Nonparametric Message Passing Methods for Cooperative Localization and Tracking

The objective of this thesis is the development of cooperative localization and tracking algorithms using nonparametric message passing techniques. In contrast to the most well-known techniques, the goal is to estimate the posterior probability density function (PDF) of the position of each sensor. This problem can be solved using Bayesian approach, but it is intractable in general case. Nevertheless, the particle-based approximation (via nonparametric representation), and an appropriate factorization of the joint PDFs (using message passing methods), make Bayesian approach acceptable for inference in sensor networks. The well-known method for this problem, nonparametric belief propagation (NBP), can lead to inaccurate beliefs and possible non-convergence in loopy networks. Therefore, we propose four novel algorithms which alleviate these problems: nonparametric generalized belief propagation (NGBP) based on junction tree (NGBP-JT), NGBP based on pseudo-junction tree (NGBP-PJT), NBP based on spanning trees (NBP-ST), and uniformly-reweighted NBP (URW-NBP). We also extend NBP for cooperative localization in mobile networks. In contrast to the previous methods, we use an optional smoothing, provide a novel communication protocol, and increase the efficiency of the sampling techniques. Moreover, we propose novel algorithms for distributed tracking, in which the goal is to track the passive object which cannot locate itself. In particular, we develop distributed particle filtering (DPF) based on three asynchronous belief consensus (BC) algorithms: standard belief consensus (SBC), broadcast gossip (BG), and belief propagation (BP). Finally, the last part of this thesis includes the experimental analysis of some of the proposed algorithms, in which we found that the results based on real measurements are very similar with the results based on theoretical models.

Efficient Model-based 3D Tracking by Using Direct Image Registration

This thesis deals with the problem of efficiently tracking 3D objects in sequences of images. We tackle the efficient 3D tracking problem by using direct image registration. This problem is posed as an iterative optimization procedure that minimizes a brightness error norm. We review the most popular iterative methods for image registration in the literature, turning our attention to those algorithms that use efficient optimization techniques. Two forms of efficient registration algorithms are investigated. The first type comprises the additive registration algorithms: these algorithms incrementally compute the motion parameters by linearly approximating the brightness error function. We centre our attention on Hager and Belhumeur’s factorization-based algorithm for image registration. We propose a fundamental requirement that factorization-based algorithms must satisfy to guarantee good convergence, and introduce a systematic procedure that automatically computes the factorization. Finally, we also bring out two warp functions to register rigid and nonrigid 3D targets that satisfy the requirement. The second type comprises the compositional registration algorithms, where the brightness function error is written by using function composition. We study the current approaches to compositional image alignment, and we emphasize the importance of the Inverse Compositional method, which is known to be the most efficient image registration algorithm. We introduce a new algorithm, the Efficient Forward Compositional image registration: this algorithm avoids the necessity of inverting the warping function, and provides a new interpretation of the working mechanisms of the inverse compositional alignment. By using this information, we propose two fundamental requirements that guarantee the convergence of compositional image registration methods. Finally, we support our claims by using extensive experimental testing with synthetic and real-world data. We propose a distinction between image registration and tracking when using efficient algorithms. We show that, depending whether the fundamental requirements are hold, some efficient algorithms are eligible for image registration but not for tracking.

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).

