0
Research Papers

Propagation of Input Uncertainty in Presence of Model-Form Uncertainty: A Multifidelity Approach for Computational Fluid Dynamics Applications

[+] Author and Article Information
Jian-Xun Wang, Christopher J. Roy

Department of Aerospace and
Ocean Engineering,
Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA 24060

Heng Xiao

Department of Aerospace and
Ocean Engineering,
Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA 24060
e-mail: hengxiao@vt.edu (Heng Xiao)

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received August 10, 2016; final manuscript received December 27, 2016; published online September 7, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Yan Wang.

ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Part B 4(1), 011002 (Sep 07, 2017) (8 pages) Paper No: RISK-16-1107; doi: 10.1115/1.4037452 History: Received August 10, 2016; Revised December 27, 2016

Proper quantification and propagation of uncertainties in computational simulations are of critical importance. This issue is especially challenging for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) applications. A particular obstacle for uncertainty quantifications in CFD problems is the large model discrepancies associated with the CFD models used for uncertainty propagation. Neglecting or improperly representing the model discrepancies leads to inaccurate and distorted uncertainty distribution for the quantities of interest (QoI). High-fidelity models, being accurate yet expensive, can accommodate only a small ensemble of simulations and thus lead to large interpolation errors and/or sampling errors; low-fidelity models can propagate a large ensemble, but can introduce large modeling errors. In this work, we propose a multimodel strategy to account for the influences of model discrepancies in uncertainty propagation and to reduce their impact on the predictions. Specifically, we take advantage of CFD models of multiple fidelities to estimate the model discrepancies associated with the lower-fidelity model in the parameter space. A Gaussian process (GP) is adopted to construct the model discrepancy function, and a Bayesian approach is used to infer the discrepancies and corresponding uncertainties in the regions of the parameter space where the high-fidelity simulations are not performed. Several examples of relevance to CFD applications are performed to demonstrate the merits of the proposed strategy. Simulation results suggest that, by combining low- and high-fidelity models, the proposed approach produces better results than what either model can achieve individually.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Le Maitre, O. P. , and Knio, O. M. , 2010, Spectral Methods for Uncertainty Quantification: With Applications to Computational Fluid Dynamics, Springer, New York. [CrossRef]
Hoeting, J. A. , Madigan, D. , Raftery, A. E. , and Volinsky, C. T. , 1999, “ Bayesian Model Averaging: A Tutorial,” Stat. Sci., 14(4), pp. 382–401. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2676803?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Raftery, A. E. , Kárný, M. , and Ettler, P. , 2010, “ Online Prediction Under Model Uncertainty Via Dynamic Model Averaging: Application to a Cold Rolling Mill,” Technometrics, 52(1), pp. 52–66. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mishra, S. , and Schwab, C. , 2012, “ Sparse Tensor Multi-Level Monte Carlo Finite Volume Methods for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws With Random Initial Data,” Math. Comput., 81(280), pp. 1979–2018. [CrossRef]
Giles, M. B. , 2008, “ Multilevel Monte Carlo Path Simulation,” Oper. Res., 56(3), pp. 607–617. [CrossRef]
Müller, F. , Meyer, D. W. , and Jenny, P. , 2014, “ Solver-Based vs. Grid-Based Multilevel Monte Carlo for Two Phase Flow and Transport in Random Heterogeneous Porous Media,” J. Comput. Phys., 268, pp. 39–50. [CrossRef]
Narayan, A. , Marzouk, Y. , and Xiu, D. , 2012, “ Sequential Data Assimilation With Multiple Models,” J. Comput. Phys., 231(1), pp. 6401–6418. [CrossRef]
Cressie, N. , 1993, Statistics for Spatial Data, Wiley, New York.
Gourdji, S. M. , Mueller, K. L. , Schaefer, K. , and Michalak, A. M. , 2008, “ Global Monthly Averaged CO2 Fluxes Recovered Using a Geostatistical Inverse Modeling Approach: 2. Results Including Auxiliary Environmental Data,” J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 113(D21), pp. 1–15. [CrossRef]
Rodgers, C. D. , 2000, Inverse Methods for Atmospheric Sounding: Theory and Practice, Vol. 2, World Scientific, Singapore. [CrossRef]
Forrester, A. I. , Sóbester, A. , and Keane, A. J. , 2007, “ Multi-Fidelity Optimization Via Surrogate Modelling,” Proc. R. Soc. A, 463(2088), pp. 3251–3269. [CrossRef]
Xiong, Y. , Chen, W. , and Tsui, K.-L. , 2008, “ A New Variable-Fidelity Optimization Framework Based on Model Fusion and Objective-Oriented Sequential Sampling,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 130(11), p. 111401. [CrossRef]
Kennedy, M. C. , and O'Hagan, A. , 2000, “ Predicting the Output From a Complex Computer Code When Fast Approximations are Available,” Biometrika, 87(1), pp. 1–13. [CrossRef]
