数理解析研究所講究録
第 1881 巻 2014 年 71-91

71

MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND
CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING

KATAYUN BARMAK

Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027

EVA EGGELING

Fraunhofer Austria Research GmbH, Visual Computing, A-8010 Graz, Austria

MARIA EMELIANENKO

Department of Mathematical Sciences, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030

YEKATERINA EPSHTEYN

Department of Mathematics, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112

DAVID KINDERLEHRER

Department of Mathematical Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213

RICHARD SHARP
Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052

SHLOMO TA’ASAN

Department of Mathematical Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213

For Hiroshi Matano

1991 Mathematics Subject Cassification. Primary: $37M05,35Q80,93E03,60J60,35K15,35A15.$
Key words and phrases. Coarsening, Texture Development, Large Metastable Networks, Large scale simulation, Critical Event Model, Entropy Based Theory, Free Energy, Fokker-Planck Equation, KantorovichRubinstein-Wasserstein Metric, convex duality.
Research supported by NSF DMR0520425, DMS 0405343, DMS 0305794, DMS 0806703, DMS 0635983,
DMS 0915013, DMS 1056821, DMS 1216433, OISE 0967140, DMS 1112984.

72
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING

ABSTRACT. Cellular networks are ubiquitous in nature. Most engineered materials arepolycrystalline microstructures composed of a myriad of small grains separated by grainboundaries, thus comprising cellular networks. The grain boundary character distribution( $GBCD$ ) is an empirical distribution of the relative length in $2D)$ or area in $3D)$ ofinterface with a given lattice misorientation and normal. Material microstructures evolveby curvature driven growth, seeking to decrease their interfacial energy. During the
growth, or coarsening, process, an initially random grain boundary arrangement reaches
a steady state that is strongly correlated to the interfacial energy density. In simulation,
if the given energy density depends only on lattice misorientation, then the steady state$GBCD$ and the energy are related by a Boltzmann distribution. This is amdng the simplest
non-random distributions, corresponding to independent trials with respect to the energy.
Here we an describe an entropy based theory which suggests that the evolution of the$GBCD$ satisfies a Fokker-Planck Equation, an equation whose stationary state is a Boltzmann distribution. The properties of the evolving network that characterize the $GBCD$
must be identified and appropriately upscaled or ‘coarse-grained’. This entails identifying
the evolution of the statistic in terms of the recently discovered Monge-KantorovichWasserstein implicit scheme. The undetermined diffusion coefficient or temperature parameter is found by means of a convex optimization problem reminiscent of large deviation
theory.
$($$($1. INTRODUCTION
Cellular networks are ubiquitous in nature. They exhibit behavior on many different
length and time scales and are generally metastable. Most technologically useful materials
are polycrystalline microstructures composed of a myriad of small monocrystalline grains
separated by grain boundaries, and thus comprise cellular networks. Here we are concernedwith the boundary network whose energetics and connectivity play a crucial role in theproperties of a material across a wide range of scales.
central problem of materials
capabledevelopof producing an arrangement of grains thattechnologies
science is toprovides for a desired set of material properties. Raditionally the focus has been on
distributions of geometric features, like cell size, and a preferred distribution of grainorientations, termed texture. Attaining these gives the configuration order in a statisticalsense. More recent mesoscale experiment and simulation permit harvesting large amounts$A$of information about both geometric features and crystallography, and subsequently theenergetics, of the boundary network, [2],[1],[37],[53],[54]. This has led us to the notion of
the Grain Boundary Character Distribution ( $GBCD$ ).
The grain boundary character distribution ( $GBCD$ ) is an empirical distribution of therelative length in $2D)$ or area in $3D)$ of interface with a given lattice misorientation andgrain boundary normal.
We describe two discoveries about the $GBCD$ . First is that during the growth process, an
initially random grain boundary arrangement reaches a steady state that is strongly correlated to the interfacial energy density. In simulation, a stationary $GBCD$ is always found.
Moreover there is consistency between experimental $GBCD$ ’s and simulated $GBCD$ ’s. The
boundary network of a cellular structure is naturally ordered. For a perspective on theseissues, we recommend the article by R. V. Kohn [39].
$($

$($

73
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING

A second discovery is that if the given interfacial energy density depends only on latticemisorientation, then the steady state $GBCD$ and the density are related by a Boltzmann
distribution. This is among the simplest non-random distributions, corresponding to independent trials with respect to the density. Such straightforward dependence between thecharacter distribution and the interfacial energy offers evidence that the $GBCD$ is a material property. It is a leading candidate to characterize texture of the boundary network[37].
Here we describe our recent work developing an entropy based theory that suggests thatthe evolving $GBCD$ satisfies a Fokker-Planck Equation, [10],[15], cf. also [11], [9], [16],to which we refer for a more complete exposition. Coarsening in polycrystalline systems
is a complicated process involving details of material structure, chemistry, arrangementof grains in the configuration, and environment. In this context, we consider just twocompeting global features, as articulated by C. S. Smith [55]:$\bullet$$\bullet$interface growth according to a local evolution law andspace filling constraints, or, confining the configuration to a fixed region.

We shall impose the famihar curvature driven growth for the local evolution law, cf. Mulhns[49]. Space filling requirements are managed by critical events, rearrangements of the network involving deletion of small contracting cells and facets. The properties of this systemthat characterize the $GBCD$ must be identffied and appropriately upscaled or ‘coarsegrained’.
general platform for this investigation is large scale computation. Numericalsimulations are well estabhshed as a major tool in the analysis of many physical systems,
see for example $[60],[42],[43],[26],[27],[21],[57],[56],[23],[24],$ $[40],[51],[22],[44],[46]$ . However,
the idea of large scale computation as the essential method for the modeling and comprehension of large complex systems is relatively new. Porous media and groundwater flow
is an important case of this, see for example [30],[5],[4],[7],[6]. For coarsening of cellular
systems, it is a natural approach as well. The laboratory is the venue to assess the validityof the local evolution law. Once this law is adopted, we appeal to simulation, since wecannot control all the other elements present in the experimental system, many of which
are unknown. On the other hand, in silico we may exercise, or at least we may attempt toexercise, precise control of the variables appropriate to the evolution law and the constraint.
There are many large scale metastable material systems, for example, magnetic hysteresis, [18], and second phase coarsening, [45],[62]. In these, the theory is based on mesoscopic
or macroscopic variables simply abstracting the role of the smaller scale elements of thesystem. There is no general‘multiscale’ framework for upscaling from the local behavior ofindividual cells to behavior of the network when they interact and change their character.
This is the principal challenge of the theory for coarsening. We must attempt to tease
the system level information from the many coupled elements of which it consists. This
information will be available primarily from the dissipation relation (2.6) which is impliedby the balance of forces at triple junctions (2.3), due to Herring, [31],[32]. Lax resolutionof the Herring Condition gives rise to an unreliable $GBCD.$
Our strategy is to introduce a simplffied coarsening model that is driven by the boundary
conditions and reflects the dissipation relation of the grain growth system. This will be$A$

