Intrusive acceleration strategies for Uncertainty Quantification for hyperbolic systems of conservation laws

Methods for quantifying the effects of uncertainties in hyperbolic problems can be divided into intrusive and non-intrusive techniques. Non-intrusive methods allow the usage of a given deterministic solver in a black-box manner, while being embarrassingly parallel. However, avoiding intrusive modifications of a given solver takes away the ability to use several inherently intrusive numerical acceleration tools. Moreover, intrusive methods are expected to reach a given accuracy with a smaller number of unknowns compared to non-intrusive techniques. This effect is amplified in settings with high dimensional uncertainty. A downside of intrusive methods is however the need to guarantee hyperbolicity of the resulting moment system. In contrast to stochastic-Galerkin (SG), the Intrusive Polynomial Moment (IPM) method is able to maintain hyperbolicity at the cost of solving an optimization problem in every spatial cell and every time step. In this work, we propose several acceleration techniques for intrusive methods and study their advantages and shortcomings compared to the non-intrusive Stochastic Collocation method. When solving steady problems with IPM, the numerical costs arising from repeatedly solving the IPM optimization problem can be reduced by using concepts from PDE-constrained optimization. Additionally, we propose an adaptive implementation and efficient parallelization strategy of the IPM method. The effectiveness of the proposed adaptations is demonstrated for multi-dimensional uncertainties in fluid dynamics applications, resulting in the observation of requiring a smaller number of unknowns to achieve a given accuracy when using intrusive methods. Furthermore, using the proposed acceleration techniques, our implementation reaches a given accuracy faster than Stochastic Collocation.

[1]  Siddhartha Mishra,et al.  Sparse tensor multi-level Monte Carlo finite volume methods for hyperbolic conservation laws with random initial data , 2012, Math. Comput..

[2]  Ionel M. Navon,et al.  The estimation of functional uncertainty using polynomial chaos and adjoint equations , 2011 .

[3]  Louisa Schlachter,et al.  A hyperbolicity-preserving discontinuous stochastic Galerkin scheme for uncertain hyperbolic systems of equations , 2018, J. Comput. Appl. Math..

[4]  Gaël Poëtte,et al.  A gPC-intrusive Monte-Carlo scheme for the resolution of the uncertain linear Boltzmann equation , 2019, J. Comput. Phys..

[5]  Martin Frank,et al.  Filtered stochastic Galerkin methods for hyperbolic equations , 2018, J. Comput. Phys..

[6]  Bruno Després,et al.  Uncertainty quantification for systems of conservation laws , 2009, J. Comput. Phys..

[7]  B. Perthame,et al.  Boltzmann type schemes for gas dynamics and the entropy property , 1990 .

[8]  R. Ghanem,et al.  Uncertainty propagation using Wiener-Haar expansions , 2004 .

[9]  Jan Nordström,et al.  Numerical analysis of the Burgers' equation in the presence of uncertainty , 2009, J. Comput. Phys..

[10]  Hendrik Ranocha,et al.  Stability of correction procedure via reconstruction with summation-by-parts operators for Burgers' equation using a polynomial chaos approach , 2017, ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis.

[11]  Alexandre Ern,et al.  Intrusive Galerkin methods with upwinding for uncertain nonlinear hyperbolic systems , 2010, J. Comput. Phys..

[12]  Svetlana Tokareva,et al.  Numerical Solution of Scalar Conservation Laws with Random Flux Functions , 2016, SIAM/ASA J. Uncertain. Quantification.

[13]  Shi Jin,et al.  A Stochastic Galerkin Method for Hamilton-Jacobi Equations with Uncertainty , 2015, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[14]  Habib N. Najm,et al.  Numerical Challenges in the Use of Polynomial Chaos Representations for Stochastic Processes , 2005, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[15]  R. Ghanem,et al.  Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral Approach , 1990 .

[16]  N. Wiener The Homogeneous Chaos , 1938 .

