SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “model-form uncertainty quantification”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

12 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CFD Validation Study of a Hypersonic Cone-Slice-Flap Variable Geometry Configuration

Model validation is the process of determining the degree of accuracy between physical reality and the model. The result of model validation can either be used to improve the model through calibration or quantify the model-form uncertainty. This work focuses on providing the model-form uncertainty through an area metric for a hypersonic cone-slice-flap variable geometry configuration given uncertainty in both the simulation and experimental data. For a variable geometry, performing uncertainty quantification to capture the model-form uncertainty on every configuration is computationally challenging. This work lays out a procedure that can give an accurate representation of the model-form uncertainty using a small number of high-fidelity runs and many low-fidelity runs on multiple configurations. Running this comparison provides a quantifiable measurement for the accuracy of each turbulence model for this type of design. The high-fidelity CFD solver used was VULCAN-CFD and the low-fidelity results came from Cart3D. The experimental data came from the 20-Inch Mach 6 Tunnel located at NASA Langley Research Center. The present work showed that the turbulence simulation overpredicted the drag and lift coefficient, while underpredicting the pitching moment coefficient. The model-form uncertainty estimate resulted up to a 13.6% change in the total uncertainty for the drag coefficient, up to a 57.4% change in total uncertainty for the lift coefficient, and up to a 100% change in total uncertainty for the pitching moment coefficient.

Laura White↗

NASA NTRS2012

Reynolds-Averaged Turbulence Model Assessment for a Highly Back-Pressured Isolator Flowfield

The use of computational fluid dynamics in scramjet engine component development is widespread in the existing literature. Unfortunately, the quantification of model-form uncertainties is rarely addressed with anything other than sensitivity studies, requiring that the computational results be intimately tied to and calibrated against existing test data. This practice must be replaced with a formal uncertainty quantification process for computational fluid dynamics to play an expanded role in the system design, development, and flight certification process. Due to ground test facility limitations, this expanded role is believed to be a requirement by some in the test and evaluation community if scramjet engines are to be given serious consideration as a viable propulsion device. An effort has been initiated at the NASA Langley Research Center to validate several turbulence closure models used for Reynolds-averaged simulations of scramjet isolator flows. The turbulence models considered were the Menter BSL, Menter SST, Wilcox 1998, Wilcox 2006, and the Gatski-Speziale explicit algebraic Reynolds stress models. The simulations were carried out using the VULCAN computational fluid dynamics package developed at the NASA Langley Research Center. A procedure to quantify the numerical errors was developed to account for discretization errors in the validation process. This procedure utilized the grid convergence index defined by Roache as a bounding estimate for the numerical error. The validation data was collected from a mechanically back-pressured constant area (1 2 inch) isolator model with an isolator entrance Mach number of 2.5. As expected, the model-form uncertainty was substantial for the shock-dominated, massively separated flowfield within the isolator as evidenced by a 6 duct height variation in shock train length depending on the turbulence model employed. Generally speaking, the turbulence models that did not include an explicit stress limiter more closely matched the measured surface pressures. This observation is somewhat surprising, given that stress-limiting models have generally been developed to better predict shock-separated flows. All of the models considered also failed to properly predict the shape and extent of the separated flow region caused by the shock boundary layer interactions. However, the best performing models were able to predict the isolator shock train length (an important metric for isolator operability margin) to within 1 isolator duct height.

Baurle, Robert A.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CFD Validation Study of a Hypersonic Cone-Slice-Flap Variable Geometry Configuration

Model validation is the process of determining the degree of accuracy between physical reality and the model. The result of model validation can either be used to improve the model through calibration or quantify the model-form uncertainty. This work focuses on providing the model-form uncertainty through an area metric for a hypersonic cone-slice-flap variable geometry configuration given uncertainty in both the simulation and experimental data. The research here compares two different turbulence models for the simulations. For a variable geometry, performing uncertainty quantification to capture the model-form uncertainty on every configuration is computationally challenging. This work lays out a procedure that can give an accurate representation of the model-form uncertainty using a small number of high-fidelity runs and many low-fidelity runs on multiple configurations. Running this comparison provides a quantifiable measurement for the accuracy of each turbulence model for this type of design. The high-fidelity CFD solver used was VULCAN-CFD and the low-fidelity results came from Cart3D. The experimental data came from the 20-Inch Mach 6 Tunnel located at NASA Langley Research Center. The present work showed that the using both the Spalart and Allamaras and Menter Shear-Stress Transport turbulence models overpredicted the drag and lift coefficient, while underpredicting the pitching moment coefficient. The model-form uncertainty estimate resulted in up to a 13.6% change in the total uncertainty for the drag coefficient, up to a 57.4% change in total uncertainty for the lift coefficient, and up to a 100% change in total uncertainty for the pitching moment coefficient.