74
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING

more accessible to analysis. It resembles an ensemble of inertia-free spring-mass-dashpots.
For this simpler network, we learn how entropic or diffusive behavior at the large scale
emerges from a dissipation relation at the scale of local evolution. The cornerstone is a
novel implementation of the iterative scheme for the Fokker-Planck Equation in terms of
the system free energy and a Kantorovich-Rubinstein-Waeserstein metric [34], cf. also [33],which will be summarized later in the presentation.
The network level nonequilibrium nature of the scheme leaves undetermined the diffusion constant in the Fokker-Planck Equation, or equivalently the ‘temperature parameter’of the Boltzmann Distribution we are seeking. We employ the Kullback-Leibler relative
entropy, cf. (4.2), and find a convex duality problem for this parameter. It has a statisticalinterpretation, or information theory interpretation, in terms of an optimal prefix code,
cf. eg. [52], and moreover has evident connections to large deviations. This suggests that
had we simply asked to identify an optimal distribution via a known statistical method,
we would have been led full circle to entropy methods.
In the Closing comments we address some general issues.
2. REPRISE OF MESOSCALE THEORY

Our point of departure is the common denominator theory for the mesoscale descriptionof microstructure evolution. This is growth by curvature, the Mulhns Equation (2.2)
below, for the evolution of curves or arcs individually or in a network, which we employ
for our local law of evolution. Boundary conditions must be imposed where the arcs meet.
This condition is the Herring Condition, (2.3), which is the natural boundary condition
at equihbrium for the Mulhns Equation. Since their introduction by Mulhns, [49], andHerring, [31], [32], a large and distinguished body of work has grown about these equations.
Most relevant to here are [29], [19], [36], [50]. Curvature driven growth has old origins,
dating at least to Burke and Turnbull [20]. Let denote the misorientation between two, tangent
grains separated by an arc , as noted in Figure 1, with normal $n=$
denote the energy density on . So
direction and curvature . Let$\alpha$$(\cos\theta, \sin e)$$\Gamma$$b$$\psi=\psi(\theta, \alpha)$$\kappa$$\Gamma$: $x=\xi(s, t)$ ,$\Gamma$$0\leqq s\leqq L,$$t>0$ ,

(2.1)

with

where

$R$

$b= \frac{\partial\xi}{\partial s}$(tangent) and $n=Rb$ (normal)$v= \frac{\partial\xi}{\partial t}$(velocity) and $v_{n}=v\cdot n$ (normal velocity)

is a positive rotation of $\pi/2$ . The Mulhns Equation of evolution is$v_{n}=(\psi_{\theta\theta}+\psi)\kappa$

on .

(2.2)

$\Gamma$

We assume that only triple junctions are stable and that the Herring Condition holds at, meet at a point
triple junctions. This means that whenever three curves,$\{\Gamma^{(1)}, \Gamma^{(2)}, \Gamma^{(3)}\}$

75
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING

FIGURE 1. An arc
lattice elements.
$p$$\Gamma$with normal , tangent , and lattice misorientation , illustrating
$n$

$b$

$\alpha$the force balance, (2.3) below, holds:$\sum_{i=1,..3},(\psi_{\theta}n^{(i)}+\psi b^{(i)})=0$.

It is easy to check that the instantaneous rate of change of energy of(2.3)$\Gamma$is$\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Gamma}\psi|b|ds=-\int_{\Gamma}v_{n}^{2}ds+v\cdot(\psi_{\theta}n+\psi b)|_{\partial\Gamma}$(2.4)

Consider a network of grains bounded bysubject to some condition at the borderof the region they occupy, like fixed end points or periodicity, cf. Figure 2. The typical$\{\Gamma_{i}\}$

FIGURE 2. Example of an instant during the simulated evolution of a cellular network.
This is from a small simulation with constant energy density and periodic conditions at
the border of the configuration.

76
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES:$ENTROPY^{\dot{r}}$AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING

simulation consists in initializing a configuration of cells and their boundary arcs, usually
by a modified Voronoi tessellation, and then solving the system (2.2), (2.3), eliminating
facets when they have neghgible length and cells when they have negligible area, [38],[35].
The total energy of the system is given by(2.5)$E(t)= \sum\int_{\Gamma_{i}}\psi|b|ds$$\{\Gamma_{i}\}$Owing exactly to the Herring Condition (2.3), the instantaneous rate of change of theenergy$\frac{d}{dt}E(t)=-\sum_{\{\Gamma_{j}\}}\int_{\Gamma_{i}}v_{n}^{2}ds+\sum_{TJ}v\cdot\sum(\psi_{\theta}n+\psi b)$(2.6)$=- \sum\int_{\Gamma_{i}}v_{n}^{2}ds$$\{\Gamma_{i}\}$$\leqq 0,$

rendering the network dissipative for the energy in any instant absent of critical events.
Indeed, in an interval $(t_{0},t_{0}+\tau)$ where there are no critical events, we may integrate (2.6)
to obtain a local dissipation equation$\sum\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{0}+\tau}\int_{\Gamma_{t}}v_{n}^{2}dsdt+E(t_{0}+\tau)=E(t_{0})$(2.7)$\{\Gamma.\}$which bears a strong resemblance to the simple dissipation relation for an ensemble ofinertia free springs with friction. In the simulation, the facet interchange and cell deletion
are arranged so that (2.6) is maintained.
Suppose, for simplicity, that the energy density is independent of the normal direction,. It is this situation that will concern us here. Then (2.2) and (2.3) may besoexpressed$\psi=\psi(\alpha)$$v_{n}$$\sum_{i=1,..,3}.\psi b^{(i)}$$=$$\psi\kappa$

$=$

$0$

on

at ,
$p$

$\Gamma$

(2.8)
(2.9)

denotes a triple junction. (2.9) is the same as the Young wetting law. When $\psi=$const, then (2.9) means that the interior angles at triple junctions are $2\pi/3$ . In this case,the celebrated Mulhns-von Neumann rule holds,[48],[61]. This states that the areaof an -faceted cell grows according to the formula

where

$p$

$A_{n}(t)$$n$$A_{n}’(t)=c(n-6)$ ,(2.10)

This is thought to hold approximately when anisotropy is small. It has recently been
extended, in a dramatic and profound fashion, to arbitrary dimension by MacPherson and
Srolovitz, [47].

77
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING

For this situation we define the grain boundary character distribution, $GBCD,$
relative length of arc of misorientation
at time$\rho(\alpha, t)=$$t,$$\alpha$normahzed so that$\int_{\Omega}\rho d\alpha=1$

(211)

.

We may express the energy of the boundary network in terms of$E_{0}(t)= \int_{\Omega}\psi\rho d\alpha$$\rho$

as,(2.12)

up to a scale factor involving the network total length. However we do not know how
to interpret the velocity term in (2.7). This is one of the motivations for turning to thesimplified problem below.