[17]  Fabio Nobile,et al.  A Sparse Grid Stochastic Collocation Method for Partial Differential Equations with Random Input Data , 2008, SIAM J. Numer. Anal..

[18]  Lloyd N. Trefethen,et al.  Cubature, Approximation, and Isotropy in the Hypercube , 2017, SIAM Rev..

[19]  Kailiang Wu,et al.  A stochastic Galerkin method for first-order quasilinear hyperbolic systems with uncertainty , 2016, J. Comput. Phys..

[20]  B. Perthame Second-order Boltzmann schemes for compressible Euler equations in one and two space dimensions , 1992 .

[21]  Alexandre Ern,et al.  Adaptive Anisotropic Spectral Stochastic Methods for Uncertain Scalar Conservation Laws , 2012, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[22]  Timothy J. Barth,et al.  Non-intrusive Uncertainty Propagation with Error Bounds for Conservation Laws Containing Discontinuities , 2013, Uncertainty Quantification in Computational Fluid Dynamics.

[23]  C. Rohde,et al.  Finite volume schemes for hyperbolic balance laws with multiplicative noise , 2012 .

[24]  D. Xiu Fast numerical methods for stochastic computations: A review , 2009 .

[25]  D K Smith,et al.  Numerical Optimization , 2001, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[26]  Joel Brezillon,et al.  Aerodynamic shape optimization using simultaneous pseudo-timestepping , 2005 .

[27]  S. M. Deshpande,et al.  Kinetic theory based new upwind methods for inviscid compressible flows , 1986 .

[28]  Fabio Nobile,et al.  A Stochastic Collocation Method for Elliptic Partial Differential Equations with Random Input Data , 2007, SIAM Rev..

[29]  Dongbin Xiu,et al.  High-Order Collocation Methods for Differential Equations with Random Inputs , 2005, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[30]  Roger Ghanem,et al.  Stochastic Finite Element Analysis for Multiphase Flow in Heterogeneous Porous Media , 1998 .

[31]  Shi Jin,et al.  A stochastic Galerkin method for the Boltzmann equation with uncertainty , 2016, J. Comput. Phys..

[32]  Cory D. Hauck,et al.  Optimization and large scale computation of an entropy-based moment closure , 2015, J. Comput. Phys..

[33]  Jeroen A. S. Witteveen,et al.  Adaptive Uncertainty Quantification for Computational Fluid Dynamics , 2013, Uncertainty Quantification in Computational Fluid Dynamics.

[34]  P. Lax,et al.  On Upstream Differencing and Godunov-Type Schemes for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws , 1983 .

[35]  H. Bijl,et al.  Probabilistic collocation used in a Two-Step approached for efficient uncertainty quantification in computational fluid dynamics , 2009 .

[36]  M. Frank,et al.  Maximum-principle-satisfying second-order Intrusive Polynomial Moment scheme , 2017, The SMAI journal of computational mathematics.

[37]  Christian Rohde,et al.  A posteriori error analysis for random scalar conservation laws using the stochastic Galerkin method , 2017, IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis.

[38]  Eastman N. Jacobs,et al.  The characteristics of 78 related airfoil sections from tests in the variable-density wind tunnel , 1932 .

[39]  Jonas Sukys,et al.  Multi-level Monte Carlo finite volume methods for nonlinear systems of conservation laws in multi-dimensions , 2012, J. Comput. Phys..

[40]  G. Karniadakis,et al.  Multi-Element Generalized Polynomial Chaos for Arbitrary Probability Measures , 2006, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[41]  Dongbin Xiu,et al.  The Wiener-Askey Polynomial Chaos for Stochastic Differential Equations , 2002, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[42]  J. Peraire,et al.  Sub-Cell Shock Capturing for Discontinuous Galerkin Methods , 2006 .

[43]  J. Alonso,et al.  SU2: An Open-Source Suite for Multiphysics Simulation and Design , 2016 .

[44]  Louisa Schlachter,et al.  A hyperbolicity-preserving stochastic Galerkin approximation for uncertain hyperbolic systems of equations , 2017, J. Comput. Phys..