Laura M. White↗

NASA NTRS2014

Uncertainty Quantification and Certification Prediction of Low-Boom Supersonic Aircraft Configurations

The primary objective of this work was to develop and demonstrate a process for accurate and efficient uncertainty quantification and certification prediction of low-boom, supersonic, transport aircraft. High-fidelity computational fluid dynamics models of multiple low-boom configurations were investigated including the Lockheed Martin SEEB-ALR body of revolution, the NASA 69 Delta Wing, and the Lockheed Martin 1021-01 configuration. A nonintrusive polynomial chaos surrogate modeling approach was used for reduced computational cost of propagating mixed, inherent (aleatory) and model-form (epistemic) uncertainty from both the computation fluid dynamics model and the near-field to ground level propagation model. A methodology has also been introduced to quantify the plausibility of a design to pass a certification under uncertainty. Results of this study include the analysis of each of the three configurations of interest under inviscid and fully turbulent flow assumptions. A comparison of the uncertainty outputs and sensitivity analyses between the configurations is also given. The results of this study illustrate the flexibility and robustness of the developed framework as a tool for uncertainty quantification and certification prediction of low-boom, supersonic aircraft.

West, Thomas K., IV↗

NASA NTRS2017

Uncertainty Quantification of CFD Data Generated for a Model Scramjet Isolator Flowfield

Computational fluid dynamics is now considered to be an indispensable tool for the design and development of scramjet engine components. Unfortunately, the quantification of uncertainties is rarely addressed with anything other than sensitivity studies, so the degree of confidence associated with the numerical results remains exclusively with the subject matter expert that generated them. This practice must be replaced with a formal uncertainty quantification process for computational fluid dynamics to play an expanded role in the system design, development, and flight certification process. Given the limitations of current hypersonic ground test facilities, this expanded role is believed to be a requirement by some in the hypersonics community if scramjet engines are to be given serious consideration as a viable propulsion system. The present effort describes a simple, relatively low cost, nonintrusive approach to uncertainty quantification that includes the basic ingredients required to handle both aleatoric (random) and epistemic (lack of knowledge) sources of uncertainty. The nonintrusive nature of the approach allows the computational fluid dynamicist to perform the uncertainty quantification with the flow solver treated as a "black box". Moreover, a large fraction of the process can be automated, allowing the uncertainty assessment to be readily adapted into the engineering design and development workflow. In the present work, the approach is applied to a model scramjet isolator problem where the desire is to validate turbulence closure models in the presence of uncertainty. In this context, the relevant uncertainty sources are determined and accounted for to allow the analyst to delineate turbulence model-form errors from other sources of uncertainty associated with the simulation of the facility flow.

Baurle, R. A.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Variational Coupled Loads Analysis using the Hybrid Parametric Variation Method