Park, C. , Haftka, R. T. , and Kim, N. H. , 2016, “ Remarks on Multi-Fidelity Surrogates,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 55(3), pp. 1029–1050. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-016-1550-y
Higdon, D. , Kennedy, M. , Cavendish, J. C. , Cafeo, J. A. , and Ryne, R. D. , 2004, “ Combining Field Data and Computer Simulations for Calibration and Prediction,” SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 26(2), pp. 448–466. [CrossRef]
Le Gratiet, L. , 2013, “ Bayesian Analysis of Hierarchical Multifidelity Codes,” SIAM/ASA J. Uncertainty Quantif., 1(1), pp. 244–269. [CrossRef]
Huang, D. , Allen, T. , Notz, W. , and Miller, R. , 2006, “ Sequential Kriging Optimization Using Multiple-Fidelity Evaluations,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 32(5), pp. 369–382. [CrossRef]
Zhou, Q. , Shao, X. , Jiang, P. , Gao, Z. , Wang, C. , and Shu, L. , 2016, “ An Active Learning Metamodeling Approach by Sequentially Exploiting Difference Information From Variable-Fidelity Models,” Adv. Eng. Inf., 30(3), pp. 283–297. [CrossRef]
Williams, C. K. , and Rasmussen, C. E. , 2006, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Gramacy, R. B. , and Lee, H. K. , 2008, “ Bayesian Treed Gaussian Process Models With an Application to Computer Modeling,” J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 103(483), pp. 1119–1130. [CrossRef]
Arendt, P. D. , Apley, D. W. , and Chen, W. , 2012, “ Quantification of Model Uncertainty: Calibration, Model Discrepancy, and Identifiability,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 134(10), p. 100908. [CrossRef]
Helton, J. C. , and Davis, F. J. , 2003, “ Latin Hypercube Sampling and the Propagation of Uncertainty in Analyses of Complex Systems,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 81(1), pp. 23–69. [CrossRef]
Sacks, J. , Welch, W. J. , Mitchell, T. J. , and Wynn, H. P. , 1989, Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments (Statistical Science), JSTOR, New York, pp. 409–423.
Gregory, N. , and O'reilly, C. , 1973, “ Low-Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA 0012 Aerofoil Section, Including the Effects of Upper-Surface Roughness Simulating Hoar Frost,” HM Stationery Office, London, Report No. 3726. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.227.696&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Oberkampf, W. L. , and Roy, C. J. , 2010, Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. [CrossRef]
Voyles, I. T. , and Roy, C. J. , 2015, “ Evaluation of Model Validation Techniques in the Presence of Aleatory and Epistemic Input Uncertainties,” AIAA Paper No. 2015-1374. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-1374
Voyles, I. , and Roy, C. , 2014, “ Evaluation of Model Validation Techniques in the Presence of Uncertainty,” AIAA Paper No. 2014-0120. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2014-0120
Anderson, J. D., Jr. , 1985, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The dependence of the lift coefficient CL of a NACA-0012 airfoil section on AoA and Reynolds number Re. The three different flow regimes are demarcated with dash-dotted lines.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Plots of the synthetic response surface f(x1, x2) in Eq. (6). The three-dimensional elevated surface with contour is shown in panel (a), and the cross sections at several values x1 are shown in panel (b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) The prior distribution of the model discrepancy function δ is represented as a GP with a zero-mean function and a stationary kernel. (b) The posterior GP of δ given observation data at five input locations. In both the prior and the posterior GPs, the mean functions, 95% confidence intervals, and several random realizations from the GPs are indicated.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Corrected propagated uncertainty (bold solid line) based on the multimodel method compared with original results (light solid line) from the low-fidelity model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Response surfaces of (a) the mapping CL(α, M) constructed by RANS solutions and (b) model discrepancy of low-fidelity model (i.e., thin airfoil theory with the Prandtl–Glauert compressibility correction)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Corrected propagated uncertainty (bold solid line) based on the multimodel method compared with original results (light solid line) from the low-fidelity model. Ten high fidelity simulations are used.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Individual CDFs of QoI corrected by using 30 realizations of the GP (before aggregation) with (a) ten high-fidelity simulations and (b) 40 high-fidelity simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Propagated uncertainty distribution obtained by using the proposed multimodel method compared with those obtained by using the single-model approaches, i.e., with either high-fidelity model or the low-fidelity model alone

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Articles from Part A: Civil Engineering
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In