Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sharath S. Girimaji
Department of Aerospace Engineering
Texas A&M University
2011 Annual meeting of
American Physical Society Division of Fluid Dynamics Baltimore, Maryland
November 20, 2011
Motivation
Someday CFD will replace experiments as the main design tool
Are we there yet? Not really
Why not? Turbulence modeling, numerics etc.
Which is more important? Modeling errors (IMHO)
Current modeling status Making lines pass through symbols,
Current engineering models not predictive
but post-dictive
For engineering turbulence models to become predictive tools:
1.Improve fidelity
2. Uncertainty quantification
UQ in turbulence context
How do you assess error/uncertainty of a chaotic system?
Is the concept of UQ meaningful in turbulence computations?
Is standard UQ terminology/framework applicable to turbulence?
Best we can do: Ignorance management UQ
What should we aim for: In the absence of data
Catastrophic failure detection
Physics-based error/uncertainty estimates
Or at least: as in Hurricane trajectory predictions
Multi-valued prediction envelop; not a single-valued prediction
Multiple calculations w/different models
Further Questions
Is Reynolds stress a metric of error in mean flow prediction?
Yes: In a well-conducted experiment
No: In a good numerical implementation of a bad model
No: In a bad numerical implementation of a good model
May be: In a good numerical implementation of a good model
Therefore,
1)Mean flow UQ is possible only if Reynolds stress is reliable
2)UQ of Reynolds stress is necessary
Objectives
Develop a framework for UQ of Reynolds
stress Rij:
Identify general sources of uncertainties in R ij
Characterize and categorize general sources of
uncertainties
Develop guidelines/procedures for quantifying
source errors
Sources of Uncertainty
Model Calculations: Mean and moments are not chaotic
Numerical errors: aleatoric/epistemic standard V&V may apply
Closure errors: Type of error depends upon the level of modeling
Empirical models large aleatoric errors
Physics-based models more epistemic errors
Incomplete UQ of C
Given the constitutive model
ij
= -C Sij
NavierStokes
Equations
Multipoint/global
stability effects
7-eqn. SMC
ARSM
reduction
Spectral and
dissipative
processes
2-eqn. ARSM
Linear
Pressure
Effects:
RDT
Nonlin
ear
pressu
re
effects
Averaging
Invariance
2-eqn. PANS
DNS
LES
RANS
Application
Global Instabilities
Flow instabilities are the biggest reason of RSCM error
Ominous sign 1:
Large variation in velocity gradients
Ominous sign 2:
Vanishing 2nd derivative
Most unstable
mode
Most unstable
mode
Envelope of
probable
behavior
Locality and incomplete basis are main reasons for epistemic uncertainty
Success of UQ hinges on how well we can fill-in incomplete information
Critical Uncertainty 1: Global stability effects
Virtually impossible to fill-in at one-point closure level
No option but resolve
Critical Uncertainty 2: Rapid-pressure strain correlation
Possible to place bounds on missing information M tensor
Other RSCM uncertainties are less critical and can be managed
UQ for RANS-LES hybrids can be addressed within this framework
ijkl
Further observations
Future investments: Improved closure fidelity Vs. UQ?