3. A SIMPLIFIED COARSENING MODEL WITH ENTROPY AND DISSIPATIONThe coarsening process is irreversible because of its dissipative nature. Even in an interlude when there are no rearrangement events, (2.7) shows that a configuration cannot
evolve to a former state from a later one. This could be viewed as a source of entropy forthe system. In our investigation, we view the principal source of entropy to be configurational since we observe the evolution of an ‘upscaled’ ensemble represented by a single
statistic, the misorientation , neglecting the remaining information. This is also a sourceof irreversibility since we have forgotten information. We return to this shortly.
A significant difficulty in developing a theory for the $GBCD$ , and understanding texture
development in general, lies in the lack of understanding of consequences of rearrangement
events or critical events, facet interchange and grain deletion, on network level properties.
For example, in Fig. 3, the average area of five-faceted grains during a growth experimenton an $Al$ thin film and the average area of five-faceted cells in a typical simulation bothincrease with time. The von Neumann-Mullins Rule (2.10) mentioned above does not failin the example, of course, but cells observed at later times had 6, 7, 8,
facets at earher
times. Thus in the network setting, changes which rearrange the network play a majorrole.
To address these issues, we will introduce a much simpler 1
model which retains
kinetics and critical events but neglects curvature driven growth of the boundaries. In ourview, there are two important features of the coarsening system:
the evolution of the network by the dissipative mechanism of curvature driven
growth andthe irreversible rearrangement of the network at certain discrete times, which isnecessary because the entire configuration is confined.
We have used this model to develop a statistical theory for critical events, $[13],[14],[12].$It has been found to have its own $GBCD$ as well, [9],[11],[10],[15], which we shall now
review.
Our main idea in [9],[11],[10],[15] is that the $GBCD$ statistic for the simplffied model
resembles the solution of a Fokker-Planck Equation via the mass transport implicit scheme,$\alpha$$\cdots$$D$$\bullet$$\bullet$

78
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING

FIGURE 3. The average area of five-sided cell populations during coarsening in two

different cellular systems showing that the von Neumann-Mullins n–6–Rule (2.10) does
not hold at the scale of the network. (left) In an experiment on $Al$ thin film, [8], and(right) a typical simulation (arbitrary units).

[34]. In studying the $GBCD$ , we are not averaging some fine-level properties to arrive at
a mesoscale property. Rather, it represents some number of fine-level possibilities. Thischange in the ensemble gives rise to an entropic contribution, which we take to be proportional to configurational entropy. In [9],[11],[10],[15] the simplified model is formulated
as a gradient flow which results in a dissipation inequality analogous to the one found forthe coarsening grain network. Because of this simphcity, it will be possible to ‘upscale’
more useful
the network level system description to a higher level $GBCD$ description.
dissipation inequality is obtained by modifying the viscous term to be a mass transportterm, which now brings us to the realm of the Kantorovich-Rubinstein-Wasserstein implicit
scheme. This then suggests the Fokker-Planck paradigm.
However, we do not know that the statistic solves the Fokker-Planck PDE but we can
ask if it shares important aspects of Fokker-Planck behavior. We give evidence for thisby asking for the unique ‘temperature-like’ parameter, the factor noted above, such that
the Kullback-Leibler relative entropy achieves a minimum over long time. The empiricalstationary distribution and Boltzmann distribution with the special value of‘temperature’are in excellent agreement. This gives an explanation for the stationary distribution andthe kinetics of evolution. At this point of our investigations, we do not know that the twodimensional network has the detailed dissipative structure of the simphfied model, but weare able to produce evidence that the same argument employing the relative entropy doessuggest the correct kinetics and stationary distribution.
$A$

3.1. Formulation. The simphfied coarsening model, driven by the boundary conditions,reflects the dissipation relation of the grain growth system. It resembles an ensemble of

79
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING

inertia-free spring-mass-dashpots. It is an abstraction of the role of triple junctions in thepresence of the rearrangement events.
Let $I\subset R$ be an interval of length
partitioned by points, where$i=1,$$x_{i}<x_{i+1},$ $i=1,$$n-1$ and $x_{n+1}$ identffied with$i=$
. For each interval
select a random misorientation number $\alpha_{i}\in(-\pi/4, \pi/4]$ . The intervals
correspond to grain boundaries (but not the $1D$ “grain”) with misorientations
and thepointsrepresent the triple junctions. Choose an energy density
and introduce
the energy$L$$x_{i},$$\ldots,$$n$$[x_{i}, x_{i+1}],$$x_{1}$$\ldots,$$1,$$\ldots,$$n$$[x_{i}, x_{i+1}]$$\alpha_{i}$$\psi(\alpha)\geqq 0$$x_{i}$$E= \sum_{i=1,\ldots,n}\psi(\alpha_{i})(x_{i+1}-x_{i})$

.

(3.1)

To have consistency with the evolution of the $2D$ cellular network, we impose gradient flow
kinetics with respect to (3.1), which is just the system of ordinary differential equations$\frac{dx_{i}}{dt}=-\frac{\partial E}{\partial x_{i}},$$i=1,$$\ldots,$$n$, that is(3.2)$\frac{dx_{i}}{dt}=\psi(\alpha_{i})-\psi(\alpha_{i-1}),$ $i=2\ldots

The velocityof the$v_{i}$$i^{th}$

n$

, and

$\frac{dx_{1}}{dt}=\psi(\alpha_{1})-\psi(\alpha_{n})$.

boundary is$v_{i}= \frac{dx_{i+1}}{dt}-\frac{dx_{i}}{dt}=\psi(\alpha_{i-1})-2\psi(\alpha_{i})+\psi(\alpha_{i+1})$

.

(3.3)

The grain boundary velocities are constant until one of the boundaries collapses. That
segment is removed from the list of current $gra!^{n}$ boundaries and the velocities of its
two neighbors are changed due to the emergence of a new junction. Each such deletion
event rearranges the network and, therefore, affects its subsequent evolution just as in thetwo dimensional cellular network. Actually, since the interval velocities are constant, thisgradient flow is just a sorting problem. At any time, the next deletion event occurs at
smallest positive value of$\underline{x_{i}-x_{i+1}}.$$v_{i}$The lengthof theinterval is hnear in until it reaches or until a collision event,when it becomes linear with a different slope. In any event, it is continuous, so $E(t),$ $t>0,$
the sum of such functions multiplied by factors, is continuous.
At any time between deletion events,$l_{i}(t)$$i^{th}$

$0$

$t$

$t$

$\frac{dE}{dt}= =-\sum\frac{dx_{i}}{dt}2\leqq 0$

.