Time-domain coupled loads analysis (CLA)is used to determine the response of a launch vehicle and payload system to transient forces, such as liftoff, engine ignitions and shutdowns, jettison events, and atmospheric flight loads, such as buffet. CLA, using Hurty/Craig-Bampton (HCB)component models, is the accepted method for the establishment of design-level loads for launch systems. However, uncertainty in the component models flows into uncertainty in predicted system results. Uncertainty in the structural responses during launch is a significant concern because small variations in launch vehicle and payload mode shapes and their interactions can result in significant variations in system loads. Uncertainty quantification (UQ)is used to determine statistical bounds on prediction accuracy based on model uncertainty. In this paper uncertainty is treated at the HCB component-model level. In an effort to account for model uncertainties and statistically bound their effect on CLA predictions, this work combines CLA with UQ in a process termed variational coupled loads analysis (VCLA). The modeling of uncertainty using a parametric approach, in which input parameters are represented by random variables, is common, but its major drawback is the resulting uncertainty is limited to the form of the nominal model. Uncertainty in model form is one of the biggest contributors to uncertainty in complex built-up structures. Model-form uncertainty can be represented using a nonparametric approach based on random matrix theory (RMT). In this work, UQ is performed using the hybrid parametric variation (HPV)method, which combines parametric with nonparametric uncertainty at the HCB component model level. The HPV method requires the selection of dispersion values for the HCB fixed-interface (FI)eigenvalues, and the HCB mass and stiffness matrices. The dispersions are based upon component test-analysis modal correlation results. During VCLA, random component models are assembled into an ensemble of random systems using a Monte Carlo (MC)approach. CLA is applied to each of the ensemble members to produce an ensemble of system-level responses for statistical analysis. The proposed methodology is demonstrated through its application to a buffet loads analysis of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS)during the transonic regime fifty seconds after liftoff. Core stage (CS)section shears and moments are recovered, and statistics are computed.

Uncertainty Quantification↗

NASA NTRS2020

Ensemble Methodologies for Astronaut Cancer Risk Assessment in the face of Large Uncertainties

A new approach to NASA space radiation risk modeling has successfully extended the current NASA probabilistic cancer risk model to an ensemble framework able to consider sub-model parameter uncertainty (e.g. uncertainty in a radiation quality parameter) as well as model-form uncertainty associated with differing theoretical or empirical formalisms (e.g. combined dose-rate and radiation quality effects). Ensemble methodologies are already widely used in weather prediction, modeling of infectious disease outbreaks, and certain terrestrial radiation protection applications to better understand how uncertainty may influence risk decision-making. Applying ensemble methodologies to space radiation risk projections offers the potential to efficiently incorporate emerging research results, allow for the incorporation of future (including international) models, improve uncertainty quantification for underlying sub-models developed against sparse experimental data, and reduce the impact of subjective bias on risk projections. Moreover, risk forecasting across an ensemble of multiple predictive models can provide stakeholders additional information on risk acceptance if current health/medical standards cannot be met or the level of knowledge doesn’t permit a specific risk or exposure limit to be developed for future space exploration missions. In this work, ensemble risk projections implementing multiple sub-models of radiation quality, dose and dose-rate effectiveness factors, excess risk, and latency as ensemble members are presented. Initial consensus methods for ensemble model weights and correlations to account for individual model bias are discussed. In these analyses, the ensemble forecast compares well to results from NASA's current operational cancer risk projection model used to assess permissible exposure limits and permissible mission durations for astronauts. However, a large range of projected risk values are obtained at the upper 95th confidence level where models must extrapolate beyond available biological data sets; closer agreement is seen at the median + one sigma due to the inherent similarities in available models. Future work, including the addition of new models and methods for statistical correlation between predictive members are discussed to define alternate ways of thinking about risk and ‘acceptable’ uncertainty with respect to NASA’s current permissible exposure limits.

space radiation↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Ensemble Cancer Risk Model for Astronaut Risk Assessment

Lisa C Simonsen↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

SLS Integrated Modal Test Uncertainty Quantification using the Hybrid Parametric Variation Method

