Quantified Validation with Uncertainty Analysis for Turbulent Single-Phase Friction Models

Abstract This paper introduces a framework for model selection that includes parameter estimation, uncertainty propagation, and quantified validation. The framework is applied to single-phase turbulent friction modeling in CTF, which is a thermal-hydraulic code for nuclear engineering applications. The friction model is chosen because it is well understood and easy to separate from other physics, which allows focus to be on the model selection framework instead of on the particulars of the chosen model. Two different empirical models are compared: the McAdams Correlation and the Simplified McAdams Correlation. The parameter estimation is performed by calibrating each of the friction models to experimental data using the Delayed Rejection Adaptive Metropolis algorithm, which is a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method. State point uncertainties are also considered, which are determined based on measurement errors from the experiment. The input parameter distributions are propagated through CTF using a statistical method with samples. A variety of validation metrics is used to quantify which empirical model is more accurate. It is shown that model form uncertainty can be quantified using validation once all other sources of uncertainty—numerical, sampling, experimental, and parameter—have been quantitatively addressed. When multiple models are available, the one that has the smallest model form error can be selected. Though the framework is applied to a simple example here, the same process can quantify the model form uncertainty of more complicated physics, multiple models, and simulation tools in other fields. Therefore, this work is a demonstration of best practices for future assessments of model form uncertainty.

[1]  A. Mira On Metropolis-Hastings algorithms with delayed rejection , 2001 .

[2]  James Williamson,et al.  THE LAWS OF FLOW IN ROUGH PIPES , 1951 .

[3]  J. Nikuradse Laws of Flow in Rough Pipes , 1950 .

[4]  Horst Glaeser,et al.  GRS Method for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Evaluation of Code Results and Applications , 2008 .

[5]  Timothy G. Trucano,et al.  Predictive Capability Maturity Model for computational modeling and simulation. , 2007 .

[6]  Yoshiyuki Tsuji,et al.  Friction factor and mean velocity profile for pipe flow at high Reynolds numbers , 2015 .

[7]  A. O'Hagan,et al.  Bayesian calibration of computer models , 2001 .

[8]  Kathleen L. Schmidt Uncertainty Quantification for Mixed-Effects Models with Applications in Nuclear Engineering. , 2016 .

[9]  J.P.C. Kleijnen Comments on M.C. Kennedy & A. O'Hagan : 'Bayesian calibration of computer models' , 2001 .

[10]  A. Smits,et al.  Mean-flow scaling of turbulent pipe flow , 1998, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[11]  Eugene Chen Koo Mechanisms of isothermal and non-isothermal flow of fluids in pipes , 1932 .

[12]  Ralph C. Smith,et al.  Uncertainty Quantification: Theory, Implementation, and Applications , 2013 .

[13]  Russell J. Donnelly,et al.  Pipe flow measurements over a wide range of Reynolds numbers using liquid helium and various gases , 2002, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[14]  Mohamed S. Ebeida,et al.  Dakota, A Multilevel Parallel Object-Oriented Framework for Design Optimization, Parameter Estimation, Uncertainty Quantification, and Sensitivity Analysis: Version 6.13 User's Manual. , 2020 .

[15]  H. Haario,et al.  An adaptive Metropolis algorithm , 2001 .

[16]  Kostadin Ivanov,et al.  BENCHMARK FOR UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS IN MODELING (UAM) FOR DESIGN, OPERATION AND SAFETY ANALYSIS OF LWRs , 2007 .

[17]  Fred C. Scobey The Flow of Water in Riveted Steel and Analogous Pipes , 1930 .

[18]  Christopher J. Roy,et al.  Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing , 2010 .

[19]  M. R. Head,et al.  Some observations on skin friction and velocity profiles in fully developed pipe and channel flows , 1969, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[20]  Sandia Report,et al.  DAKOTA, A Multilevel Parallel Object-Oriented Framework for Design Optimization, Parameter Estimation, Uncertainty Quantification, and Sensitivity Analysis Version 4.0 User's Manual , 2006 .

[21]  Heikki Haario,et al.  DRAM: Efficient adaptive MCMC , 2006, Stat. Comput..

[22]  Arjan J. Koning,et al.  Nuclear data uncertainty propagation: Perturbation vs. Monte Carlo , 2011 .

[23]  Laura Painton Swiler,et al.  Validation Metrics for Deterministic and Probabilistic Data , 2017, Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification.

[24]  D. Rubin,et al.  Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences , 1992 .