(3.4)

Consider for the $1D$ system (3.2), a time intervalwith no critical events. Then we
obtain a grain growth analog of the spring-mass-dashpot-hke local dissipation inequality.
$(t_{0}, t_{0}+\tau)$$\sum_{i=1\ldots n}\int_{0}^{\mathcal{T}}\frac{dx_{i}}{dt}dt2+E(t_{0}+\tau)=E(t_{0})$

(3.5)

80
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COAHSENING

With an appropriate interpretation of the sum, (3.5) holds for all and almost every
sufficiently small. The dissipation equality (3.5) can also be rewritten in terms of grainboundary velocities as:$\tau$$t_{0}$(3.6)$\frac{1}{4}\sum_{i=1\ldots n}\int_{0}^{\tau}v_{i}^{2}dt+E(t_{0}+\tau)\leqq E(t_{0})$is determined by its state at time
The energy of the system at time
As explained in [11],[10],[15], we can introduce the $GBCD$ for the simplified $1D$ model.
Let us consider a new ensemble based on the misorientation parameter where we take, for later ease of comparison with the two dimensional network for which:
we are imposing “cubic” symmetry, i.e., “square” symmetry in the plane. The $GBCD$ orin this context is, as expected, the histogram of lengths ofcharacter distribution
intervals sorted by misorientation scaled to be a probabihty distribution on . One may
express (3.6) in terms of the character distribution which amounts to$t_{0}.$$t_{0}+\tau$$\alpha$$\Omega$$- \frac{\pi}{4}\leqq\alpha\leqq\frac{\pi}{4}$$\rho(\alpha, t)$$\Omega$$\alpha$$\rho$,$\mu 0\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{0}+\tau}\int_{\Omega}|\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}(\alpha, t)|^{2}d\alpha dt+\int_{\Omega}\psi(\alpha)\rho(\alpha, t_{0}+\tau)d\alpha\leqq\int_{\Omega}\psi(\alpha)\rho(\alpha, t_{0})d\alpha$(3.7)

where $\mu_{0}>0$ is some constant.
The expression (3.7) is in terms of the new misorientation level ensemble, upscaled fromthe local level of the original system. We now introduce, as discussed earlier, the modehng
assumption, consistent with the lack of reversibihty when rearrangement/or critical eventsoccur, consisting of an entropic contribution to (3.7). We consider a standard configurational entropy,$+ \int_{\Omega}\rho\log\rho d\alpha$

,

(3.8)

although this is not the only choice. Minimizing (3.8) favors the uniform state, which would
tantalizing clue to the development of texture
constant.
be the situation were
will be whether or not this entropy strays from its minimum during the simulation.
Given that (3.7) holds, we assume now that there is some $\lambda>0$ such that for any
and sufficiently small that$\psi(\alpha)=$$A$$t_{0}$$\tau$$\mu 0\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{0}+\tau}\int_{\Omega}(\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t})^{2}d\alpha dt+\int_{\Omega}(\psi\rho+\lambda\rho\log\rho)d\alpha|_{t_{0}+\tau}\leqq\int_{\Omega}(\psi\rho+\lambda\rho\log\rho)d\alpha|_{t_{0}}$$E(t)$

now(3.9)

was analogous to an internal energy or the energy of a microcanonical ensemble and$F( \rho)=F_{\lambda}(\rho)=E(t)+\lambda\int_{\Omega}\rho\log\rho d\alpha$is a free energy. The value of the parameter
Validation Section 4$\lambda$(3.10)

is unknown and will be determined in the

81
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING

3.2. The mass transport paradigm. The kinetics of the simplified problem will be
understood by interpreting the dissipation principle for the $GBCD$ in terms of a masstransport implicit scheme. In fact, (3.9) fails as a proper dissipation principle because thefirst term
(3.11)$\mu 0\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{0}+\tau}\int_{\Omega}(\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t})^{2}dadt$

does not represent lost energy due to frictional or viscous forces. For a deformation path, of probabihty densities, this quantity is$f(\alpha, t),$ $0\leqq t\leqq\tau$(3.12)$\int_{0}^{\tau}\int_{\Omega}v^{2}fd\alpha dt$

where $f,$$v$

are related by the continuity equation and initial and terminal conditions$f_{t}+(vf)_{\alpha}=0$

in$\dot{\Omega}\cross(0, \tau)$, and$f(\alpha, 0)=\rho(\alpha, 0), f(\alpha, \tau)=\rho(\alpha, \tau)$(3.13),

by analogy with fluids [41], p.53 et seq., and elementary mechanics. (We have set $t_{0}=0$
for convenience.)
On the other hand, by a result of Benamou and Brenier [17], given two probability
densities
on , the Wasserstein distance $d(f, f^{*})$ between them is given by$f^{*},$$f$$\Omega$$\frac{1}{\tau}d(f, f^{*})^{2}= inf\int_{0}^{\tau}\int_{\Omega}v^{2}fd\xi dt$

over deformation paths $f(\xi, t)$ subject to(3.14), (continuity equation)$f(\xi, 0)=f^{*}(\xi),$ $f(\xi, \tau)=f(\xi)$ (initial and terminal conditions)$f_{t}+(vf)_{\xi}=0$

Let us briefly review the notion of Kantorovich-Rubinstein-Wasserstein metric, or simply
Wasserstein metric. The reader can consult [59], [3] for more detailed exposition of thesubject and [15] for additional discussion of its application in this context.
Let $D\subset R$ be an interval, perhaps infinite, anda pair of probabihty densities on $D$(with finite variance). The quadratic Wasserstein metric or 2-Wasserstein metric is defined
to be$f^{*},$$f$$d(f, f^{*})^{2}= \inf_{P}\int_{D\cross D}|x-y|^{2}dp(x, y)$$P=$ joint distributions for $f,$$f^{*}$

on(3.15)$\overline{D}\cross\overline{D},$i.e., the marginals of any $p\in P$ are $f,$ . The metric induces the $weak-*$ topology on. If $f,$ are strictly positive, there is a transfer map which reahzes , essentially thesolution of the Monge-Kantorovich mass transfer problem for this situation. This means$f^{*}$$C(\overline{D})’$$f^{*}$$p$

82
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING

that there is a strictly increasing: $Darrow D$ such that$\phi$$\int_{D}\zeta(y)f(y)dy=\int_{D}\zeta(\phi(x))f^{*}(x)dx,$$\zeta\in C(\overline{D})$, and(3.16)$d(f, f^{*})^{2}= \int_{D}|x-\phi(x)|^{2}f^{*}dx$

In this one dimensional situation, as was known to Frech\’et, [25],$\phi(x)=F^{*-1}(F(x)),$ $x\in D$ , where$F^{*}(x)= \int_{-\infty}^{x}f^{*}(x’)dx’$$(317)$

and $F(x)= \int_{-\infty}^{x}f(x’)dx’$. In one dimension there is only one transfer map.
are the distribution functions of
The conditions (3.14) are in ‘Eulerian’ form. Therefore, our goal is to replace (3.11) with
(3.12). Since the associated metrics induce different topologies, an estimate must involve
satisfies
additional terms. Assume that our statistic(3.18)
in $t>0$ .
This is a necessary assumption for our estimates below. In fact, to proceed with the implicit
since
scheme introduced later, it is sufficient to require (3.18) just for the initial data
(3.14)
andtherepresentation
the
now
use
We
iterates.
bythepropertyis.
inheritedthis$f=\rho$and determined so that
deformation path given by itself, that is$f^{*},$$f$$\rho(\alpha, t)$$\rho(\alpha, t)\geqq\delta>0$$\Omega,$$\rho_{0}(\alpha)$$v$$\rho$$\rho_{t}+(v\rho)_{x}=0.$Then calculate that for some$c_{\Omega}>0,$,$\frac{1}{\tau}d(\rho, \rho^{*})^{2}\leqq\int_{0}^{\tau}\int_{\Omega}v^{2}\rho dxdt\leqq\frac{c_{\Omega}}{\min_{\Omega\rho}}\int_{0}^{\tau}\int_{\Omega}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}(x, t)^{2}dxdt$$\rho^{*}(x)=\rho(x, 0)$(3.19)

and $\rho(x)=\rho(x, \tau)$ ,where represents an arbitrary starting time and a relaxation time.
Thus from (3.9) there is a $\mu>0$ such that for any relaxation time $\tau>0,$$0$$\tau$(3.20)$\frac{\mu}{2}\int_{0}^{\tau}\int_{\Omega}v^{2}\rho d\alpha dt+F_{\lambda}(\rho)\leqq F_{\lambda}(\rho^{*})$

