The estimation of truncation error by tau-estimation revisited

The aim of this paper was to accurately estimate the local truncation error of partial differential equations, that are numerically solved using a finite difference or finite volume approach on structured and unstructured meshes. In this work, we approximated the local truncation error using the @t-estimation procedure, which aims to compare the residuals on a sequence of grids with different spacing. First, we focused the analysis on one-dimensional scalar linear and non-linear test cases to examine the accuracy of the estimation of the truncation error for both finite difference and finite volume approaches on different grid topologies. Then, we extended the analysis to two-dimensional problems: first on linear and non-linear scalar equations and finally on the Euler equations. We demonstrated that this approach yields a highly accurate estimation of the truncation error if some conditions are fulfilled. These conditions are related to the accuracy of the restriction operators, the choice of the boundary conditions, the distortion of the grids and the magnitude of the iteration error.

Video Prioritization for Unequal Error Protection

We analyze the effect of packet losses in video sequences and propose a lightweight Unequal Error Protection strategy which, by choosing which packet is discarded, reduces strongly the Mean Square Error of the received sequence

ITEM: Inter-Texture Error Measurement for 3D Meshes

We introduce a simple and innovative method to compare any two texture maps, regardless of their sizes, aspect ratios, or even masks, as long as they are both meant to be mapped onto the same 3D mesh. Our system is based on a zero-distortion 3D mesh unwrapping technique which compares two new adapted texture atlases with the same mask but different texel colors, and whose every texel covers the same area in 3D. Once these adapted atlases are created, we measure their difference with ITEM-RMSE, a slightly modified version of the standard RMSE defined for images. ITEM-RMSE is more meaningful and reliable than RMSE because it only takes into account the texels inside the mask, since they are the only ones that will actually be used during rendering. Our method is not only very useful to compare the space efficiency of different texture atlas generation algorithms, but also to quantify texture loss in compression schemes for multi-resolution textured 3D meshes.

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).

Automatic binding-related error diagnosis in logic programs

This paper proposes a diagnosis algorithm for locating a certain kind of errors in logic programs: variable binding errors that result in abstract symptoms during compile-time checking of assertions based on abstract interpretation. The diagnoser analyzes the graph generated by the abstract interpreter, which is a provably safe approximation of the program semantics. The proposed algorithm traverses this graph to find the point where the actual error originates (a reason of the symptom), leading to the point the error has been reported (the symptom). The procedure is fully automatic, not requiring any interaction with the user. A prototype diagnoser has been implemented and preliminary results are encouraging.

Interchanging lexical resources on the Semantic Web

Lexica and terminology databases play a vital role in many NLP applications, but currently most such resources are published in application-specific formats, or with custom access interfaces, leading to the problem that much of this data is in ‘‘data silos’’ and hence difficult to access. The Semantic Web and in particular the Linked Data initiative provide effective solutions to this problem, as well as possibilities for data reuse by inter-lexicon linking, and incorporation of data categories by dereferencable URIs. The Semantic Web focuses on the use of ontologies to describe semantics on the Web, but currently there is no standard for providing complex lexical information for such ontologies and for describing the relationship between the lexicon and the ontology. We present our model, lemon, which aims to address these gaps

Estimación del error de discretización con principios variacionales multicampo: I - Elasticidad

Desarrollos recientes para encajar dentro de un marco variacional la llamada Formulación Libre sugieren la posibilidad de introducir un nuevo tipo de estimador de error para cálculos por elementos finitos. Este estimador se basa en una diferencia entre ciertos funcionales multicampo, que toman el mismo valor para la solución exacta del problema. En el presente articulo, dividido en dos partes, se introduce la formulación del estimador para problemas de elasticidad y de flexión de placas según las hipótesis clásicas de Kirchhoff. Se presentan también algunos ejeinplos para dar idea de los comportamientos numéricos observados.

