Numerical analysis of the Burgers' equation in the presence of uncertainty

Journal of Computational Physics

Volumn 228, Issue 22, 2009, Pages 8394-8412

  Pettersson, Per ^a,b   Iaccarino, Gianluca ^a   Nordström, Jan ^b,c,d  

^a Stanford University   (United States)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c SWEDISH DEFENCE RESEARCH AGENCY   (Sweden)

^d UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Hyperbolic problems; Numerical stability; Polynomial chaos; Uncertainty quantification

Indexed keywords

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS; EIGENVALUES AND EIGENFUNCTIONS; EXPANSION; INVERSE PROBLEMS; MATRIX ALGEBRA; PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS; POLYNOMIALS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

BURGER'S EQUATIONS; CHAOS EXPANSIONS; DETERMINISTICS; HYPERBOLIC PROBLEMS; INITIAL AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS; POLYNOMIAL CHAOS; STOCHASTICS; TIME STEP; UNCERTAINTY; UNCERTAINTY QUANTIFICATIONS;

STOCHASTIC SYSTEMS;

EID: 70349244617     PISSN: 00219991     EISSN: 10902716     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2009.08.012     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Guide for the Verification and Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations, No. AIAA-G-077-1998, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 1998.
2. Beran P.S., Pettit C.L., and Millman D.R. Uncertainty quantification of limit-cycle oscillations. Journal of Computational Physics 217 1 (2006) 217-247
3. Cameron R.H., and Martin W.T. The orthogonal development of non-linear functionals in series of Fourier-Hermite functionals. The Annals of Mathematics 48 2 (1947) 385-392
4. Carpenter M.H., Gottlieb D., and Abarbanel S. Time-stable boundary conditions for finite-difference schemes solving hyperbolic systems: methodology and application to high-order compact schemes. Journal of Computational Physics 111 (1994) 220-236
5. Carpenter M.H., Nordström J., and Gottlieb D. A stable and conservative interface treatment of arbitrary spatial accuracy. Journal of Computational Physics 148 (1999) 341-365
6. Chauvière C., Hesthaven J.S., and Lurati L. Computational modeling of uncertainty in time-domain electromagnetics. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 28 2 (2006) 751-775
7. Chen Q.-Y., Gottlieb D., and Hesthaven J.S. Uncertainty analysis for the steady-state flows in a dual throat nozzle. Journal of Computational Physics 204 (2005) 378-398
8. Christie M., Demyanov V., and Erbas D. Uncertainty quantification for porous media flows. Journal of Computational Physics 217 1 (2006) 143-158
9. Funaro D. Polynomial approximation of differential equations (1992), Springer-Verlag, New York
10. Ghanem R., and Spanos P. Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral Approach (1991), Springer-Verlag, New York
11. Golub G.H., and van Loan C.F. Matrix Computations. second ed. (1989), Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
12. Gustafsson B., Kreiss H.-O., and Oliger J. Time Dependent Problems and Difference Methods (1995), Wiley
13. Hou T.Y., Luo W., Rozovskii B., and Zhou H.-M. Wiener chaos expansions and numerical solutions of randomly forced equations of fluid mechanics. Journal of Computational Physics 216 2 (2006) 687-706
14. LeVeque R. Numerical Methods for Conservation Laws. second ed. (2006), Birkhäuser, Basel
15. Mattsson K., Svärd M., and Nordström J. Stable and accurate artificial dissipation. Journal of Scientific Computing 21 1 (2004) 57-79
16. Nordström J. Conservative finite difference formulations, variable coefficients, energy estimates and artificial dissipation. Journal of Scientific Computing 29 3 (2006) 375-404
17. Nordström J., and Carpenter M.H. Boundary and interface conditions for high-order finite-difference methods applied to the Euler and Navier-Stokes equations. Journal of Computational Physics 148 (1999) 621-645
18. Nordström J., and Carpenter M.H. High-order finite difference methods, multidimensional linear problems and curvilinear coordinates. Journal of Computational Physics 173 (2001) 149-174
19. S.V. Poroseva, J. Letschert, M.Y. Hussaini, Application of evidence theory to quantify uncertainty in forecast of Hurricane path, in: Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Probability and Statistics, The American Meteorological Society 86th Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, 2006.
20. Reagan M.T., Najm H.N., Ghanem R.G., and Knio O.M. Uncertainty quantification in reacting-flow simulations through non-intrusive spectral projection. Combustion and Flame 132 3 (2003) 545-555
21. Richtmyer R.D., and Morton K.W. Difference Methods for Initial-Value Problems. second ed. (1967), Interscience Publishers, New York
22. Strand B. Summation by parts for finite difference approximations for d/dx. Journal of Computational Physics 110 (1994) 47-67
23. Szegö G. Orthogonal Polynomials. fourth ed. (1975), American Mathematical Society, Providence
24. Wan X., and Karniadakis G.E. Long-term behavior of polynomial chaos in stochastic flow simulations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 195 41-43 (2006) 5582-5596
25. Wiener N. The homogeneous chaos. American Journal of Mathematics 60 4 (1938) 897-936
26. Witteveen J., Sarkar S., and Bijl H. Modeling physical uncertainties in dynamic stall induced fluid-structure interaction of turbine blades using arbitrary polynomial chaos. Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 866-878
27. Xiu D., and Karniadakis G.E. The Wiener-Askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 24 2 (2002) 619-644
28. Xiu D., and Karniadakis G.E. Modeling uncertainty in flow simulations via generalized polynomial chaos. Journal of Computational Physics 187 1 (2003) 137-167
29. Xiu D., and Karniadakis G.E. Supersensitivity due to uncertain boundary conditions. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 61 (2004) 2114-2138
30. Yu Y., Zhao M., Lee T., Pestieau N., Bo W., Glimm J., and Grove J.W. Uncertainty quantification for chaotic computational fluid dynamics. Journal of Computational Physics 217 1 (2006) 200-216