We next replace (3.20) by a minimum principle, arguing that the path given byis the one most likely to occur and the minimizing path has the highest probabihty. For
and $\rho=\rho(\cdot, t+\tau)$ . We then have that, ffom (3.14), a minimum
this step, letprinciple in the form$\rho(\alpha, t)$$\rho^{*}=\rho(\cdot, t_{0})$(3.21)$\frac{\mu}{2\tau}d(\rho, \rho^{*})^{2}+F_{\lambda}(\rho)=\inf\{\frac{\mu}{2\tau}d(\eta, \rho^{*})^{2}\{\eta\}+F_{\lambda}(\eta)\}$For each relaxation time $\tau>0$ we determine iteratively the sequencein (3.21) and set
and$\rho^{*}=\rho^{(k-1)}$$\{\rho^{(k)}\}$by choosing$\rho^{(k)}=\rho$$\rho^{(\tau)}(\alpha,t)=\rho^{(k)}(\alpha)$in$\Omega$for $k\tau\leqq t<(k+1)\tau$.

(3.22)

83
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING

We then anticipate recovering the $GBCD\rho$ as$\rho(\alpha, t)=\lim_{\tauarrow 0}\rho^{(\tau)}(\alpha, t)$,(3.23)

with the limit taken in a suitable sense. It is known thatsolution of the Fokker-Planck Equation, [34],$\mu\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}=\frac{\partial}{\partial\alpha}(\lambda\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial\alpha}|+\psi’\rho)$$in$$\Omega,$$\rho$

obtained from (3.23) is the$0<t<\infty$.

(3.24)We might point out here, as well, that a solution of (3.24) with periodic boundary conditions
and nonnegative initial data is positive for $t>0.$

4. VALIDATION OF THE SCHEME
We now begin the validation step of our model. The procedure which leads to theimplicit scheme, based on the dissipation inequahty (3.6), holds for the entire system but
does not identify individual intermediate ‘spring-mass-dashpots’. The consequence is that
we cannot set the temperature-like parameter , but in some way must decide if one exists.
Introduce the notation for the Boltzmann distribution with parameter$\sigma$$\lambda$$\rho_{\lambda}(\alpha)=\frac{1}{Z_{\lambda}}e^{-\frac{1}{\lambda}\psi(\alpha)},$$\alpha\in\Omega$, with.

(4.1)$Z_{\lambda}= \int_{\Omega}e^{-\frac{1}{\lambda}\psi(\alpha)}d\alpha$With validation we would gain qualitative properties of solutions of (3.24):, andasthis convergence is exponentially fast.
The Kullback-Leibler relative entropy for (3.24) is given by$\bullet$$\rho(\alpha, t)arrow\rho_{\sigma}(\alpha)$$tarrow\infty$$\bullet$$\Phi_{\lambda}(\eta)=\Phi(\eta\Vert\rho_{\lambda})=\int_{\Omega}\eta\log\frac{\eta}{\rho_{\lambda}}d\alpha$

where
(4.2)

$\eta\geqq 0$

in$\Omega,$$\int_{\Omega}\eta d\alpha=1,$

withfrom (4.1). By Jensen’s Inequality it is always nonnegative. In terms of the freeenergy (3.10) and (4.1), (4.2) is given by$\rho_{\lambda}$$\Phi_{\lambda}(\eta)=\frac{1}{\lambda}F_{\lambda}(\eta)+\log Z_{\lambda}$

.

(4.3)

$(Note: In our$ earlier $work [10, 15], we$ defined relative entropy $to be \lambda$ times $(4.2)$ .)solution$\rho$$\Phi_{\lambda}(\rho)arrow 0$

as$tarrow\infty$

.

(4.4)

Therefore, we seek to identify the particular
for whichtends monotonically to the minimum of all thethen ask if the terminal, or equilibrium, empirical distribution$\lambda=\sigma$

statistic$\rho$$A$of (3.24) has the property thatsince$f(x, y)=x\log x-x\log y, x, y>0,$

defined by the $GBCD$
as becomes large. We
is equal to . Note that$\Phi_{\sigma}$$\{\Phi_{\lambda}\}$$\rho$$t$$\rho_{\sigma}$

84
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING

is convex,
is a convex function of. Withminimize (4.2) at$\Phi(\eta\Vert\rho_{\lambda})$$(\eta, \rho_{\lambda})$. We assign a time

$t=T_{\infty}$

and seek to$T_{\infty}$$\psi_{\lambda}=\frac{\psi}{\lambda}+\log Z_{\lambda}$

,

(4.5)

this minimization is a convex duality type of optimization problem, namely, to find theorfor which$\sigma$$\psi_{\sigma}$(4.6)$\int_{\Omega}\{\psi_{\sigma}\rho+\rho\log\rho\}d\alpha=\inf_{\{\psi_{\lambda}\}}\int_{\Omega}\{\psi_{\lambda}\rho+\rho\log\rho\}d\alpha-$

Note that$\int_{\Omega}e^{-\psi_{\lambda}}d\alpha=1$

which gives the minimization in (4.6) the form of finding an optimal prefix code, eg. [52].
Here the potential , the code, is minimized in a family rather than the unknown density
itself, which corresponds to the given alphabet. For practical purposes, note that$\psi_{\lambda}$$\rho$(4.7)$\Phi(\rho\Vert\rho_{\lambda})=\int_{\Omega}\rho\log\rho d\alpha+\frac{1}{\lambda}\int_{\Omega}\psi\rho d\alpha+\log Z_{\lambda}$$\beta>0$ , andis a strictly convex non-negative function of the ‘inverse temperature’
thus admits a unique minimum.
The information theory interpretation is that we are minimizing the information loss
among trial encodings of the alphabet represented by the statistic . In this sense we see
to represent our statistic , necessarily introduces
that asking for an optimal distribution(relative) entropy in our considerations, returning us, as it were, full circle.
In addition, the method is known in statistics as an $M$ estimator or a estimator, $[58].$
From a given simulation, we harvest the $GBCD$ statistic. It is a trial. The convexity ofsuggests that we can average trials. For trials$\beta=\perp\lambda,$$\rho$$\rho$$\rho_{\sigma}$$Z$$\{\rho_{1}, \ldots\rho_{N}\},$$\Phi(\rho\Vert\rho_{\lambda})$$\Phi(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1\ldots N}\rho_{i}\Vert\rho_{\lambda})\leqq\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1\ldots N}\Phi(\rho_{i}\Vert\rho_{\lambda})$

.

