Wind and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Multi-fidelity uncertainty quantification of high Reynolds number turbulent flow around a rectangular 5:1 Cylinder

  • Sakuma, Mayu (Department of Civil, Geo and Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Munich) ;
  • Pepper, Nick (Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College London) ;
  • Warnakulasuriya, Suneth (Department of Civil, Geo and Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Munich) ;
  • Montomoli, Francesco (Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College London) ;
  • Wuch-ner, Roland (Department of Civil, Geo and Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Munich) ;
  • Bletzinger, Kai-Uwe (Department of Civil, Geo and Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Munich)
  • Received : 2021.05.31
  • Accepted : 2021.09.03
  • Published : 2022.01.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this work a multi-fidelity non-intrusive polynomial chaos (MF-NIPC) has been applied to a structural wind engineering problem in architectural design for the first time. In architectural design it is important to design structures that are safe in a range of wind directions and speeds. For this reason, the computational models used to design buildings and bridges must account for the uncertainties associated with the interaction between the structure and wind. In order to use the numerical simulations for the design, the numerical models must be validated by experi-mental data, and uncertainties contained in the experiments should also be taken into account. Uncertainty Quantifi-cation has been increasingly used for CFD simulations to consider such uncertainties. Typically, CFD simulations are computationally expensive, motivating the increased interest in multi-fidelity methods due to their ability to lev-erage limited data sets of high-fidelity data with evaluations of more computationally inexpensive models. Previous-ly, the multi-fidelity framework has been applied to CFD simulations for the purposes of optimization, rather than for the statistical assessment of candidate design. In this paper MF-NIPC method is applied to flow around a rectan-gular 5:1 cylinder, which has been thoroughly investigated for architectural design. The purpose of UQ is validation of numerical simulation results with experimental data, therefore the radius of curvature of the rectangular cylinder corners and the angle of attack are considered to be random variables, which are known to contain uncertainties when wind tunnel tests are carried out. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations are solved by a solver that employs the Finite Element Method (FEM) for two turbulence modeling approaches of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations: Unsteady Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (URANS) and the Large Eddy simulation (LES). The results of the uncertainty analysis with CFD are compared to experimental data in terms of time-averaged pressure coefficients and bulk parameters. In addition, the accuracy and efficiency of the multi-fidelity framework is demonstrated through a comparison with the results of the high-fidelity model.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

TUM would like to thank the Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst for funding. ICL would like to acknowledge the financial support of EPSRC and Airbus to UQLab.

