关于离散化不确定性的量化:两种范式的比较

J. Bect, S. Zio, G. Perrin, C. Cannamela, E. Vázquez
{"title":"关于离散化不确定性的量化:两种范式的比较","authors":"J. Bect, S. Zio, G. Perrin, C. Cannamela, E. Vázquez","doi":"10.23967/wccm-eccomas.2020.260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Numerical models based on partial differential equations (PDE), or integro-differential equations, are ubiquitous in engineering and science, making it possible to understand or design systems for which physical experiments would be expensive-sometimes impossible-to carry out. Such models usually construct an approximate solution of the underlying continuous equations, using discretization methods such as finite differences or the finite elements method. The resulting discretization error introduces a form of uncertainty on the exact but unknown value of any quantity of interest (QoI), which affects the predictions of the numerical model alongside other sources of uncertainty such as parametric uncertainty or model inadequacy. The present article deals with the quantification of this discretization uncertainty.A first approach to this problem, now standard in the V\\&V (Verification and Validation) literature, uses the grid convergence index (GCI) originally proposed by P. Roache in the field of computational fluid dynamics (CFD), which is based on the Richardson extrapolation technique. Another approach, based on Bayesian inference with Gaussian process models, was more recently introduced in the statistical literature. In this work we present and compare these two paradigms for the quantification of discretization uncertainty, which have been developped in different scientific communities, and assess the potential of the-younger-Bayesian approach to provide a replacement for the well-established GCI-based approach, with better probabilistic foundations. The methods are illustrated and evaluated on two standard test cases from the literature (lid-driven cavity and Timoshenko beam).","PeriodicalId":148883,"journal":{"name":"14th WCCM-ECCOMAS Congress","volume":"146 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Quantification of Discretization Uncertainty: Comparison of Two Paradigms\",\"authors\":\"J. Bect, S. Zio, G. Perrin, C. Cannamela, E. Vázquez\",\"doi\":\"10.23967/wccm-eccomas.2020.260\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Numerical models based on partial differential equations (PDE), or integro-differential equations, are ubiquitous in engineering and science, making it possible to understand or design systems for which physical experiments would be expensive-sometimes impossible-to carry out. Such models usually construct an approximate solution of the underlying continuous equations, using discretization methods such as finite differences or the finite elements method. The resulting discretization error introduces a form of uncertainty on the exact but unknown value of any quantity of interest (QoI), which affects the predictions of the numerical model alongside other sources of uncertainty such as parametric uncertainty or model inadequacy. The present article deals with the quantification of this discretization uncertainty.A first approach to this problem, now standard in the V\\\\&V (Verification and Validation) literature, uses the grid convergence index (GCI) originally proposed by P. Roache in the field of computational fluid dynamics (CFD), which is based on the Richardson extrapolation technique. Another approach, based on Bayesian inference with Gaussian process models, was more recently introduced in the statistical literature. In this work we present and compare these two paradigms for the quantification of discretization uncertainty, which have been developped in different scientific communities, and assess the potential of the-younger-Bayesian approach to provide a replacement for the well-established GCI-based approach, with better probabilistic foundations. The methods are illustrated and evaluated on two standard test cases from the literature (lid-driven cavity and Timoshenko beam).\",\"PeriodicalId\":148883,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"14th WCCM-ECCOMAS Congress\",\"volume\":\"146 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"14th WCCM-ECCOMAS Congress\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23967/wccm-eccomas.2020.260\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"14th WCCM-ECCOMAS Congress","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23967/wccm-eccomas.2020.260","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

基于偏微分方程(PDE)或积分微分方程的数值模型在工程和科学中无处不在,这使得理解或设计物理实验昂贵(有时不可能进行)的系统成为可能。这种模型通常使用离散化方法,如有限差分法或有限元法,来构造潜在连续方程的近似解。由此产生的离散化误差对任何兴趣量(qi)的精确但未知的值引入了一种形式的不确定性,这会影响数值模型的预测以及其他不确定性来源,如参数不确定性或模型不充分性。本文讨论了这种离散化不确定性的量化。解决这个问题的第一种方法是使用网格收敛指数(GCI),该指数最初是由P. Roache在计算流体动力学(CFD)领域提出的,基于Richardson外推技术,现在已成为V\&V(验证和验证)文献中的标准方法。另一种方法,基于高斯过程模型的贝叶斯推理,最近在统计文献中被引入。在这项工作中,我们提出并比较了这两种在不同科学界发展起来的离散化不确定性量化范式,并评估了年轻贝叶斯方法的潜力,以更好的概率基础取代已建立的基于gci的方法。通过文献中的两个标准测试案例(盖驱动腔和Timoshenko梁)对这些方法进行了说明和评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On the Quantification of Discretization Uncertainty: Comparison of Two Paradigms
Numerical models based on partial differential equations (PDE), or integro-differential equations, are ubiquitous in engineering and science, making it possible to understand or design systems for which physical experiments would be expensive-sometimes impossible-to carry out. Such models usually construct an approximate solution of the underlying continuous equations, using discretization methods such as finite differences or the finite elements method. The resulting discretization error introduces a form of uncertainty on the exact but unknown value of any quantity of interest (QoI), which affects the predictions of the numerical model alongside other sources of uncertainty such as parametric uncertainty or model inadequacy. The present article deals with the quantification of this discretization uncertainty.A first approach to this problem, now standard in the V\&V (Verification and Validation) literature, uses the grid convergence index (GCI) originally proposed by P. Roache in the field of computational fluid dynamics (CFD), which is based on the Richardson extrapolation technique. Another approach, based on Bayesian inference with Gaussian process models, was more recently introduced in the statistical literature. In this work we present and compare these two paradigms for the quantification of discretization uncertainty, which have been developped in different scientific communities, and assess the potential of the-younger-Bayesian approach to provide a replacement for the well-established GCI-based approach, with better probabilistic foundations. The methods are illustrated and evaluated on two standard test cases from the literature (lid-driven cavity and Timoshenko beam).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信