Uncertainty in structural loading during launch is a significant concern in the development of spacecraft and launch vehicles. Small variations in launch vehicle and payload mode shapes and their interaction can result in significant variation in system loads. In many cases involving large aerospace systems it is difficult, not economical, or impossible to perform a system modal test. However, it is still vital to obtain test results that can be compared with analytical predictions to validate models. Instead, the “Building Block Approach” is used in which system components are tested individually. Component models are correlated and updated to agree as best they can with test results. The Space Launch System consists of a number of components that are assembled into a launch vehicle. Finite element models of the components are developed, reduced to Hurty/Craig-Bampton models and assembled to represent different phases of flight. The only opportunity to obtain modal test data from an assembled Space Launch System will be during the Integrated Modal Test. There is always uncertainty in every model, which flows into uncertainty in predicted system results. Uncertainty Quantification is used to determine statistical bounds on prediction accuracy based on model uncertainty. For the Space Launch System, model uncertainty is at the Hurty/Craig-Bampton component level. Uncertainty in the Hurty/Craig-Bampton components is quantified using the hybrid parametric variation approach that combines parametric and nonparametric uncertainty. Uncertainty in model form is one of the biggest contributors to uncertainty in complex built-up structures. This type of uncertainty cannot be represented by variations infinite element model input parameters and thus cannot be included in a parametric approach. However, model-form uncertainty can be modeled using a nonparametric approach based on random matrix theory. The hybrid parametric variation method requires the selection of dispersion values for the Hurty/Craig-Bampton fixed-interface eigenvalues, and the Hurty/Craig-Bampton stiffness matrices. Component test/analysis frequency error is used to identify the fixed-interface eigenvalue dispersions, while test/analysis cross-orthogonality is used to identify stiffness dispersion values. The hybrid parametric variation uncertainty quantification approach is applied to the Space Launch System Integrated Modal Test configuration. Monte Carlo analysis is performed, and statistics are determined for modal correlation metrics, frequency response from Integrated Modal Test shakers to selected accelerometers, as well as other metrics for determining how well target modes are excited and identified. If the predicted uncertainty envelopes future Integrated Modal Test results, then there will be increased confidence in the utility of the component-based hybrid parametric variation uncertainty quantification approach.

Uncertainty Quantification↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

HIFiRE Flight 2 Unstart Reliability Analysis

The objective of this work was to assess the unstart reliability of the HIFiRE Flight 2 system. To do this, a quantification of margins and uncertainties framework was used for comparing model predictions of the predicted combustion induced shock location to the predicted last stable shock location within the isolator. Uncertainty sources included parametric uncertainty in the flight conditions, the heat release model, and turbulence modeling, as well as model verification errors. Additionally, an estimate of model-form uncertainty was established by comparing the model to measured ground test data. A computationally efficient non-intrusive polynomial chaos approach was used to propagate parametric uncertainty through the computational flu-ids dynamics models of both the ground test configuration and the flight vehicle. Compared to direct-connect ground test data, computational fluid dynamics predictions yielded about two duct heights of model-form uncertainty. This was applied to a prediction of flight vehicle unstart margin at the Mach 6.5 flight condition. Building up all of the computational model uncertainty, including parametric uncertainty, verification errors, and the determined model-form uncertainty, a 95% probability level based confidence ratio, or a ratio of total uncertainty to a statistical margin measure, was found to be 0.31 for the flight system.

Thomas K West↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Probability Bounds Analysis Applied to Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Nonlinearity

The Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Program Orion vehicle finite element model (FEM) was updated based on a modal test performed by Lockheed Martin. Due to nonlinearity observed in the test results, linear low force level (LL) and high force level (HL) FEMs were developed for use during various Space Launch System (SLS) flight regimes depending on expected forcing levels. Uncertainty models were derived for the combined MPCV and MPCV Stage Adaptor LL and HL Hurty/Craig-Bampton (HCB) components based on the MPCV structural test article Configuration 4 modal test-analysis correlation results. Subsequently, system-level uncertainty quantification analyses were performed using both models for various SLS flight configurations to determine the impact of the nonlinearity on important system metrics. The system metrics included both transfer functions associated with attitude control and dynamic loads associated with aerodynamic buffeting during ascent. In each case, an independent Monte Carlo (MC) analysis was performed, and no attempt was made to combine the results. The Hybrid Parametric Variation (HPV) method was used to develop the LL and HL MPCV HCB uncertainty models. The HPV method provides both parametric and non-parametric components of uncertainty. The non-parametric uncertainty accounts for the difference in model-form between the linearized analytical model and the corresponding linearized component test results in the form of mode shapes and frequencies at that force level. This linear model-form uncertainty is implemented in the HPV method using random matrix theory. However, the HPV uncertainty models developed for the linear LL and HL MPCV components do not account for the nonlinearity in the MPCV. With respect to the linearized models, this nonlinearity is also an uncertainty in model form, but in this case, it must be treated independently as an epistemic uncertainty. It represents a lack of knowledge, in contrast to an aleatory uncertainty due to the randomness of a variable. In the case of an epistemic variable, the true value is unknown, only the interval within which it lies is known. Epistemic uncertainty can be reduced with increased knowledge, while in general, aleatory uncertainty cannot. This work combines the epistemic uncertainty due to the MPCV nonlinearity with the parametric and non-parametric uncertainty within the HPV method using a second order propagation approach. The LL and HL test data is augmented with surrogate test data derived from a nonlinear MPCV representation. The impact of the MPCV nonlinearity on system response statistics is determined using a series of cumulative distribution functions in the form of a horsetail plot, or p-box. This results in an interval of probabilities for a specific response value, or an interval of response values at a specific probability.

