Towards efficient uncertainty quantification with high-resolution morphodynamic models: A multifidelity approach applied to channel sedimentation

Abstract To guarantee port accessibility, navigation approach channels need to be well maintained. Annual dredging efforts to maintain navigable channels may well exceed tens of millions m 3 of sediment per year, which results in high recurrent costs for port operators. Quantification of expected siltation rates with process-based numerical models helps to effectively design and optimise approach channels. The setup of such models requires several assumptions and parameter settings which introduce uncertainty in model output. However, traditional Monte Carlo methods to quantify that uncertainty in model output are often too resource-intensive with current standard computer resources to be feasibly applied in coastal engineering projects such as approach channel design. Here, we use an alternative multifidelity approach to estimate the probability density function of channel siltation, at lower computational costs compared to direct Monte Carlo simulation. The idea behind this method is to map the output uncertainty of a faster, but inaccurate model to a preferred high-detailed model. The key requirement is that the faster, low-fidelity model and the detailed high-fidelity model are correlated, and that his correlation can be modelled with a probabilistic function. Since linearity of the correlation is not a requirement, the coarse-grid model can be very inaccurate but still serve as an adequate predictor of the high-fidelity model. In this study we did observe a highly nonlinear correlation, which in our case is explained by underestimation of channel siltation near the surf zone by the coarse model. In the presented multifidelity approach we adopted a combination of quasi-random Monte Carlo simulation and a non-parametric Gaussian process transfer function to estimate the uncertainty of total siltation and spatial patterns of siltation in a port approach channel. We argue that the multifidelity approach is conceptually straightforward and found that it can be used to significantly decrease the costs of probabilistic analysis; in our case we found a 85% decrease compared to direct Monte Carlo simulation. An additional advantage is that the approach allows for a trade-off between precision and efficiency by varying the number of high-fidelity model runs. Therefore, we conclude that the multifidelity framework is a potential powerful alternative for cases in which direct Monte Carlo simulation is infeasible or undesirable.

[1]  M. van der Wegen,et al.  Towards a probabilistic assessment of process-based, morphodynamic models , 2013 .

[2]  W. A. Wall,et al.  The impact of personalized probabilistic wall thickness models on peak wall stress in abdominal aortic aneurysms , 2018, International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering.

[3]  G. Egbert,et al.  Efficient Inverse Modeling of Barotropic Ocean Tides , 2002 .

[4]  A. Gelman Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models (comment on article by Browne and Draper) , 2004 .

[5]  Jord Jurriaan Warmink,et al.  Quantification of uncertainty in design water levels due to uncertain bed form roughness in the Dutch river Waal , 2013 .

[6]  Bryan A. Tolson,et al.  Review of surrogate modeling in water resources , 2012 .

[7]  R.M.J. Schielen,et al.  Piping erosion safety assessment of flood defences founded over sewer pipes , 2018 .

[8]  David P. Callaghan,et al.  An argument for probabilistic coastal hazard assessment: Retrospective examination of practice in New South Wales, Australia , 2014 .

[9]  J. Thepaut,et al.  The ERA‐Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system , 2011 .

[10]  John Salvatier,et al.  Probabilistic programming in Python using PyMC3 , 2016, PeerJ Comput. Sci..

[11]  Suzanne Hulscher,et al.  Efficient uncertainty quantification for impact analysis of human interventions in rivers , 2018, Environ. Model. Softw..

[12]  D. S. van Maren,et al.  The impact of channel deepening and dredging on estuarine sediment concentration , 2015 .

[13]  Andrea Castelletti,et al.  A general framework for Dynamic Emulation Modelling in environmental problems , 2012, Environ. Model. Softw..

[14]  A. Saltelli,et al.  Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices , 2002 .

[15]  Anthony J. Jakeman,et al.  A review of surrogate models and their application to groundwater modeling , 2015 .

[16]  Peter C. Young,et al.  Statistical Emulation of Large Linear Dynamic Models , 2011, Technometrics.

[17]  I. Sobol On the distribution of points in a cube and the approximate evaluation of integrals , 1967 .

