Research Papers

A Methodology for Characterizing Representativeness Uncertainty in Performance Indicator Measurements of Power Generating Systems

[+] Author and Article Information
U. Otgonbaatar

Nuclear Science and Engineering Department,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Former),
77 Massachusetts Avenue,
Cambridge, MA 02142
e-mail: uuganbayar.otgonbaatar@exeloncorp.com

E. Baglietto

Nuclear Science and Engineering Department,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
77 Massachusetts Avenue,
Cambridge, MA 02142
e-mail: emiliob@mit.edu

Y. Caffari

Fellow ASME
Electricité de France,
EDF SA, Paris 75008, France
e-mail: yvan.caffari@edf.fr

N. E. Todreas

Fellow ASME
Nuclear Science and Engineering Department,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
77 Massachusetts Avenue,
Cambridge, MA 02142
e-mail: todreas@mit.edu

G. Lenci

Nuclear Science and Engineering Department,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
77 Massachusetts Avenue,
Cambridge, MA 02142
e-mail: glenci@domeng.com

1Present address: Exelon Corporation, 701 9th Street N.W, Washington, DC 20001.

2Present address: Dominion Engineering, Inc., 12100 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite, 220, Reston, VA 20191.

Manuscript received November 14, 2017; final manuscript received October 2, 2018; published online November 5, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Yassin A. Hassan.

J. Verif. Valid. Uncert 3(2), 021005 (Nov 05, 2018) (10 pages) Paper No: VVUQ-17-1035; doi: 10.1115/1.4041687 History: Received November 14, 2017; Revised October 02, 2018

In this work, a general methodology and innovative framework to characterize and quantify representativeness uncertainty of performance indicator measurements of power generation systems is proposed. The representativeness uncertainty refers to the difference between a measurement value of a performance indicator quantity and its reference true value. It arises from the inherent variability of the quantity being measured. The main objectives of the methodology are to characterize and reduce the representativeness uncertainty by adopting numerical simulation in combination with experimental data and to improve the physical description of the measurement. The methodology is applied to an industrial case study for demonstration. The case study involves a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation of an orifice plate-based mass flow rate measurement, using a commercially available package. Using the insight obtained from the CFD simulation, the representativeness uncertainty in mass flow rate measurement is quantified and the associated random uncertainties are comprehensively accounted for. Both parametric and nonparametric implementations of the methodology are illustrated. The case study also illustrates how the methodology is used to quantitatively test the level of statistical significance of the CFD simulation result after accounting for the relevant uncertainties.