Daniel C Kammer↗

NASA NTRS2022

Uncertainty Models for the Hybrid Parametric Variation Method of Uncertainty Quantification; Analysis

There is some level of uncertainty in every finite element model (FEM), which flows to a level of uncertainty in predicted results. The purpose of uncertainty quantification (UQ) is to provide statistical bounds on prediction accuracy based on model uncertainty. This is distinct from model updating, which attempts to modify models to improve their accuracy. UQ does not improve the accuracy of models, but accepts that the models are inherently inaccurate and attempts to quantify the impact of that inaccuracy on predicted results. Previously, an alternate method for UQ, called the Hybrid Parametric Variation (HPV) method, was applied to Space Launch System (SLS) Hurty/Craig-Bampton (HCB) components to predict system-level statistics for launch vehicle attitude control transfer functions and core stage section loads due to buffet. The HPV method combines a parametric variation of the HCB fixed-interface (FI) modal frequencies with a nonparametric variation (NPV) method that randomly varies the HCB mass and stiffness matrices as Wishart random matrix distributions using random matrix theory (RMT). Alternatively, the most common method for modeling uncertainty in the structural dynamics community is a parametric approach, which varies physical parameters in the model. However, there are several disadvantages associated with the parametric method. Determining a reduced set of parameters that have a significant impact on the system response can be time consuming, and the selected parameter probability distributions are rarely reliably known. Therefore, in practice, the parameters are surrogates for the actual errors, and the link to parameter uncertainty is unknown. Another major drawback is that the uncertainty that can be represented is limited to the form of the nominal FEM. It is the experience of the authors that based on numerous aerospace programs, almost all FEM errors are in form rather than parameter values. This hypothesis is supported by the observation of the authors that it is almost never possible to ‘tune’ a FEM to match modal test results by only modifying model parameters. Model-form uncertainty cannot be directly represented by FEM input parameters nor included in a parametric approach. However, model-form uncertainty can be modeled using RMT, where a probability distribution is developed for the matrix ensemble of interest. The major advantage of the NPV method is that it covers errors in model form. The HPV method anchors uncertainty at the HCB component level to component modal test results by matching the HCB and test modes based on mode descriptions or other methods, and then applying differing levels of frequency variation. The specific variations depend on the confidence to which a component FEM has been validated through modal testing. The NPV method is layered on the frequency variation to match modal test self-orthogonality and cross-orthogonality (XO) results. Once the component uncertainty models are identified, they are assembled, and the uncertainty is propagated to the system level using a Monte Carlo (MC) analysis approach that generates statistics for system-level predictions This provides a UQ method that can be traced to test data, which can be updated as additional data and improved correlated models become available. The purpose of this paper is to collect and present all of the theory for HPV that has been previously published in reports and papers and to present examples of its application. Specifically, component uncertainty models based on the dispersion of corresponding mass and stiffness matrices using proposed test/analysis correlation metrics are investigated. The first example is purely academic so that the true answers are known, and the validity of the HPV method and the corresponding uncertainty models can be determined. The purpose of this paper is to collect and present all of the theory for HPV that has been previously published in reports and papers and to present examples of its application. Specifically, component uncertainty models based on the dispersion of corresponding mass and stiffness matrices using proposed test/analysis correlation metrics are investigated. The first example is purely academic so that the true answers are known, and the validity of the HPV method and the corresponding uncertainty models can be determined. The second example is an application to a component that is design specific to the SLS. Based on this work and other assessments, the HPV method provides another tool to the toolset used for complex system UQ analysis. From experience gathered to date using the HPV method, additional design specific applications must be investigated to provide further confidence in the validity of the HPV method of UQ analysis.

Uncertainty quantification↗