References

  1. Ahlfeld, R., Belkouchi, B. and Montomoli, F. (2016), "SAMBA: sparse approximation of moment-based arbitrary polynomial chaos", J. Comput. Phys., 320(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2016.05.014.
  2. Bronkhorst, A.J., Geurts. C.P.W. and van Bentum, C.A. (2011), "Unsteady pressure measurements on a 5:1 rectangular cylinder", In "13th International Conference on Wind Engineering.
  3. Bruno, L., Salvetti, M.V. and Ricciardelli, F. (2014), "Benchmark on the Aerodynamics of a Rectangular 5:1 Cylinder: An overview after the first four years of activity", J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod., 126, 87-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2014.01.005.
  4. Codina, R., Principe, J., Guasch, O. and Badia, S. (2007), "Time dependent subscales in the stabilized finite element approximation of incompressible flow problems", Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 196(21-24), 2413-2430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2007.01.002.
  5. Dalmau, J.C., de Navarra, E.O.I. and Rossi, R. (2016), Applications of Turbulence Modeling in Civil Engineering, Ph.D. Dissertation, UPC, Departament de Resistencia de Materials i Estructures a l'Enginyeria.
  6. Dubreuil, S., Berveiller, M., Petitjean, F. and Salaun, M. (2014), "Construction of bootstrap confidence intervals on sensitivity indices computed by polynomial chaos expansion", Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 121, 263-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.09.011.
  7. Eldred, M.S., Ng, L.W.T., Barone, M.F. and Domino, S.P. (2015), Multifidelity Uncertainty Quantification Using Spectral Stochastic Discrepancy Models, Springer International Publishing.
  8. Ferrandiz, V.M., Bucher, P., Rossi, R., Zorrilla, R., Cotela, J., Maria, J., Celigueta, M.A. and Casas, G. (2020), "KratosMultiphysics", https://zenodo.org/record/3234644.
  9. Ghanem, R. (2017), Handbook of Uncertainty Quantification, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
  10. Golub, G.H. and Welsch, J.H. (1969), "Calculation of Gauss quadrature rules", Mathem. Comput., 23(106), 221-230. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0025-5718-69-99647-1.
  11. Hughes, T.J. (1995), "Multiscale phenomena: Green's functions, the Dirichlet-to-Neumann formulation, subgrid scale models, bubbles and the origins of stabilized methods", 127(1-4), 387-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7825(95)00844-9.
  12. Iaccarino, G., Ooi, A., Durbin, P. and Behnia, M. (2003), "Reynolds averaged simulation of unsteady separated flow", Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 24(2), 147-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-727X(02)00210-2.
  13. Kuzmin, D., Lohner, R. and Turek, S. (2012), "Flux-corrected transport: principles, algorithms, and applications", Springer Science & Business Media.
  14. Le Maitre, O.P. and Knio, O.M. (2010), Spectral Methods for Uncertainty Quantification: With Applications to Computational Fluid Dynamics, Scientific Computation, Springer.
  15. Loeven, A. and Bijl, H. (2009), "An efficient framework for uncertainty quantification in CFD using Probabilistic Collocation", In 50th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference 17th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference 11th AIAA.
  16. Mariotti, A., Salvetti, M., Shoeibi Omrani, P. and Witteveen, J. (2016), "Stochastic analysis of the impact of freestream conditions on the aerodynamics of a rectangular 5:1 cylinder", Comput. Fluids, 136(10), 170-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2016.06.008.
  17. Mariotti, A., Siconolfi, L. and Salvetti, M. (2017), "Stochastic sensitivity analysis of large-eddy simulation predictions of the flow around a 5:1 rectangular cylinder", Europ. J. Mech. B/Fluids, 62, 149-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechflu.2016.12.008
  18. Ouvrard, H., Koobus, B., Dervieux, A. and Salvetti, M.V. (2010), "Classical and variational multiscale LES of the flow around a circular cylinder on unstructured grids", Comput. Fluids, 39(7), 1083-1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2010.01.017.
  19. Peherstorfer, B., Willcox, K. and Gunzburger, M. (2018), "Survey of multifidelity methods in uncertainty propagation, inference, and optimization", SIAM Rev. 60(3), 550-591. https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1082469.
  20. Pepper, N., Montomoli, F. and Sharma, S. (2021), "Data fusion for uncertainty quantification with non-Intrusive polynomial chaos", Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 374, 113577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2020.113577.
  21. Rocchio, B., Mariotti, A. and Salvetti, M. (2020), "Flow around a 5:1 rectangular cylinder: Effects of upstream-edge rounding", J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod., 204, 104237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2020.104237.
  22. Rutishauser, H. (1963), "On a modification of the QD-algorithm with Graeffe-type convergence", In "Proc. IFIP Congress, 62, 93-96.
  23. Schewe, G. (2013), "Reynolds-number-effects in flow around a rectangular cylinder with aspect ratio 1:5", J. Fluids Struct., 39, 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2013.02.013.
  24. Stewart, M.G. and Deng, X. (2015), "Climate impact risks and climate adaptation engineering for built infrastructure", ASCEASME J. Risk Uncertain. Eng. Syst., Part A: Civil Eng., 1(1), 04014001. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000809.
  25. Sudret, B. (2008), "Global sensitivity analysis using polynomial chaos expansions", Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 93(7), 964-979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2007.04.002.
  26. Witteveen, J., Omrani, P., Mariotti, A., Salvetti, M., Bruno, L. and Coste, N. (2014), "Uncertainty quantification of the aerodynamics of a rectangular 5:1 cylinder".
  27. Wood, W., Bossak, M. and Zienkiewicz, O. (1980), "An alpha modification of Newmark's method", Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., 15(10), 1562-1566. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1620151011
  28. Wornom, S., Ouvrard, H., Salvetti, M.V., Koobus, B. and Dervieux, A. (2011), "Variational multiscale large-eddy simulations of the flow past a circular cylinder: Reynolds number effects", Comput. Fluids, 47(1), 44-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2011.02.011.
  29. Xiu, D. and Karniadakis, G.E. (2002), "The Wiener--Askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations", SIAM Journal Sci. Comput., 24(2), 619-644. https://doi.org/10.1137/S1064827501387826