Numerical Error Prediction and its applications in CFD using tau-estimation

Nowadays, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) solvers are widely used within the industry to model fluid flow phenomenons. Several fluid flow model equations have been employed in the last decades to simulate and predict forces acting, for example, on different aircraft configurations. Computational time and accuracy are strongly dependent on the fluid flow model equation and the spatial dimension of the problem considered. While simple models based on perfect flows, like panel methods or potential flow models can be very fast to solve, they usually suffer from a poor accuracy in order to simulate real flows (transonic, viscous). On the other hand, more complex models such as the full Navier- Stokes equations provide high fidelity predictions but at a much higher computational cost. Thus, a good compromise between accuracy and computational time has to be fixed for engineering applications. A discretisation technique widely used within the industry is the so-called Finite Volume approach on unstructured meshes. This technique spatially discretises the flow motion equations onto a set of elements which form a mesh, a discrete representation of the continuous domain. Using this approach, for a given flow model equation, the accuracy and computational time mainly depend on the distribution of nodes forming the mesh. Therefore, a good compromise between accuracy and computational time might be obtained by carefully defining the mesh. However, defining an optimal mesh for complex flows and geometries requires a very high level expertize in fluid mechanics and numerical analysis, and in most cases a simple guess of regions of the computational domain which might affect the most the accuracy is impossible. Thus, it is desirable to have an automatized remeshing tool, which is more flexible with unstructured meshes than its structured counterpart. However, adaptive methods currently in use still have an opened question: how to efficiently drive the adaptation ? Pioneering sensors based on flow features generally suffer from a lack of reliability, so in the last decade more effort has been made in developing numerical error-based sensors, like for instance the adjoint-based adaptation sensors. While very efficient at adapting meshes for a given functional output, the latter method is very expensive as it requires to solve a dual set of equations and computes the sensor on an embedded mesh. Therefore, it would be desirable to develop a more affordable numerical error estimation method. The current work aims at estimating the truncation error, which arises when discretising a partial differential equation. These are the higher order terms neglected in the construction of the numerical scheme. The truncation error provides very useful information as it is strongly related to the flow model equation and its discretisation. On one hand, it is a very reliable measure of the quality of the mesh, therefore very useful in order to drive a mesh adaptation procedure. On the other hand, it is strongly linked to the flow model equation, so that a careful estimation actually gives information on how well a given equation is solved, which may be useful in the context of _ -extrapolation or zonal modelling. The following work is organized as follows: Chap. 1 contains a short review of mesh adaptation techniques as well as numerical error prediction. In the first section, Sec. 1.1, the basic refinement strategies are reviewed and the main contribution to structured and unstructured mesh adaptation are presented. Sec. 1.2 introduces the definitions of errors encountered when solving Computational Fluid Dynamics problems and reviews the most common approaches to predict them. Chap. 2 is devoted to the mathematical formulation of truncation error estimation in the context of finite volume methodology, as well as a complete verification procedure. Several features are studied, such as the influence of grid non-uniformities, non-linearity, boundary conditions and non-converged numerical solutions. This verification part has been submitted and accepted for publication in the Journal of Computational Physics. Chap. 3 presents a mesh adaptation algorithm based on truncation error estimates and compares the results to a feature-based and an adjoint-based sensor (in collaboration with Jorge Ponsín, INTA). Two- and three-dimensional cases relevant for validation in the aeronautical industry are considered. This part has been submitted and accepted in the AIAA Journal. An extension to Reynolds Averaged Navier- Stokes equations is also included, where _ -estimation-based mesh adaptation and _ -extrapolation are applied to viscous wing profiles. The latter has been submitted in the Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering. Keywords: mesh adaptation, numerical error prediction, finite volume Hoy en día, la Dinámica de Fluidos Computacional (CFD) es ampliamente utilizada dentro de la industria para obtener información sobre fenómenos fluidos. La Dinámica de Fluidos Computacional considera distintas modelizaciones de las ecuaciones fluidas (Potencial, Euler, Navier-Stokes, etc) para simular y predecir las fuerzas que actúan, por ejemplo, sobre una configuración de aeronave. El tiempo de cálculo y la precisión en la solución depende en gran medida de los modelos utilizados, así como de la dimensión espacial del problema considerado. Mientras que modelos simples basados en flujos perfectos, como modelos de flujos potenciales, se pueden resolver rápidamente, por lo general aducen de una baja precisión a la hora de simular flujos reales (viscosos, transónicos, etc). Por otro lado, modelos más complejos tales como el conjunto de ecuaciones de Navier-Stokes proporcionan predicciones de alta fidelidad, a expensas de un coste computacional mucho más elevado. Por lo tanto, en términos de aplicaciones de ingeniería se debe fijar un buen compromiso entre precisión y tiempo de cálculo. Una técnica de discretización ampliamente utilizada en la industria es el método de los Volúmenes Finitos en mallas no estructuradas. Esta técnica discretiza espacialmente las ecuaciones del movimiento del flujo sobre un conjunto de elementos que forman una malla, una representación discreta del dominio continuo. Utilizando este enfoque, para una ecuación de flujo dado, la precisión y el tiempo computacional dependen principalmente de la distribución de los nodos que forman la malla. Por consiguiente, un buen compromiso entre precisión y tiempo de cálculo se podría obtener definiendo cuidadosamente la malla, concentrando sus elementos en aquellas zonas donde sea estrictamente necesario. Sin embargo, la definición de una malla óptima para corrientes y geometrías complejas requiere un nivel muy alto de experiencia en la mecánica de fluidos y el análisis numérico, así como un conocimiento previo de la solución. Aspecto que en la mayoría de los casos no está disponible. Por tanto, es deseable tener una herramienta que permita adaptar los elementos de malla de forma automática, acorde a la solución fluida (remallado). Esta herramienta es generalmente más flexible en mallas no estructuradas que con su homóloga estructurada. No obstante, los métodos de adaptación actualmente en uso todavía dejan una pregunta abierta: cómo conducir de manera eficiente la adaptación. Sensores pioneros basados en las características del flujo en general, adolecen de una falta de fiabilidad, por lo que en la última década se han realizado grandes esfuerzos en el desarrollo numérico de sensores basados en el error, como por ejemplo los sensores basados en el adjunto. A pesar de ser muy eficientes en la adaptación de mallas para un determinado funcional, este último método resulta muy costoso, pues requiere resolver un doble conjunto de ecuaciones: la solución y su adjunta. Por tanto, es deseable desarrollar un método numérico de estimación de error más asequible. El presente trabajo tiene como objetivo estimar el error local de truncación, que aparece cuando se discretiza una ecuación en derivadas parciales. Estos son los términos de orden superior olvidados en la construcción del esquema numérico. El error de truncación proporciona una información muy útil sobre la solución: es una medida muy fiable de la calidad de la malla, obteniendo información que permite llevar a cabo un procedimiento de adaptación de malla. Está fuertemente relacionado al modelo matemático fluido, de modo que una estimación precisa garantiza la idoneidad de dicho modelo en un campo fluido, lo que puede ser útil en el contexto de modelado zonal. Por último, permite mejorar la precisión de la solución resolviendo un nuevo sistema donde el error local actúa como término fuente (_ -extrapolación). El presenta trabajo se organiza de la siguiente manera: Cap. 1 contiene una breve reseña de las técnicas de adaptación de malla, así como de los métodos de predicción de los errores numéricos. En la primera sección, Sec. 1.1, se examinan las estrategias básicas de refinamiento y se presenta la principal contribución a la adaptación de malla estructurada y no estructurada. Sec 1.2 introduce las definiciones de los errores encontrados en la resolución de problemas de Dinámica Computacional de Fluidos y se examinan los enfoques más comunes para predecirlos. Cap. 2 está dedicado a la formulación matemática de la estimación del error de truncación en el contexto de la metodología de Volúmenes Finitos, así como a un procedimiento de verificación completo. Se estudian varias características que influyen en su estimación: la influencia de la falta de uniformidad de la malla, el efecto de las no linealidades del modelo matemático, diferentes condiciones de contorno y soluciones numéricas no convergidas. Esta parte de verificación ha sido presentada y aceptada para su publicación en el Journal of Computational Physics. Cap. 3 presenta un algoritmo de adaptación de malla basado en la estimación del error de truncación y compara los resultados con sensores de featured-based y adjointbased (en colaboración con Jorge Ponsín del INTA). Se consideran casos en dos y tres dimensiones, relevantes para la validación en la industria aeronáutica. Este trabajo ha sido presentado y aceptado en el AIAA Journal. También se incluye una extensión de estos métodos a las ecuaciones RANS (Reynolds Average Navier- Stokes), en donde adaptación de malla basada en _ y _ -extrapolación son aplicados a perfiles con viscosidad de alas. Este último trabajo se ha presentado en los Actas de la Institución de Ingenieros Mecánicos, Parte G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering. Palabras clave: adaptación de malla, predicción del error numérico, volúmenes finitos