[18]  David P. Callaghan,et al.  Drawing the line on coastline recession risk , 2016 .

[19]  A. O'Hagan,et al.  Predicting the output from a complex computer code when fast approximations are available , 2000 .

[20]  Shaina M. Sabatine,et al.  Evaluation of Parameter and Model Uncertainty in Simple Applications of a 1D Sediment Transport Model , 2015 .

[21]  E. Mosselman,et al.  Five common mistakes in fluvial morphodynamic modelling , 2014 .

[22]  Steven Kempler,et al.  Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Precipitation Data and Services for Research and Applications , 2012 .

[23]  Laura Uusitalo,et al.  An overview of methods to evaluate uncertainty of deterministic models in decision support , 2015, Environ. Model. Softw..

[24]  Patrick Cousot,et al.  Systematic design of program analysis frameworks , 1979, POPL.

[25]  Keith Beven,et al.  Influence of uncertain boundary conditions and model structure on flood inundation predictions. , 2006 .

[26]  N Oreskes,et al.  Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences , 1994, Science.

[27]  Ranasinghe W M R J B Ranasinghe Assessing climate change impacts on open sandy coasts: A review , 2016 .

[28]  Richard P. Dwight,et al.  Uncertainty quantification for a sailing yacht hull, using multi-fidelity kriging , 2015 .

[29]  Anthony J. Jakeman,et al.  Flood inundation modelling: A review of methods, recent advances and uncertainty analysis , 2017, Environ. Model. Softw..

[30]  David P. Callaghan,et al.  Statistical simulation of wave climate and extreme beach erosion , 2008 .

[31]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  The No-U-turn sampler: adaptively setting path lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[32]  Avi Ostfeld,et al.  Data-driven modelling: some past experiences and new approaches , 2008 .

[33]  P. Bates,et al.  Identifiability of distributed floodplain roughness values in flood extent estimation , 2005 .

[34]  Frances Y. Kuo,et al.  Constructing Sobol Sequences with Better Two-Dimensional Projections , 2008, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[35]  G. Stefanou The stochastic finite element method: Past, present and future , 2009 .

[36]  Inigo J. Losada,et al.  The influence of seasonality on estimating return values of significant wave height , 2009 .

[37]  N. Booij,et al.  A third-generation wave model for coastal regions-1 , 1999 .

[38]  Phaedon-Stelios Koutsourelakis,et al.  Accurate Uncertainty Quantification Using Inaccurate Computational Models , 2009, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[39]  R. Caflisch,et al.  Quasi-Monte Carlo integration , 1995 .

[40]  David P. Callaghan,et al.  Probabilistic estimation of storm erosion using analytical, semi-empirical, and process based storm erosion models , 2013 .

[41]  Uwe Naumann,et al.  First-order uncertainty analysis using Algorithmic Differentiation of morphodynamic models , 2016, Comput. Geosci..

[42]  Carl E. Rasmussen,et al.  Gaussian processes for machine learning , 2005, Adaptive computation and machine learning.

[43]  P. S. Heyns,et al.  An integrated Gaussian process regression for prediction of remaining useful life of slow speed bearings based on acoustic emission , 2017 .

[44]  Huib J. de Vriend,et al.  Stochastic Modelling of the Impact of Flood Protection Measures Along the River Waal in the Netherlands , 2005 .

[45]  Dirk Sebastiaan van Maren,et al.  Uncertainty in complex three-dimensional sediment transport models: equifinality in a model application of the Ems Estuary, the Netherlands , 2016, Ocean Dynamics.

[46]  P. Young,et al.  Simplicity out of complexity in environmental modelling: Occam's razor revisited. , 1996 .

[47]  G. Stelling,et al.  Development and validation of a three-dimensional morphological model , 2004 .

[48]  W. Wall,et al.  Towards efficient uncertainty quantification in complex and large-scale biomechanical problems based on a Bayesian multi-fidelity scheme , 2014, Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology.

[49]  X. Bertin,et al.  Space and time variability of uncertainty in morphodynamic simulations , 2009 .