(4.8)

by optimizing with the averaged trial. We shall illustrate
So we can seek the optimal
this for the validation process for the two dimensional simulation.
$\lambda=\sigma$

4.1. An example of the simplified problem. For the simplified coarsening model, we
consider$\psi(\alpha)=1+2\alpha^{2}$ in(4.9),$\Omega=(\begin{array}{l}\pi\pi-\overline{4}’\overline{4}\end{array})$

and shall identify a unique such parameter, which we label , by seeking the minimum of therelative entropy (4.2), namely by inspection of plots of (4.6) and (4.7), and then comparing$\sigma$. This the development to second order of $\psi(\alpha)=1+0.5\sin^{2}2\alpha$with the found$2D$
used in thesimulation. Moreover, since the potential is quadratic, it represents a
version of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. We agree that $T\infty=T$ (80%) $=6.73$ represents
time equals infinity. This is the time at which 80% of the segments have been deleted
and corresponds to the stationary configuration in the two-dimensional simulation. For
the simplified critical event model we are considering, it is clear that by computing for a$\rho$$\rho_{\sigma}$$\psi$

85
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING

sufficiently long time, all cells will be gone. This time may be quite long. For comparison,(90%) $=30$ and (95%) $=103$ . There may be additional criteria for choosing a in theneighborhood of (80%) and we may wish to discuss this later. The results are reported
in Fig. 4.
$T$

$T$

$T$

$T$

FIGURE 4. Graphical results for the simplified coarsening model. (left) Relative entropy
plots for selected values of with
noted in red. The value of $\sigma=0.0296915$ . (right)
Empirical distribution at time $T=T_{\infty}$ in red compared within black.
$\lambda$$\Phi_{\sigma}$$\rho_{\sigma}$

5. THE ENTROPY METHOD FOR THE GBCD

5.1. Quadratic interfacial energy density. We shall apply the method of Section 4 to
the $GBCD$ harvested from the $2D$ simulation. For reasons of limited space, we consider asingle typical simulation with the energy density
,

(5.1)

$\psi(\alpha)=1+\epsilon(\sin 2\alpha)^{2}, -\frac{\pi}{4}\leqq\alpha\leqq\frac{\pi}{4}, \epsilon=1/2$

Figure 5, initiahzed withcells and normally distributed misorientation angles andterminated when 2000 cells remain. At this stage, the simulation is essentially stagnant.
Five trials were executed and we consider the average of of the empirical $GBCD$ ’s.
Possible ‘temperature’ parameters andin (4.1) for the density (5.1) are constructed.
Thisthen defines a trial relative entropy via (4.2). We now identify the parameter
which turns out to be, and the value of the relative entropy, whichis about 10% of its initial value, Figure 6.
Figure 7 (left), we see that this relative
entropyhas exponential decay until it reaches time about $t=1.5,$ $aft|$ er which it remains
constant. The averaged empirical $GBCD$ is compared with the Boltzmann distribution in
Figure 7 (right). The solution itself then tends exponentially into its hmitby theKullback-Csiszar Inequality.
$10^{4}$$\rho$$\lambda$$\rho_{\lambda}$$\rho_{\lambda}$$\sigma,$$\sigma\approx 0.1$$\Phi_{\sigma}(T_{\infty})\approx 0.01$$\mathbb{R}om$$\Phi_{\sigma}$$L^{1}$$\rho_{\sigma}$

86
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING$\alpha$(radians). (right)
as a function of time is increasing, suggesting the development of
The entropy oforder in the configuration.
FIGURE 5. (left) The energy density$\psi(\alpha)=1+\epsilon\sin^{2}2\alpha,$$|\alpha|<\pi/4,$$\epsilon=\frac{1}{2}$$t$$\rho(\alpha, t)$

FIGURE 6. In these plots, the $GBCD\rho$ is averaged over 5 trials. (left) The relativevs.
entropy of the grain growth simulation with energy density (5.1) for a sequence of
noted in red. (right) Relative entropy for an indicatedwith the optimal choice
range of values of temperature parameter at the terminal time $t=2.3$ . The minimum
value of the relative entropy is$\Phi_{\lambda}$$t$$\sigma\approx 0.1$$\lambda$$\approx 0.01.$

5.2. Remarks on a Theory for the Diffusion Coefficient or the TemperatureLike Parameter. The network level nonequlibrium nature of the iterative scheme introduced in our theory Sections 3-4, leaves free a temperature-hke parameter . However,as we showed in Section 4, we can uniquely identify . But can we a priori determine or$\sigma$$\sigma$$\sigma$87
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING

FIGURE 7. In these plots, the $GBCD$ is averaged over 5 trials. (left) Plot of-log
vs.
with energy density (5.1). It is approximately linear until it becomes constantshowing thatdecays exponentially.(right) $GBCD\rho$ (red) and Boltzmann distribution(black) for the potential of (5.1) with parameteras predicted by our theory.
$\Phi_{\sigma}$$t$$\Phi_{\sigma}$$\rho_{\sigma}$$\sigma\approx 0.1$$\psi$

control this temperature-like parameter? There are different approaches to this question,none of which have been especially successful at this point. One possible approach is toconsider a different theory that is developed for the simplffied model based on the kinetic

equations description in [14]. However, this particular description [14] would have to be
improved, since it does not produce a very good result for at this point. However, thismethod would still have only an empirical flavor: the value of will be obtained once$\sigma$$\sigma$the solution of kinetic equations is computed. Another direction to consider here is basedon the statistical analysis of the data obtained from many trials and to understand thepossible connection to branching processes.

6. CLOSING COMMENTS

Engineering the microstructure of a material is a central task of materials science andits study gives rise to a broad range of basic science issues, as has been long recognized.
Central to these issues is the coarsening of the cellular structure. Here we have outlined
an entropy based theory of the $GBCD$ which is an upscahng of cell growth according to thetwo most basic properties of a coarsening network: a local evolution law and space filling
constraints. The theory \‘accomodates the irreversibility conferred by the critical events or
topological rearrangements which arise during coarsening. It adds to the body of evidence
that the evolution of the boundary network is the primary origin of texture development.
It accounts both for the $GBCD$ and its kinetics.
Finally we remark about the scope of the theory. The dissipation relation, (2.6) and(2.7), shows that only interfacial energy and functions of it, hke the Herring Condition,
are responsible for coarsening. This gives rise to the $GBCD$ . Other statistics, like cell size

88
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING

and orientations, although they may be easily measured and well behaved, are secondary.
The evolution should have a Markov character. The initial conditions at a given state
determine subsequent evolution. Perhaps this is not the case precisely as correlations tend
to develop over time and simple coarsening is impeded by configurational hinderance, but
let us suppose so for the moment. Then the $GBCD$ is a solution of the forward Kolmogorov

equation of the process, which is hnear.
Now consider momentarily an upscaled dissipation relation. It would have a form, using

the mass transport paradigm we have been discussing derived from the gradient flow$\frac{\mu}{2\tau}d(\rho, \rho^{*})^{2}+\int_{\Omega}\Phi(\rho, x)dx=\min$(6.1)

