Paper detail

Evaluation of ensemble methods for quantifying uncertainties in steady-state CFD applications with small ensemble sizes

Bayesian uncertainty quantification (UQ) is of interest to industry and academia as it provides a framework for quantifying and reducing the uncertainty in computational models by incorporating available data. For systems with very high computational costs, for instance, the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) problem, the conventional, exact Bayesian approach such as Markov chain Monte Carlo is intractable. To this end, the ensemble-based Bayesian methods have been used for CFD applications. However, their applicability for UQ has not been fully analyzed and understood thus far. Here, we evaluate the performance of three widely used iterative ensemble-based data assimilation methods, namely ensemble Kalman filter, ensemble randomized maximum likelihood method, and ensemble Kalman filter with multiple data assimilation for UQ problems. We present the derivations of the three ensemble methods from an optimization viewpoint. Further, a scalar case is used to demonstrate the performance of the three different approaches with emphasis on the effects of small ensemble sizes. Finally, we assess the three ensemble methods for quantifying uncertainties in steady-state CFD problems involving turbulent mean flows. Specifically, the Reynolds averaged Navier--Stokes (RANS) equation is considered the forward model, and the uncertainties in the propagated velocity are quantified and reduced by incorporating observation data. The results show that the ensemble methods cannot accurately capture the true posterior distribution, but they can provide a good estimation of the uncertainties even when very limited ensemble sizes are used. Based on the overall performance and efficiency from the comparison, the ensemble randomized maximum likelihood method is identified as the best choice of approximate Bayesian UQ approach~among the three ensemble methods evaluated here.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.