented. Their ability to predict MTs is clarified by means of theoretical analyses and simulations of the microstructure evolution of cubic-to-tetragonal and cubic-to-trigonal MTs in 3D. This analysis reveals that the Landau model with irreducible representation of the transformed strain is equivalent to the CM-PTMC theory and microelasticity model to predict the static features during MTs but provides better interpretation of the dynamic behaviors. However, the applications of the Landau model in structural materials are limited due its the complexity. Thus, the first result of this thesis is the development of a nonlinear Landau model with irreducible representation of strains and the inertial dynamics for polycrystals. The simulation demonstrates that the updated model is physically consistent with the CM-PTMC in statics, and also permits a prediction of a classical ’C shaped’ phase diagram of martensitic nucleation modes activated by the combination of quenching temperature and applied stress conditions interplaying with Landau transformation energy. Next, the Landau model of MT is further integrated with a quantitative diffusional transformation model to elucidate atomic relaxation and short range diffusion of elements during the MT in steel. The model for displacive-diffusive transformations includes the effects of grain boundary relaxation for heterogeneous nucleation and the spatio-temporal evolution of diffusion potentials and chemical mobility by means of coupling with a CALPHAD-type thermo-kinetic calculation engine and database. The model is applied to study for the microstructure evolution of polycrystalline carbon steels processed by the Quenching and Partitioning (Q&P) process in 2D. The simulated mixed microstructure and composition distribution are compared with available experimental data. The results show that the important role played by the differences in diffusion mobility between austenite and martensite to the partitioning in carbon steels. Finally, a multi-field model is proposed by incorporating the coarse-grained dislocation model to the developed Landau model to account for the morphological difference between steels and shape memory alloys with same symmetry breaking. The dislocation nucleation, the formation of the ’butterfly’ martensite, and the redistribution of carbon after tempering are well represented in the 2D simulations for the microstructure evolution of the representative steels. With the simulation, we demonstrate that the dislocations account for the experimental observation of rough twin boundaries, retained austenite within martensite, etc. in steels. Thus, based on the integrated model and the in-house codes developed in thesis, a preliminary multi-field, multiscale modeling tool is built up. The new tool couples thermodynamics and continuum mechanics at the macroscale with diffusion kinetics and phase field/Landau model at the mesoscale, and also includes the essentials of crystallography and crystal lattice dynamics at microscale.

Efficient parallelization of a regional ocean model for the western Mediterranean Sea

This paper focuses on the parallelization of an ocean model applying current multicore processor-based cluster architectures to an irregular computational mesh. The aim is to maximize the efficiency of the computational resources used. To make the best use of the resources offered by these architectures, this parallelization has been addressed at all the hardware levels of modern supercomputers: firstly, exploiting the internal parallelism of the CPU through vectorization; secondly, taking advantage of the multiple cores of each node using OpenMP; and finally, using the cluster nodes to distribute the computational mesh, using MPI for communication within the nodes. The speedup obtained with each parallelization technique as well as the combined overall speedup have been measured for the western Mediterranean Sea for different cluster configurations, achieving a speedup factor of 73.3 using 256 processors. The results also show the efficiency achieved in the different cluster nodes and the advantages obtained by combining OpenMP and MPI versus using only OpenMP or MPI. Finally, the scalability of the model has been analysed by examining computation and communication times as well as the communication and synchronization overhead due to parallelization.