Quantification of Uncertainties in Turbulence Modeling: A Comparison of Physics-Based and Random Matrix Theoretic Approaches

Abstract Numerical models based on Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations are widely used in engineering turbulence modeling. However, the RANS predictions have large model-form uncertainties for many complex flows, e.g., those with non-parallel shear layers or strong mean flow curvature. Quantification of these large uncertainties originating from the modeled Reynolds stresses has attracted attention in the turbulence modeling community. Recently, a physics-based Bayesian framework for quantifying model-form uncertainties has been proposed with successful applications to several flows. Nonetheless, how to specify proper priors without introducing unwarranted, artificial information remains challenging to the current form of the physics-based approach. Another recently proposed method based on random matrix theory provides the prior distributions with maximum entropy, which is an alternative for model-form uncertainty quantification in RANS simulations. This method has better mathematical rigorousness and provides the most non-committal prior distributions without introducing artificial constraints. On the other hand, the physics-based approach has the advantages of being more flexible to incorporate available physical insights. In this work, we compare and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches on model-form uncertainty quantification. In addition, we utilize the random matrix theoretic approach to assess and possibly improve the specification of priors used in the physics-based approach. The comparison is conducted through a test case using a canonical flow, the flow past periodic hills. The numerical results show that, to achieve maximum entropy in the prior of Reynolds stresses, the perturbations of shape parameters in Barycentric coordinates are normally distributed. Moreover, the perturbations of the turbulence kinetic energy should conform to log-normal distributions. Finally, the result sheds light on how large the variance of each physical variable should be compared with each other to achieve the approximate maximum entropy prior. The conclusion can be used as a guidance for specifying proper priors in the physics-based, Bayesian uncertainty quantification framework.

[1]  Pierre Sagaut,et al.  Epistemic uncertainties in RANS model free coefficients , 2014 .

[2]  E. Jaynes.  Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics , 1957 .

[3]  Qiqi Wang,et al.  Quantification of structural uncertainties in the k − ω turbulence model , 2010 .

[4]  Gianluca Iaccarino,et al.  Modeling Structural Uncertainties in Reynolds-Averaged Computations of Shock/Boundary Layer Interactions , 2011 .

[5]  Tiangang Cui,et al.  Scalable posterior approximations for large-scale Bayesian inverse problems via likelihood-informed parameter and state reduction , 2015, J. Comput. Phys..

[6]  P. Cinnella,et al.  Predictive RANS simulations via Bayesian Model-Scenario Averaging , 2014, J. Comput. Phys..

[7]  K. S. Ball,et al.  Dynamical eigenfunction decomposition of turbulent channel flow , 1991, physics/0608257.

[8]  Hester Bijl,et al.  Bayesian estimates of parameter variability in the k-ε turbulence model , 2014, J. Comput. Phys..

[9]  F. Durst,et al.  Presentation of anisotropy properties of turbulence, invariants versus eigenvalue approaches , 2007 .

[10]  Heng Xiao,et al.  Incorporating Prior Knowledge for Quantifying and Reducing Model-Form Uncertainty in RANS Simulations , 2015 .

[11]  Silviu Guiasu,et al.  The principle of maximum entropy , 1985 .

[12]  Solomon Kullback,et al.  Information Theory and Statistics , 1970, The Mathematical Gazette.

[13]  J. W. Humberston.  Classical mechanics , 1980, Nature.

[14]  Anil K. Bera,et al.  Maximum entropy autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity model , 2009 .

[15]  Christian Soize.  A nonparametric model of random uncertainties for reduced matrix models in structural dynamics , 2000 .

[16]  S. Kullback,et al.  Information Theory and Statistics , 1959 .

[17]  Gianluca Iaccarino,et al.  Modeling of structural uncertainties in Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes closures , 2013 .

[18]  J.-L. Wu,et al.  A Bayesian Calibration–Prediction Method for Reducing Model-Form Uncertainties with Application in RANS Simulations , 2015, 1510.06040.

[19]  Roger G. Ghanem,et al.  A Bounded Random Matrix Approach for Stochastic Upscaling , 2009, Multiscale Model. Simul..

[20]  Todd A. Oliver,et al.  UNCERTAINTY QUANTIFICATION FOR RANS TURBULENCE MODEL PREDICTIONS , 2009 .

[21]  O. L. Maître,et al.  Spectral Methods for Uncertainty Quantification: With Applications to Computational Fluid Dynamics , 2010 .

[22]  Andrew M. Stuart,et al.  Evaluating Data Assimilation Algorithms , 2011, ArXiv.

[23]  Gianluca Iaccarino,et al.  A framework for epistemic uncertainty quantification of turbulent scalar flux models for Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes simulations , 2013 .

[24]  Michael Manhart,et al.  Flow over periodic hills – Numerical and experimental study in a wide range of Reynolds numbers , 2009 .

[25]  C. J. Roy,et al.  Quantifying Model-Form Uncertainties in Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes Equations: An Open-Box, Physics-Based, Bayesian Approach , 2015 .

[26]  R. Ghanem,et al.  Polynomial chaos decomposition for the simulation of non-gaussian nonstationary stochastic processes , 2002 .

[27]  Heng Xiao,et al.  A random matrix approach for quantifying model-form uncertainties in turbulence modeling , 2016, 1603.09656.

[28]  Ben Calderhead,et al.  A general construction for parallelizing Metropolis−Hastings algorithms , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  H. C. Corben,et al.  Classical Mechanics (2nd ed.) , 1961 .