Abstract
This paper discusses two stochastic approaches to computing the propagation of uncertainty in numerical simulations: polynomial chaos and stochastic collocation. Chebyshev polynomials are used in both cases for the conventional, deterministic portion of the discretization in physical space. For the stochastic parameters, polynomial chaos utilizes a Galerkin approximation based upon expansions in Hermite polynomials, whereas stochastic collocation rests upon a novel transformation between the stochastic space and an artificial space. In our present implementation of stochastic collocation, Legendre interpolating polynomials are employed. These methods are discussed in the specific context of a quasi-one-dimensional nozzle flow with uncertainty in inlet conditions and nozzle shape. It is shown that both stochastic approaches efficiently handle uncertainty propagation. Furthermore, these approaches enable computation of statistical moments of arbitrary order in a much more effective way than other usual techniques such as the Monte Carlo simulation or perturbation methods. The numerical results indicate that the stochastic collocation method is substantially more efficient than the full Galerkin, polynomial chaos method. Moreover, the stochastic collocation method extends readily to highly nonlinear equations. An important application is to the stochastic Riemann problem, which is of particular interest for spectral discontinuous Galerkin methods.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anon., AIAA guide for the verification and validation of computational fluid dynamics simulations, AIAA G-077-1998 (1998).
B. Cockburn, G.E. Karniadakis and C.-W. Shu, eds.,Discontinuous Galerkin Methods: Theory, Computation and Applications, Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, Vol. 11 (Springer, New York, 2000).
H.W. Coleman and F. Stern, Uncertainties and CFD code validation, J Fluids Engrg. 119 (1997) 795–803.
B.J. Debusschere, H.N. Najm, A. Matta, O.M. Knio, R.G. Ghanem and O.P. Le Maître, Protein labeling reactions in electrochemical microchannel flow: Numerical simulation and uncertainty propagation, Phys. Fluids 15(8) (2003) 2238–2250.
R.G. Ghanem and P.D. Spanos,Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral Approach (Springer, New York, 1991).
M.J. Hemsch, Statistical analysis of CFD solutions from the drag prediction workshop, AIAA-2002-0842 (2002).
L. Huyse, Free-form airfoil shape optimization under uncertainty using maximum expected value and second-order second-moment strategies, ICASE Report No. 2001-18 (2001).
L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz,Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 6.Fluid Mechanics (Pergamon, Oxford, 1982).
O.P. Le Maître, O.M. Knio, H.N. Najm and R.G. Ghanem, A stochastic projection for fluid flow. I—Basic formulation, J. Comput. Phys 173 (2001) 481–511.
O.P. Le Maître, M.T. Reagan, H.N. Najm, R.G. Ghanem and O.M. Knio, A stochastic projection for fluid flow. II—Random process, J. Comput. Phys. 181 (2002) 9–44.
H.W. Liepmann and A. Roshko,Elements of Gas Dynamics (Wiley, New York, 1957).
J.M. Luckring, M.J. Hemsch and J.H. Morrison, Uncertainty in computational aerodynamics, AIAA-2003-0409 (2003).
L. Mathelin and M.Y. Hussaini, A stochastic collocation algorithm, for uncertainty analysis, NASA/CR-2003-212153 (2003).
U.B. Mehta, Some aspects of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics results, J. Fluids Engrg. 113 (1991) 538–543.
W.L. Oberkampf and F.G. Blottner, Issues in computational fluid dynamics code verification and validation, AIAA J. 36 (1998) 687–695.
W.L. Oberkampf, K.V. Diegert, K.F. Alvin and B.M. Rutherford, Variability, uncertainty, and error in computational simulation, in:AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference, ASME-HTD, Vol. 357-2 (1998) pp. 259–272.
W.L. Oberkampf and T.G. Trucano, Verification and validation in computational fluid dynamics, Progress Aerospace Sci. 38(3) (2002) 209–272.
A.T. Patera, A spectral element method for fluid dynamics: Laminar flow in a channel expansion, J. Comput. Phys. 54 (1984) 468–488.
P.J. Roache,Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering, (Hermosa Publishers, Albuquerque, 1998).
G.A. Sod, A survey of several finite difference methods for systems of nonlinear hyperbolic conservation laws, J. Comput. Phys. 27 (1978) 1–31.
A.C. Taylor, L.L. Green, P.A. Newman and M.M. Putko, Some advanced concepts in discrete aerodynamic sensitivity analysis, AIAA J. 41(7) (2003) 1224–1229.
R.W. Walters and L. Huyse, Uncertainty analysis for fluid mechanics with applications, ICASE Report No. 2002-1 NASA/CR-2002-211449 (2002).
N. Wiener, The homogeneous chaos, Amer. J. Math. 60 (1938) 897–936.
D. Xiu, D. Lucor, C.-H. Su and G.E. Karniadakis, Stochastic modeling of flow-structure interactions using generalized polynomial chaos, J. Fluids Engrg. 124(1) (2002) 51–59.
D. Xiu and G.E. Karniadakis, The Wiener-Askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 24(2) (2002) 619–644.
D. Xiu and G.E. Karniadakis, Modeling uncertainty in flow simulations via generalized polynomial chaos, J. Comput. Phys. 187 (2003) 137–167.
T.A. Zang, M.J. Hemsch, M.W. Hilburger, S.P. Kenny, J.M. Luckring, P.M. Maghami, S.L. Padula and W.J. Stroud, Needs and opportunities for uncertainty-based multidisciplinary design methods for aerospace vehicles, NASA/TM-2002-211462 (2002).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mathelin, L., Hussaini, M.Y. & Zang, T.A. Stochastic approaches to uncertainty quantification in CFD simulations. Numer Algor 38, 209–236 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02810624
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02810624