Copyright © 2018 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


William, L. , and Oberkampf, C. R. , 2010, Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Camy, R. , 2014, Présentation du procédé de calcul des incertitudes PERCEIVE (Propagation of uncERtainties in Chaotic Simulations With ExperImental Validation and Bootstrap Evaluation), EDF, R&D: 2014, Chatou, France.
Bailly, P. , and Verrier, V. , 2010, “ Mesures Physiques et Indicateurs de performances - Guide Méthodologique Pour L'estimation Des Incertitudes,” EDF R&D, Chatou, France.
Maître, O. P. L. , and Knio, O. M. , 2010, Spectral Methods for Uncertainty Quantification, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Brian, M. A. , Ebeida, M. S. , Eldred, M. S. , Geraci, G. , Jakeman, J. D. , Maupin, K. A. , Monschke, J. A. , Swiler, L. P. , Stephens, J. A. , Vigil, D. M. , and Wildey, T. M. , Dakota, a Multilevel Parallel Object-Oriented Framework for Design Optimization, Parameter Estimation, Uncertainty Quantification, and Sensitivity Analysis: Version 6.6 Theory Manual, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.
Bailly, P. , 2010, Mesures Physiques et Indicateurs de performances - Guide Méthodologique Pour L'estimation Des Incertitudes, EDF, R&D, Chatou, France.
Lefebvre, Y. , DeRocquigny, E., Lebrun, A.-h. D., Delcoigne, F., Cagnac, A., and Sudret, B., 2008, Guide Méthodologique Pour le Traitement Des Incertitudes, EDF, R&D, Chatou, France.
Otgonbaatar, U. , 2016, Methodology for Characterization of Representativeness Uncertainty in Performance Indicator Measurements of Thermal and Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear Science and Engineering Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Chernick, M. R. , 2008, Bootstrap Methods: A Guide for Practitioners and Researchers, 2nd ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Zoubir, A. M. , 1993, “ Bootstrap: Theory and Applications,” Proc. SPIE, 2027 (epub).
Rapacchi, B. , 1994, “ Une Introduction au Bootstrap,” Centre Interuniversitaire de Calcul de Grenoble, 15 Décembre.
ASME, 2009, V&V 20-2009 Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
Lascar, C. , Jan, E., Goodheart, K., Keheley, T., Martin, M., Hatman, A., Chatelain, A., and Baglietto, E., 2013, “ Application of the ASME V&V20 to Predict Uncertainties in CFD Calculations,” NURETH-15, Pisa, Italy, May 12–17.
Eça, A. L. , and Hoekstra, M. , 2014, “ A Procedure for the Estimation of the Numerical Uncertainty of CFD Calculations Based on Grid Refinement Studies,” J. Comput. Phys., 262, pp. 104–130. [CrossRef]
Roache, P. J. , 1997, “ Quantification of Uncertainty in Computational Fluid Dynamics,” Annu. Rev. Fluid. Mech, 29(1), pp. 123–160. [CrossRef]
Ko, J. , and Galpin, J. , 2013, “ Comparison of Different Solutions for the Polynomial Chaos Expansion,” ERCOFTAC Workshop on Uncertainty Quantification in Computational Fluid Dynamics, France, Lyon, June 17–18.
Badillo, A. , Kapulla, R. , and Niceno, B. , 2013, “ Uncertainty Quantification in CFD Simulations of Isokinetic Turbulent Mixing,” ERCOFTAC Workshop on Workshop on Uncertainty Quantification in Computational Fluid Dynamics, Lyon, France, June 17–18.
Witteveen, J. , and Komen, E. , 2013, “ Possible Approach of UQ for NRS CFD Analyses: Application of UQ to CFD for BDT,” ERCOFTAC Workshop on UQ, Lyon, France.
JCGM, 2008, International Vocabulary of Metrology—Basic and General Concepts and Associated Terms (VIM), Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology.
Oberkampf, W. L. , and Smith, B. L. , 2014, “ Assessment Criteria for Computational Fluid Dynamics Validation Benchmark Experiments,” AIAA Paper No. 2014-0205.
Rice, J. A. , 2006, Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis, Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA.
Clayton, B. R. , and Choi, K.-S. , 2011, “ The Mechanism of Turbulent Drag Reduction With Wall Oscillation,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 22(1), pp. 1–9.
Blackburn, H. M. , Chin, C., Ng, H. C. H., Blackburn, H. M., Monty, J. P., and Ooi, A., 2015, “ Turbulent Pipe Flow at Re= 1000: A Comparison of Wall-Resolved Large-Eddy Simulation, Direct Numerical Simulation and Hot-Wire Experiment,” Comput. Fluids, 122, pp. 26–33. [CrossRef]
Meyer, M. K. , 1995, An Experimental Investigation of Organized Turbulent Motions and Wall-Pressure Fluctuations in Complex Flows, Dahlgren Division Naval Surface Warfare Center, Strategic and Space Systems Department, Dahlgren, VA.
Poggi, D. , Porporato, A. , and Ridolfi, L. , 2002, “ An Experimental Contribution to Near- wall Measurements by Means of a Special Laser Doppler Anemometry Technique,” Exp. Fluids, 32(3), pp. 366–375. [CrossRef]
Hesterberg, T. , 2011, “ Bootstrap,” WIREs Comp. Stat., 3(6), pp. 497–526. [CrossRef]
Moore, D. S. , Hesterberg, T., Monaghan, S., Moore, D. S., Clipson, A., and Epstein, R., 2003, Bootstrap Methods and Permutation Tests, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.
Otgonbaatar, U. , Baglietto, E. , and Todreas, N. , 2016, “ Methodology for Characterizing Representativeness Uncertainty in Orifice Plate Mass Flow Rate Measurements Using CFD Simulations,” Nucl. Sci. Eng., 184(3), pp. 430–440. [CrossRef]
ISO, 2003, Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of Pressure Differential Devices Inserted in Circular Cross-Section Conduits Running Full—Part 2: Orifice Plates, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
CD Adapco, 2013, “STAR-CCM+ User Manual,” CD Adapco, London.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic for the true value, reference true value, and measurement value. The dimension of the vertical axis is the unit in which the performance indicator is measured (e.g., kg/s for mass flow rate measurement).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic for the measurement, simulated measurement, and the reference true value for both experiment and simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic of the methodology framework to quantify representativeness uncertainty using a simulation. The Gaussian shape for random uncertainty distribution is chosen only for illustration purpose.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Illustration of two cases of the corrected measurement value Mc: (a) shows Mc sufficiently separated from M and will likely pass the test for the null hypothesis H0 and (b) shows a corrected measurement value that is not sufficiently separated from the original measurement value M due to large modeling and/or validation uncertainty and hence will likely fail the null hypothesis H0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Combined discretization and sampling uncertainties. The histograms show the bootstrap resampled results. The blue histogram is barely visible since the sampling uncertainty is negligibly small in this simulation.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Summary of unsteady RANS simulation results benchmarked against ISO standard

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Geometry of the piping configuration of the case study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Input uncertainty calculation using a combination of sensitivity coefficient

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Histogram in green shows a resampled bootstrap distribution constructed from the grid convergence data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Result for the pressure drop across an orifice plate of a RANS simulation using the cubic k–ε turbulence model. The histogram represents the distribution of time-dependent simulation result plotted as a function of time. The horizontal line is the time-average of the simulation result. The iteration uncertainty is included in each time-step of the simulation and quantified as part of the sampling uncertainty.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Representativeness uncertainty is the difference between the reference true value and the measurement value given by the orifice plate method

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

CFD model for the orifice plate flow measurement method in the experimental configuration. Input, discretization, and sampling uncertainties are each quantified using the bootstrap method in Sec. 4.2.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Combined methodology schematic using the nonparametric bootstrap method



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