The stationary equation corresponding to this is$A \rho=\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}(-\rho\Phi_{\rho}+\Phi)-\frac{d}{dx}\Phi_{x}$(6.2)

As a function of it must be linear. To check this in a simple way, compute the adjoint
pairing, which is the backward Kolmogorov equation. This reveals that$\Phi(\rho, x)=a\rho\log\rho+b(x)\rho$ , withconstant.
(6.3)
which yields the Fokker-Planck equation already found with, notably, constant diffusion.
In sum, a dissipation relation gives rise to essentially only one Markov process, the one wehave discovered. We do not know the imphcations of this.
$\rho$$a$

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Part of this research was done while E. Eggeling, Y. Epshteyn and R. Sharp were postdoctoral associates
at the Center for Nonlinear Analysis at Carnegie Mellon University. We are grateful to our colleagues G.
Rohrer, A. D. Rollett, R. Schwab, and R. Suter for their collaboration.
REFERENCES[1] B.L. Adams, D. Kinderlehrer, I. Livshits, D. Mason, W.W. Mullins, G.S. Rohrer, A.D. Rollett, D. Saylor, S Ta’asan, and C. Wu. Extracting grain boundary energy from triple junction measurement. Interface Science, 7:321-338, 1999.
[2] BL Adams, D Kinderlehrer, WW Mullins, AD Rollett, and S Ta’asan. Extracting the relative grainboundary free energy and mobility functions from the geometry of microstructures. Scripta Materiala,$38(4):531-536$ , Jan 131998.
[3] Luigi Ambrosio, Nicola Gigli, and Giuseppe Savar\’e. Gradient flows in metric spaces and in the space of
probabihty measures. Lectures in Mathematics ETH Z\"urich. Birkh\"auser Verlag, Basel, second edition,
2008.
[4] Todd Arbogast. Implementation of a locally conservative numerical subgrid upscaling scheme for twx
phase Darcy flow. Comput. Geosci., $6(3-4):453-481$ , 2002. Locally conservative numerical methods forflow in porous media.
[5] Todd Arbogast and Heather L. Lehr. Homogenization of a Darcy-Stokes system modeling vuggy porous
media. Comput. Geosci., $10(3):291-302$ , 2006.
[6] Matthew Balhoff, Andro Mikeli\v{c}, and Mary F. Wheeler. Polynomial filtration laws for low Reynolds
number flows through porous media.
. Porous Media, $81(1):35-60$ , 2010.
[7] Matthew T. Balhoff, Sunil G. Thomas, and Mary F. Wheeler. Mortar couphng and upscahng of porescale models. Comput. Geosci., $12(1):15-27$ , 2008.
$\mathcal{I}kansp$

89
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING[8] K. Barmak. unpublished.
[9] K. Barmak, E. Eggeling, M. Emelianenko, Y. Epshteyn, D. Kinderlehrer, R.Sharp, and S.Ta’asan.
Predictive theory for the grain boundary character distribution. In Materi\‘als Science Forum, volume715-716, pages 279-285. Trans Tech Publications, 2012.
[10] K. Barmak, E. Eggeling, M. Emelianenko, Y. Epshteyn, D. Kinderlehrer, R. Sharp, and S. Ta’asan.
Critical events, entropy, and the grain boundary character distribution. Phys. Rev. B, 83(13): 134117,
Apr 2011.
[11] K. Barmak, E. Eggeling, M. Emelianenko, Y. Epshteyn, D. Kinderlehrer, and S. Ta’asan. Geometric
growth and character development in large metastable systems. Rendiconti di Matematica, Serie VII,
29:65-81, 2009.
[12] K. Barmak, M. Emelianenko, D. Golovaty, D. Kinderlehrer, and S. Ta’asan. On a statistical theory ofcritical events in microstructural evolution. In Proceedings CMDS 11, pages 185-194. ENSMP Press,

2007.
[13] K. Barmak, M. Emelianenko, D. Golovaty, D. Kinderlehrer, and S. Ta’asan. Towards a statisticaltheory of texture evolution in polycrystals. SIAM Journal Sci. Comp., $30(6):3150-3169$ , 2007.
[14] K. Barmak, M. Emelianenko, D. Golovaty, D. Kinderlehrer, and S. Ta’asan. A new perspective on
texture evolution. International Journal on Numerical Analysis and Modeling, 5(Sp. Iss. SI):93-108,

2008.
[15] Katayun Barmak, Eva Eggeling, Maria Emelianenko, Yekaterina Epshteyn, David Kinderlehrer,
Richard Sharp, and Shlomo Ta’asan. An entropy based theory of the grain boundary character distribution. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 30(2):427-454, 2011.
[16] Katayun Barmak, Eva Eggeling, Maria Emelianenko, Yekaterina Epshteyn, David Kinderlehrer,
Richard Sharp, and Shlomo Ta’asan. A theory and challenges for coarsening in microstructure. Technical report, CNA preprint series, 2012.
[17] Jean-David Benamou and Yann Brenier. A computational fluid mechanics solution to the MongeKantorovich mass transfer problem. Numer. Math., $84(3):375-393$ , 2000.
[18] G. Bertotti. Hysteresis in magnetism. Academic Press, 1998.
[19] Lia Bronsard and Fernando Reitich. On three-phase boundary motion and the singular limit of avector-valued Ginzburg-Landau equation. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 124(4):355-379, 1993.
[20] J.E. Burke and D. Turnbull. Recrystallization and grain growth. Progress in Metal Physics, $3(C):220-$
244,INII-INI2,245-266,INI3-INI4,267-274,INI5,275-292, 1952. cited By (since 1996) 68.
[21] Philippe G. Ciarlet. The finite element method for elliptic problems. North-Holland Publishing Co.,
Amsterdam, 1978. Studies in Mathematics and its Apphcations, Vol. 4.
[22] Antonio DeSimone, Robert V. Kohn, Stefan M\"uller, Felix Otto, and Rudolf Sch\"afer. Twodimensional modelling of soft ferromagnetic films. R. Soc. Lond. Proc. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.,$457(2016):2983-2991$ , 2001.
[23] Y. Epshteyn and B. Rivi\‘ere. On the solution of incompressible two-phase flow by a $p-$-version discontinuous Galerkin method. Comm. Numer. Methods Engrg., 22:741-751, 2006.
[24] Y. Epshteyn and B. Rivi\‘ere. Fully implicit discontinuous finite element methods for two-phase flow.
Applied Numerical Mathematics, 57:383-401, 2007.
[25] M Frechet. Sur la distance de deux lois de probabilite. Comptes Rendus de l ‘ Academie des Sciences
Serie -Mathematique, $244(6):689-692$ , 1957.
[26] S. K. Godunov. A difference method for numerical calculation of discontinuous solutions of the equations of hydrodynamics. Mat. Sb. (N.S.), 47 $(89):271-306$ , 1959.
[27] S. K. Godunov and V. S. Ryaben’kii. Difference schemes, volume 19 of Studies in Mathematics andits Applications. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1987. An introduction to the underlying
theory, ‘IYanslated from the Russian by E. M. Gelbard.
[28] Robert Gomer and Cyril Stanley Smith, editors. Structure and Properties of Solid Surfaces, Chicago,
1952. The University of Chicago Press. Proceedings of a conference arranged by the National ResearchCouncil and held in September, 1952, in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, USA.
$I$

90
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING[29]$\dot{M}$. Gurtin. Thermomechanics of evolving phase boundaries in the plane. Oxford, 1993.

