存在不确定性时模型验证、校准和预测方法的评估

IF 0.5 Q4 ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification Pub Date : 2019-07-19 DOI:10.1115/1.4056285
N. W. Whiting
{"title":"存在不确定性时模型验证、校准和预测方法的评估","authors":"N. W. Whiting","doi":"10.1115/1.4056285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Model validation is the process of determining the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the true value in the real world. The results of a model validation study can be used to either quantify the model form uncertainty or to improve/calibrate the model. However, the model validation process can become complicated if there is uncertainty in the simulation and/or experimental outcomes. These uncertainties can be in the form of aleatory uncertainties due to randomness or epistemic uncertainties due to lack of knowledge. Four different approaches are used for addressing model validation and calibration: 1) the area validation metric (AVM), 2) a modified area validation metric (MAVM) with confidence intervals, 3) the standard validation uncertainty from ASME V&V 20, and 4) Bayesian updating of a model discrepancy term. Details are given for the application of the MAVM for accounting for small experimental sample sizes. To provide an unambiguous assessment of these different approaches, synthetic experimental values is generated from computational fluid dynamics simulations of a multi-element airfoil. A simplified model is then developed using thin airfoil theory. This simplified model is then assessed using the synthetic experimental data. Each of these validation/calibration approaches are assessed for the ability to tightly encapsulate the true value in nature at locations both where experimental results are provided and prediction locations where no experimental data are available.","PeriodicalId":52254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of Model Validation, Calibration, and Prediction Approaches in the Presence of Uncertainty\",\"authors\":\"N. W. Whiting\",\"doi\":\"10.1115/1.4056285\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Model validation is the process of determining the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the true value in the real world. The results of a model validation study can be used to either quantify the model form uncertainty or to improve/calibrate the model. However, the model validation process can become complicated if there is uncertainty in the simulation and/or experimental outcomes. These uncertainties can be in the form of aleatory uncertainties due to randomness or epistemic uncertainties due to lack of knowledge. Four different approaches are used for addressing model validation and calibration: 1) the area validation metric (AVM), 2) a modified area validation metric (MAVM) with confidence intervals, 3) the standard validation uncertainty from ASME V&V 20, and 4) Bayesian updating of a model discrepancy term. Details are given for the application of the MAVM for accounting for small experimental sample sizes. To provide an unambiguous assessment of these different approaches, synthetic experimental values is generated from computational fluid dynamics simulations of a multi-element airfoil. A simplified model is then developed using thin airfoil theory. This simplified model is then assessed using the synthetic experimental data. Each of these validation/calibration approaches are assessed for the ability to tightly encapsulate the true value in nature at locations both where experimental results are provided and prediction locations where no experimental data are available.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4056285\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4056285","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

模型验证是确定模型在多大程度上是真实世界中真实值的准确表示的过程。模型验证研究的结果既可以用来量化模型的不确定性,也可以用来改进/校准模型。然而,如果在模拟和/或实验结果中存在不确定性,则模型验证过程可能变得复杂。这些不确定性可以是由于随机性造成的选择性不确定性,也可以是由于缺乏知识造成的认知不确定性。采用四种不同的方法进行模型验证和校准:1)面积验证度量(AVM), 2)带置信区间的改进面积验证度量(MAVM), 3)来自ASME V&V 20的标准验证不确定度,以及4)模型差异项的贝叶斯更新。详细介绍了MAVM在小实验样本量情况下的应用。为了提供这些不同方法的明确评估,合成的实验值是由多元素翼型的计算流体动力学模拟产生的。然后利用薄翼型理论开发了一个简化模型。然后用综合实验数据对该简化模型进行评价。每一种验证/校准方法都要评估其在提供实验结果的地点和没有实验数据的预测地点紧密封装真实值的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Assessment of Model Validation, Calibration, and Prediction Approaches in the Presence of Uncertainty
Model validation is the process of determining the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the true value in the real world. The results of a model validation study can be used to either quantify the model form uncertainty or to improve/calibrate the model. However, the model validation process can become complicated if there is uncertainty in the simulation and/or experimental outcomes. These uncertainties can be in the form of aleatory uncertainties due to randomness or epistemic uncertainties due to lack of knowledge. Four different approaches are used for addressing model validation and calibration: 1) the area validation metric (AVM), 2) a modified area validation metric (MAVM) with confidence intervals, 3) the standard validation uncertainty from ASME V&V 20, and 4) Bayesian updating of a model discrepancy term. Details are given for the application of the MAVM for accounting for small experimental sample sizes. To provide an unambiguous assessment of these different approaches, synthetic experimental values is generated from computational fluid dynamics simulations of a multi-element airfoil. A simplified model is then developed using thin airfoil theory. This simplified model is then assessed using the synthetic experimental data. Each of these validation/calibration approaches are assessed for the ability to tightly encapsulate the true value in nature at locations both where experimental results are provided and prediction locations where no experimental data are available.
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
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
16.70%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Automatic Ground-Truth Image Labeling for Deep Neural Network Training and Evaluation Using Industrial Robotics and Motion Capture Using Responsive Feedback in Scaling a Gender Norms-Shifting Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health Intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo. A Solution Verification Study For Urans Simulations of Flow Over a 5:1 Rectangular Cylinder Using Grid Convergence Index And Least Squares Procedures Strategies for Computational Fluid Dynamics Validation Experiments On the Verification of Finite Element Determinations of Stress Concentration Factors for Handbooks
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1