Metodología de Ejecución y Explotación de los Ensayos en Vuelo de Flameo

El flameo o flutter es un fenómeno vibratorio debido a la interacción de fuerzas inerciales, elásticas y aerodinámicas. Consiste en un intercambio de energía, que se puede observar en el cambio de amortiguamientos, entre dos o más modos estructurales, denominados modos críticos, cuyas frecuencias tienden a acercarse (coalescencia de frecuencias). Los ensayos en vuelo de flameo suponen un gran riesgo debido a la posibilidad de una perdida brusca de estabilidad aeroelástica (flameo explosivo) con la posibilidad de destrucción de la aeronave. Además existen otros fenómenos asociados que pueden aparecer como el LCO (Limit Cycle Oscillation) y la interacción con los mandos de vuelo. Debido a esto, se deben llevar a cabo análisis exhaustivos, que incluyen GVT (vibraciones en tierra), antes de comenzar los ensayos en vuelo, y estos últimos deben ser ejecutados con robustos procedimientos. El objetivo de los ensayos es delimitar la frontera de estabilidad sin llegar a ella, manteniéndose siempre dentro de la envolvente estable de vuelo. Para lograrlo se necesitan métodos de predicción, siendo el “Flutter Margin”, el más utilizado. Para saber cuánta estabilidad aeroelástica tiene el avión y lo lejos que está de la frontera de estabilidad (a través de métodos de predicción) los parámetros modales, en particular la frecuencia y el amortiguamiento, son de vital importancia. El ensayo en vuelo consiste en la excitación de la estructura a diferentes condiciones de vuelo, la medición de la respuesta y su análisis para obtener los dos parámetros mencionados. Un gran esfuerzo se dedica al análisis en tiempo real de las señales como un medio de reducir el riesgo de este tipo de ensayos. Existen numerosos métodos de Análisis Modal, pero pocos capaces de analizar las señales procedentes de los ensayos de flameo, debido a sus especiales características. Un método novedoso, basado en la Descomposición por Valores Singulares (SVD) y la factorización QR, ha sido desarrollado y aplicado al análisis de señales procedentes de vuelos de flameo del F-18. El método es capaz de identificar frecuencia y amortiguamiento de los modos críticos. El algoritmo se basa en la capacidad del SVD para el análisis, modelización y predicción de series de datos con características periódicas y en su capacidad de identificar el rango de una matriz, así como en la aptitud del QR para seleccionar la mejor base vectorial entre un conjunto de vectores para representar el campo vectorial que forman. El análisis de señales de flameo simuladas y reales demuestra, bajo ciertas condiciones, la efectividad, robustez, resistencia al ruido y capacidad de automatización del método propuesto. ABSTRACT Flutter involves the interaction between inertial, elastic and aerodynamic forces. It consists on an exchange of energy, identified by change in damping, between two or more structural modes, named critical modes, whose frequencies tend to get closer to each other (frequency coalescence). Flight flutter testing involves high risk because of the possibility of an abrupt lost in aeroelastic stability (hard flutter) that may lead to aircraft destruction. Moreover associated phenomena may happen during the flight as LCO (Limit Cycle Oscillation) and coupling with flight controls. Because of that, intensive analyses, including GVT (Ground Vibration Test), have to be performed before beginning the flights test and during them consistent procedures have to be followed. The test objective is to identify the stability border, maintaining the aircraft always inside the stable domain. To achieve that flutter speed prediction methods have to be used, the most employed being the “Flutter Margin”. In order to know how much aeroelastic stability remains and how far the aircraft is from the stability border (using the prediction methods), modal parameters, in particular frequency and damping are paramount. So flight test consists in exciting the structure at various flight conditions, measuring the response and identifying in real-time these two parameters. A great deal of effort is being devoted to real-time flight data analysis as an effective way to reduce the risk. Numerous Modal Analysis algorithms are available, but very few are suitable to analyze signals coming from flutter testing due to their special features. A new method, based on Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) and QR factorization, has been developed and applied to the analysis of F-18 flutter flight-test data. The method is capable of identifying the frequency and damping of the critical aircraft modes. The algorithm relies on the capability of SVD for the analysis, modelling and prediction of data series with periodic features and also on its power to identify matrix rank as well as QR competence for selecting the best basis among a set of vectors in order to represent a given vector space of such a set. The analysis of simulated and real flutter flight test data demonstrates, under specific conditions, the effectiveness, robustness, noise-immunity and the capability for automation of the method proposed.

