Essentially Non-oscillatory Stencil Selection and Subcell Resolution in Uncertainty Quantification
The essentially non-oscillatory stencil selection and subcell resolution robustness concepts from finite volume methods for computational fluid dynamics are extended to uncertainty quantification for the reliable approximation of discontinuities in stochastic computational problems. These two robustness principles are introduced into the simplex stochastic collocation uncertainty quantification method, which discretizes the probability space using a simplex tessellation of sampling points and piecewise higher-degree polynomial interpolation. The essentially non-oscillatory stencil selection obtains a sharper refinement of discontinuities by choosing the interpolation stencil with the highest polynomial degree from a set of candidate stencils for constructing the local response surface approximation. The subcell resolution approach achieves a genuinely discontinuous representation of random spatial discontinuities in the interior of the simplexes by resolving the discontinuity location in the probability space explicitly and by extending the stochastic response surface approximations up to the predicted discontinuity location. The advantages of the presented approaches are illustrated by the results for a step function, the linear advection equation, a shock tube Riemann problem, and the transonic flow over the RAE 2822 airfoil.
KeywordsMonte Carlo Transonic Flow Response Surface Approximation Discontinuity Location High Polynomial Degree
This work was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and the European Union Marie Curie Cofund Action under Rubicon grant 680-50-1002.
- 1.Abgrall R (2010) A simple, Flexible and generic deterministic approach to uncertainty quantifications in nonlinear problems: application to fluid flow problems. In: Proceedings of the 5th European conference on computational fluid dynamics, ECCOMAS CFD, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
- 6.Barth T (2011) UQ methods for nonlinear conservation laws containing discontinuities. In: AVT-193 Lecture Series on Uncertainty Quantification, RTO-AVT-VKI Short Course on Uncertainty Quantification, Stanford, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
- 9.Cook PH, McDonald MA (1979) Firmin MCP, Aerofoil RAE 2822 – pressure distributions, and boundary layer and wake measurements. Experimental data base for computer program assessment, AGARD report AR 138Google Scholar
- 10.Dwight RP, Witteveen JAS, Bijl H (this issue) Adaptive uncertainty quantification for computational fluid dynamics. In: Uncertainty quantification, Lecture notes in computational science and engineering, SpringerGoogle Scholar
- 20.Onorato G, Loeven GJA, Ghorbaniasl G, Bijl H, Lacor C (2010) Comparison of intrusive and non-intrusive polynomial chaos methods for CFD applications in aeronautics. In: Proceedings of the 5th European conference on computational fluid dynamics, ECCOMAS CFD, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
- 21.Pettit CL, Beran PS (2006) Convergence studies of Wiener expansions for computational nonlinear mechanics. In: Proceedings of the 8th AIAA non-deterministic approaches conference, Newport, Rhode Island, AIAA-2006-1993Google Scholar
- 35.Witteveen JAS, Iaccarino G (submitted) Subcell resolution in simplex stochastic collocation for spatial discontinuitiesGoogle Scholar