4.2 Article

INCORPORATING PRIOR KNOWLEDGE FOR QUANTIFYING AND REDUCING MODEL-FORM UNCERTAINTY IN RANS SIMULATIONS

Journal

Publisher

BEGELL HOUSE INC
DOI: 10.1615/Int.J.UncertaintyQuantification.2016015984

Keywords

uncertainty quantification; prior knowledge; turbulence modeling; Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Simulations based on Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) models have been used to support high-consequence decisions related to turbulent flows. Apart from the deterministic model predictions, the decision makers are often equally concerned about the prediction confidence. Among the uncertainties in RANS simulations, the model form uncertainty is an important or even a dominant source. Therefore, quantifying and reducing the model form uncertainties in RANS simulations are of critical importance to make risk-informed decisions. Researchers in statistics communities have made efforts on this issue by considering numerical models as black boxes. However, this physics-neutral approach is not a most efficient use of data, and is not practical for most engineering problems. Recently, we proposed an open-box, Bayesian framework for quantifying and reducing model form uncertainties in RANS simulations based on observation data and physics-prior knowledge. It can incorporate the information from the vast body of existing empirical knowledge with mathematical rigor, which enables a more efficient usage of data. In this work, we examine the merits of incorporating various types of prior knowledge in the uncertainties quantification and reduction in RANS simulations. The result demonstrates that informative physics-based prior knowledge plays an important role in improving the performance of model form uncertainty reduction, particularly when the observation data are limited. Moreover, it suggests that the proposed Bayesian framework is an effective way to incorporate empirical knowledge from various sources of turbulence modeling.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available