0
Research Papers

Multiscale Validation and Uncertainty Quantification for Problems With Sparse Data

[+] Author and Article Information
Anchal Jatale

Institute for Clean and Secure Energy,
Department of Chemical Engineering,
University of Utah,
155 S 1452 E #350,
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
e-mail: anchal.jatale@gmail.com

Philip J. Smith

Institute for Clean and Secure Energy,
Department of Chemical Engineering,
University of Utah,
155 S 1452 E #350,
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
e-mail: philip.smith@utah.edu

Jeremy N. Thornock

Institute for Clean and Secure Energy,
Department of Chemical Engineering,
University of Utah,
155 S 1452 E #350,
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
e-mail: j.thornock@utah.edu

Sean T. Smith

Institute for Clean and Secure Energy,
Department of Chemical Engineering,
University of Utah,
155 S 1452 E #350,
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
e-mail: sean.t.smith@utah.edu

Jennifer P. Spinti

Institute for Clean and Secure Energy,
Department of Chemical Engineering,
University of Utah,
155 S 1452 E #350,
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
e-mail: jennifer.spinti@utah.edu

Michal Hradisky

Institute for Clean and Secure Energy,
Department of Chemical Engineering,
University of Utah,
155 S 1452 E #350,
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
e-mail: michal.hradisky@gmail.com

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received August 2, 2016; final manuscript received January 26, 2017; published online February 9, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Jeffrey E. Bischoff.

J. Verif. Valid. Uncert 2(1), 011001 (Feb 09, 2017) (10 pages) Paper No: VVUQ-16-1022; doi: 10.1115/1.4035864 History: Received August 02, 2016; Revised January 26, 2017

Quantification of uncertainty in the simulation results becomes difficult for complex real-world systems with little or no experimental data. This paper describes a validation and uncertainty quantification (VUQ) approach that integrates computational and experimental data through a range of experimental scales and a hierarchy of complexity levels. This global approach links dissimilar experimental datasets at different scales, in a hierarchy, to reduce quantified error bars on case with sparse data, without running additional experiments. This approach was demonstrated by applying on a real-world problem, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from wind tunnel flares. The two-tier validation hierarchy links, a buoyancy-driven helium plume and a wind tunnel flare, to increase the confidence in the estimation of GHG emissions from wind tunnel flares from simulations.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

VUQ hierarchy for a real-world problem

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Intralevel and interlevel linkage in a hierarchy

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

VUQ hierarchy for determining GHG emissions from industrial flares

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Schematic of the FLAME facility at Sandia National Laboratories

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Schematic of FTF. Adapted from Ref. [17].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Consistent region for helium case in Sct and helium inlet velocity space: (a) component-scale VUQ analysis [10] and (b) global VUQ analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Consistent region for helium case in Sct and air coflow space: (a) component-scale VUQ analysis [10] and (b) global VUQ analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Error bars for 195 points at three different heights (left = 0.2 m, middle = 0.4 m, and right = 0.6 m) to show the consistent space for the helium plume case: (a) component-scale VUQ [10] and (b) global VUQ analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Prior and posterior consistent regions for CO2 concentration in all six crosswind groups: (a) pilot-scale analysis [18] and (b) global VUQ analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Prior and posterior consistent regions for O2 concentration in all six crosswind groups: (a) pilot-scale analysis [18] and (b) global VUQ analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Prior and posterior consistent regions for CH4 concentration in all six crosswind groups: (a) pilot-scale analysis [18] and (b) global VUQ analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Consistency region for two crosswind groups in α space for pilot-scale and global VUQ analysis: (a) [3.373–3.932] and (b) [8.928–10.169] m/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Consistency region for two crosswind groups in Sct space for pilot-scale and global VUQ analysis: (a) [3.373–3.932] and (b) [8.928–10.169] m/s

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In