0
research-article

Learning an eddy viscosity model using shrinkage and Bayesian calibration: A jet-in-crossflow case study

[+] Author and Article Information
Jaideep Ray

MS 9159, PO Box 969, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California 94550
jairay@sandia.gov

Sophia Lefantzi

MS 9152, PO Box 969, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California 94550
slefant@sandia.gov

Srinivasan Arunajatesan

MS 0825, PO Box 5800, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185
sarunaj@sandia.gov

Lawrence DeChant

MS 0825, PO Box 5800, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185
ljdecha@sandia.gov

1Corresponding author.

ASME doi:10.1115/1.4037557 History: Received July 07, 2016; Revised August 02, 2017

Abstract

We demonstrate a statistical procedure for learning a high-order eddy viscosity model from experimental data and using it to improve the predictive skill of a Reynolds-Averaged Navier Stokes simulator. The method is tested in a 3D, transonic jet-in-crossflow configuration. The process starts with a cubic eddy viscosity model developed for incompressible flows. It is fitted to limited experimental jet-in-crossflow data using shrinkage regression. The shrinkage process removes all terms from the model, except an intercept, a linear term and a quadratic one involving the square of the vorticity. The shrunk eddy viscosity model is implemented in a Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes simulator and calibrated, using vorticity measurements, to infer three parameters. The calibration is Bayesian and is solved using a Markov chain Monte Carlo method. A three-dimensional probability density distribution for the inferred parameters is constructed, thus quantifying the uncertainty in the estimate. The phenomenal cost of using a 3D flow simulator inside a Markov chain Monte Carlo loop is mitigated by using surrogate models ("curve-fits"). A support vector machine classifier is used to impose our prior belief regarding parameter values, specifically to exclude non-physical parameter combinations. The calibrated model is compared, in terms of its predictive skill, to simulations using uncalibrated linear and cubic eddy viscosity models. We find that the calibrated model, with one quadratic term, is more accurate than the uncalibrated simulator. The model is also checked at a flow condition at which the model was not calibrated.

Section 3: U.S. Gov Contractors
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

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