Monte Carlo Neutronics and Thermal-hydraulics coupling applied to Fast Reactors

Un escenario habitualmente considerado para el uso sostenible y prolongado de la energía nuclear contempla un parque de reactores rápidos refrigerados por metales líquidos (LMFR) dedicados al reciclado de Pu y la transmutación de actínidos minoritarios (MA). Otra opción es combinar dichos reactores con algunos sistemas subcríticos asistidos por acelerador (ADS), exclusivamente destinados a la eliminación de MA. El diseño y licenciamiento de estos reactores innovadores requiere herramientas computacionales prácticas y precisas, que incorporen el conocimiento obtenido en la investigación experimental de nuevas configuraciones de reactores, materiales y sistemas. A pesar de que se han construido y operado un cierto número de reactores rápidos a nivel mundial, la experiencia operacional es todavía reducida y no todos los transitorios se han podido entender completamente. Por tanto, los análisis de seguridad de nuevos LMFR están basados fundamentalmente en métodos deterministas, al contrario que las aproximaciones modernas para reactores de agua ligera (LWR), que se benefician también de los métodos probabilistas. La aproximación más usada en los estudios de seguridad de LMFR es utilizar una variedad de códigos, desarrollados a base de distintas teorías, en busca de soluciones integrales para los transitorios e incluyendo incertidumbres. En este marco, los nuevos códigos para cálculos de mejor estimación ("best estimate") que no incluyen aproximaciones conservadoras, son de una importancia primordial para analizar estacionarios y transitorios en reactores rápidos. Esta tesis se centra en el desarrollo de un código acoplado para realizar análisis realistas en reactores rápidos críticos aplicando el método de Monte Carlo. Hoy en día, dado el mayor potencial de recursos computacionales, los códigos de transporte neutrónico por Monte Carlo se pueden usar de manera práctica para realizar cálculos detallados de núcleos completos, incluso de elevada heterogeneidad material. Además, los códigos de Monte Carlo se toman normalmente como referencia para los códigos deterministas de difusión en multigrupos en aplicaciones con reactores rápidos, porque usan secciones eficaces punto a punto, un modelo geométrico exacto y tienen en cuenta intrínsecamente la dependencia angular de flujo. En esta tesis se presenta una metodología de acoplamiento entre el conocido código MCNP, que calcula la generación de potencia en el reactor, y el código de termohidráulica de subcanal COBRA-IV, que obtiene las distribuciones de temperatura y densidad en el sistema. COBRA-IV es un código apropiado para aplicaciones en reactores rápidos ya que ha sido validado con resultados experimentales en haces de barras con sodio, incluyendo las correlaciones más apropiadas para metales líquidos. En una primera fase de la tesis, ambos códigos se han acoplado en estado estacionario utilizando un método iterativo con intercambio de archivos externos. El principal problema en el acoplamiento neutrónico y termohidráulico en estacionario con códigos de Monte Carlo es la manipulación de las secciones eficaces para tener en cuenta el ensanchamiento Doppler cuando la temperatura del combustible aumenta. Entre todas las opciones disponibles, en esta tesis se ha escogido la aproximación de pseudo materiales, y se ha comprobado que proporciona resultados aceptables en su aplicación con reactores rápidos. Por otro lado, los cambios geométricos originados por grandes gradientes de temperatura en el núcleo de reactores rápidos resultan importantes para la neutrónica como consecuencia del elevado recorrido libre medio del neutrón en estos sistemas. Por tanto, se ha desarrollado un módulo adicional que simula la geometría del reactor en caliente y permite estimar la reactividad debido a la expansión del núcleo en un transitorio. éste módulo calcula automáticamente la longitud del combustible, el radio de la vaina, la separación de los elementos de combustible y el radio de la placa soporte en función de la temperatura. éste efecto es muy relevante en transitorios sin inserción de bancos de parada. También relacionado con los cambios geométricos, se ha implementado una herramienta que, automatiza el movimiento de las barras de control en busca d la criticidad del reactor, o bien calcula el valor de inserción axial las barras de control. Una segunda fase en la plataforma de cálculo que se ha desarrollado es la simulació dinámica. Puesto que MCNP sólo realiza cálculos estacionarios para sistemas críticos o supercríticos, la solución más directa que se propone sin modificar el código fuente de MCNP es usar la aproximación de factorización de flujo, que resuelve por separado la forma del flujo y la amplitud. En este caso se han estudiado en profundidad dos aproximaciones: adiabática y quasiestática. El método adiabático usa un esquema de acoplamiento que alterna en el tiempo los cálculos neutrónicos y termohidráulicos. MCNP calcula el modo fundamental de la distribución de neutrones y la reactividad al final de cada paso de tiempo, y COBRA-IV calcula las propiedades térmicas en el punto intermedio de los pasos de tiempo. La evolución de la amplitud de flujo se calcula resolviendo las ecuaciones de cinética puntual. Este método calcula la reactividad estática en cada paso de tiempo que, en general, difiere de la reactividad dinámica que se obtendría con la distribución de flujo exacta y dependiente de tiempo. No obstante, para entornos no excesivamente alejados de la criticidad ambas reactividades son similares y el método conduce a resultados prácticos aceptables. Siguiendo esta línea, se ha desarrollado después un método mejorado para intentar tener en cuenta el efecto de la fuente de neutrones retardados en la evolución de la forma del flujo durante el transitorio. El esquema consiste en realizar un cálculo cuasiestacionario por cada paso de tiempo con MCNP. La simulación cuasiestacionaria se basa EN la aproximación de fuente constante de neutrones retardados, y consiste en dar un determinado peso o importancia a cada ciclo computacial del cálculo de criticidad con MCNP para la estimación del flujo final. Ambos métodos se han verificado tomando como referencia los resultados del código de difusión COBAYA3 frente a un ejercicio común y suficientemente significativo. Finalmente, con objeto de demostrar la posibilidad de uso práctico del código, se ha simulado un transitorio en el concepto de reactor crítico en fase de diseño MYRRHA/FASTEF, de 100 MW de potencia térmica y refrigerado por plomo-bismuto. ABSTRACT Long term sustainable nuclear energy scenarios envisage a fleet of Liquid Metal Fast Reactors (LMFR) for the Pu recycling and minor actinides (MAs) transmutation