Comparison of Mesh Adaptation Using the Adjoint Methodology and Truncation Error Estimates

Mesh adaptation based on error estimation has become a key technique to improve th eaccuracy o fcomputational-fluid-dynamics computations. The adjoint-based approach for error estimation is one of the most promising techniques for computational-fluid-dynamics applications. Nevertheless, the level of implementation of this technique in the aeronautical industrial environment is still low because it is a computationally expensive method. In the present investigation, a new mesh refinement method based on estimation of truncation error is presented in the context of finite-volume discretization. The estimation method uses auxiliary coarser meshes to estimate the local truncation error, which can be used for driving an adaptation algorithm. The method is demonstrated in the context of two-dimensional NACA0012 and three-dimensional ONERA M6 wing inviscid flows, and the results are compared against the adjoint-based approach and physical sensors based on features of the flow field.

Estimación del error de discretización con principios variacionales multicampo: II. Flexión de placas

Desarrollos recientes para encajar dentro de un marco variacional la llamada Formulación Libre sugieren la posibilidad de introducir un nuevo tipo de estimador de error para cálculos por elementos finitos. Este estimador se basa en una diferencia entre ciertos funcionales multicampo, que toman el mismo valor para la solución exacta del problema. En el presente artículo, dividido en dos partes, se introduce la formulación del estimador para problemas de elasticidad y de flexión de placas según las hipótesis clásicas de Kirchhoff. Se presentan también algunos ejemplos para dar idea de los comportamientos numéricos observados.