[30] R. Helmig. Multiphase flow and transport processes in the subsurface. Springer, 1997.
[1] C. Herring. Surface tension as a motivation for sintering. In Walter E. Kingston, editor, The Physics
of Powder Metallurgy, pages 143-179. Mcgraw-Hill, New York, 1951.

[32] C. Herring. The use of classical macroscopic concepts in surface energy problems. In Gomer and Smith[28], pages 5-81. Proceedings of a conference arranged by the National Research Council and held in
September, 1952, in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, USA.
[33] R Jordan, D Kinderlehrer, and F Otto. Free energy and the fokker-planck equation. Physica D, $107(2-$$4):265-271$ , Sep 11997.
[34] R Jordan, D Kinderlehrer, and F Otto. The variational formulation of the fokker-planck equation.
SIAM J. Math. Analysis, $29(1):1-17$ , Jan 1998.
[35] D Kinderlehrer, J Lee, I Livshits, A Rollett, and S Ta’asan. Mesoscale simulation of grain growth.
Recrystalliztion and grain growth, ptsl and 2, 467-470(Part 1-2):1057-1062, 2004.
[36] D Kinderlehrer and C Liu. Evolution of grain boundaries. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied
Sciences, $11(4):713-729$ , Jun 2001.
[37] D Kinderlehrer, I Livshits, GS Rohrer, S Ta’asan, and P Yu. Mesoscale simulation of the evolution of
the grain boundary character distribution. Recrystallization and grain growth, ptsl and 2, $467-470(Part$$1-2):1063-1068$ , 2004.
[38] David Kinderlehrer, Irene Livshits, and Shlomo Ta’asan. A variational approach to modehng andsimulation of grain growth. SIAM J. Sci. Comp., $28(5):1694-1715$ , 2006.
[39] Robert V. Kohn. Irreversibility and the statistics of grain boundaries. Physics, 4:33, Apr 2011.
[40] Robert V. Kohn and Felix Otto. Upper bounds on coarsening rates. Comm. Math. Phys., $229(3):375-$
395, 2002.
[41] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz. Fluid mechanics. Translated from the Russian by J. B. Sykes andW. H. Reid. Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 6. Pergamon Press, London, 1959.
[42] Peter D. Lax. Weak solutions of nonlinear hyperbolic equations and their numerical computation.
Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 7:159-193, 1954.
[43] Peter D. Lax. Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws and the mathematical theory of shock waves.
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, Pa., 1973. Conference Board of theMathematical Sciences Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, No. 11.
[44] Bo Li, John Lowengrub, Andreas R\"atz, and Axel Voigt. Geometric evolution laws for thin crystalline
films: modeling and numerics. Commun. Comput. Phys., $6(3):433-482$ , 2009.
[45] I.M. Lifshitz and V.V. Slyozov. The kinetics of precipitation from suprsaturated solid solutions. Journalof Physics and Chemistry of Solids, $19(1-2):35-50$ , 1961.
[46] John S. Lowengrub, Andreas H\"atz, and Axel Voigt. Phase-field modeling of the dynamics of multicomponent vesicles: spinodal decomposition, coarsening, budding, and fission. Phys. Rev. E(3),$79(3):0311926,$ 13, 2009.
[47] Robert D. MacPherson and David J. Srolovitz. The von Neumann relation generalized to coarseningof three-dimensional microstructures. Nature, $446(7139):1053-1055$ , APR 262007.
[48] W.W. Mullins. 2-Dimensional motion of idealized grain growth. Journal Applied Physics, $27(8):900-$
904, 1956.
[49] W.W. Mullins. Solid Surface Morphologies Governed by Capillarity, pages 17-66. American Society for
Metals, Metals Park, Ohio, 1963.
[50] W.W. Mullins. On idealized 2-dimensional grain growth. Scripta Metallurgica, 22(9):1441-1444, SEP
1988.
[51] Felix Otto, Tobias Rump, and Dejan Slep\v{c}ev. Coarsening rates for a droplet model: rigorous upperbounds. SIAM J. Math. Anal., $38(2):503-529$ (electronic), 2006.
[52] J. Rissanen. Complexity and information in data. In Entropy, Princeton Ser. Appl. Math., pages 299312. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2003.

91
MATERIALS MICROSTRUCTURES: ENTROPY AND CURVATURE-DRIVEN COARSENING[53] GS Rohrer. Influence of interface anisotropy on grain growth and coarsening. Annual Review of Materials Research, 35:99-126, 2005.
[54] Anthony D. Rollett, S.-B. Lee, R. Campman, and G. S. Rohrer. Three-dimensional characterization of
microstructure by electron back-scatter diffraction. Annual Review of Materials Research, 37:627-658,
2007.
[55] Cyril Stanley Smith. Grain shapes and other metallurgical apphcations of topology. In Gomer andSmith [28], pages 65-108. Proceedings of a conference arranged by the National Research Council andheld in September, 1952, in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, USA.
[56] H. Bruce Stewart and Burton Wendroff. Two-phase flow: models and methods. J. Comput. Phys.,
56(3):363-409, 1984.
[57] Andrea Toselli and Olof Widlund. Domain decomposition methods–algorithms and theory, volume 34
of Springer Series in Computational Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005.
[5S] A. W. van der Vaart. Asymptotic statistics, volume 3 of Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic
Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
[59] C\’edric Villani. Topics in optimal transportation, volume 58 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2003.
[60] J. Von Neumann and R. D. Richtmyer. A method for the numerical calculation of hydrodynamic
shocks. J. Appl. Phys., 21:232-237, 1950.
[61] John von Neumann. Discussion remark concerning paper of C. S. Smith “grain shapes and othermetallurgical applications of topology”. In Gomer and Smith [28], pages 108-110. Proceedings of aconference arranged by the National Research Council and held in September, 1952, in Lake Geneva,
Wisconsin, USA.
[62] C Wagner. Theorie der alterung von niederschlagen durch umlosen (Ostwald-Reifung). Zeitschrift fur
Elektrochemie, $65(7-8):581-591$ , 1961.
-mail address: kb2612@columbia.edu-mail address: eva. eggeling@fraunhofer.at-mail address: memelian@gmu.edu-mail address: epshteyn@math.utah.edu
$E$

$E$
$E$

$E$

-mail address: davidk@cmu.edu$E$-mail address: rsharpOgmail. com-mail address: shlomo@andrew.cmu.edu$E$$E$