or combined with some accelerator driven systems (ADS) just for MAs elimination. Design and licensing of these innovative reactor concepts require accurate computational tools, implementing the knowledge obtained in experimental research for new reactor configurations, materials and associated systems. Although a number of fast reactor systems have already been built, the operational experience is still reduced, especially for lead reactors, and not all the transients are fully understood. The safety analysis approach for LMFR is therefore based only on deterministic methods, different from modern approach for Light Water Reactors (LWR) which also benefit from probabilistic methods. Usually, the approach adopted in LMFR safety assessments is to employ a variety of codes, somewhat different for the each other, to analyze transients looking for a comprehensive solution and including uncertainties. In this frame, new best estimate simulation codes are of prime importance in order to analyze fast reactors steady state and transients. This thesis is focused on the development of a coupled code system for best estimate analysis in fast critical reactor. Currently due to the increase in the computational resources, Monte Carlo methods for neutrons transport can be used for detailed full core calculations. Furthermore, Monte Carlo codes are usually taken as reference for deterministic diffusion multigroups codes in fast reactors applications because they employ point-wise cross sections in an exact geometry model and intrinsically account for directional dependence of the ux. The coupling methodology presented here uses MCNP to calculate the power deposition within the reactor. The subchannel code COBRA-IV calculates the temperature and density distribution within the reactor. COBRA-IV is suitable for fast reactors applications because it has been validated against experimental results in sodium rod bundles. The proper correlations for liquid metal applications have been added to the thermal-hydraulics program. Both codes are coupled at steady state using an iterative method and external files exchange. The main issue in the Monte Carlo/thermal-hydraulics steady state coupling is the cross section handling to take into account Doppler broadening when temperature rises. Among every available options, the pseudo materials approach has been chosen in this thesis. This approach obtains reasonable results in fast reactor applications. Furthermore, geometrical changes caused by large temperature gradients in the core, are of major importance in fast reactor due to the large neutron mean free path. An additional module has therefore been included in order to simulate the reactor geometry in hot state or to estimate the reactivity due to core expansion in a transient. The module automatically calculates the fuel length, cladding radius, fuel assembly pitch and diagrid radius with the temperature. This effect will be crucial in some unprotected transients. Also related to geometrical changes, an automatic control rod movement feature has been implemented in order to achieve a just critical reactor or to calculate control rod worth. A step forward in the coupling platform is the dynamic simulation. Since MCNP performs only steady state calculations for critical systems, the more straight forward option without modifying MCNP source code, is to use the flux factorization approach solving separately the flux shape and amplitude. In this thesis two options have been studied to tackle time dependent neutronic simulations using a Monte Carlo code: adiabatic and quasistatic methods. The adiabatic methods uses a staggered time coupling scheme for the time advance of neutronics and the thermal-hydraulics calculations. MCNP computes the fundamental mode of the neutron flux distribution and the reactivity at the end of each time step and COBRA-IV the thermal properties at half of the the time steps. To calculate the flux amplitude evolution a solver of the point kinetics equations is used. This method calculates the static reactivity in each time step that in general is different from the dynamic reactivity calculated with the exact flux distribution. Nevertheless, for close to critical situations, both reactivities are similar and the method leads to acceptable practical results. In this line, an improved method as an attempt to take into account the effect of delayed neutron source in the transient flux shape evolutions is developed. The scheme performs a quasistationary calculation per time step with MCNP. This quasistationary simulations is based con the constant delayed source approach, taking into account the importance of each criticality cycle in the final flux estimation. Both adiabatic and quasistatic methods have been verified against the diffusion code COBAYA3, using a theoretical kinetic exercise. Finally, a transient in a critical 100 MWth lead-bismuth-eutectic reactor concept is analyzed using the adiabatic method as an application example in a real system.

Road Dust Emission Sources and Assessment of Street Washing Effect

Although previous studies report on the effect of street washing on ambient particulate matter levels, there is a lack of studies investigating the results of street washing on the emission strength of road dust. A sampling campaign was conducted in Madrid urban area during July 2009 where road dust samples were collected in two sites, namely Reference site (where the road surface was not washed) and Pelayo site (where street washing was performed daily during night). Following the chemical characterization of the road dust particles the emission sources were resolved by means of Positive Matrix Factorization, PMF (Multilinear Engine scripting) and the mass contribution of each source was calculated for the two sites. Mineral dust, brake wear, tire wear, carbonaceous emissions and construction dust were the main sources of road dust with mineral and construction dust being the major contributors to inhalable road dust load. To evaluate the effectiveness of street washing on the emission sources, the sources mass contributions between the two sites were compared. Although brake wear and tire wear had lower concentrations at the site where street washing was performed, these mass differences were not statistically significant and the temporal variation did not show the expected build-up after dust removal. It was concluded that the washing activities resulted merely in a road dust moistening, without effective removal and that mobilization of particles took place in a few hours between washing and sampling. The results also indicated that it is worth paying attention to the dust dispersed from the construction sites as they affect the emission strength in nearby streets.