Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 304

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantifying and reducing model-form uncertainties in Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulations: A data-driven, physics-informed Bayesian approach

Open access
Xiao, H., Wu, J.-L., Wang, J.-X., Sun, R., Roy, C.J.·2016·Journal of Computational Physics

Abstract

Despite their well-known limitations, Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) models are still the workhorse tools for turbulent flow simulations in today's engineering application. For many practical flows, the turbulence models are by far the largest source of uncertainty. In this work we develop an open-box, physics-informed Bayesian framework for quantifying model-form uncertainties in RANS simulations. Uncertainties are introduced directly to the Reynolds stresses and are represented with compact parameterization accounting for empirical prior knowledge and physical constraints (e.g., realizability, smoothness, and symmetry). An iterative ensemble Kalman method is used to assimilate the prior knowledge and observation data in a Bayesian framework, and to propagate them to posterior distributions of velocities and other Quantities of Interest (QoIs). We use two representative cases, the flow over periodic hills and the flow in a square duct, to evaluate the performance of the proposed framework. Simulation results suggest that, even with very sparse observations, the posterior mean velocities and other QoIs have significantly better agreement with the benchmark data compared to the baseline results. At most locations the posterior distribution adequately captures the true model error within the developed model form uncertainty bounds. The framework is a major improvement over existing black-box, physics-neutral methods for model-form uncertainty quantification, and has potential implications in many fields in which the model uncertainty comes from unresolved physical processes. A notable example is climate modeling, where high-consequence decisions are made based on predictions (e.g., projected temperature rise) with major uncertainties originating from closure models that are used to account for unresolved or unknown physics including radiation, cloud, and boundary layer processes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.07.038

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 46 references

Cited by

See all 304

Metadata

Authors
Xiao, H., Wu, J.-L., Wang, J.-X., Sun, R., & Roy, C. J.
Venue
Journal of Computational Physics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-11
Volume
324
Pages
115-136
ISSN
0021-9991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2490045648
Cited by
304
References
46
FWCI
14.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantifying and reducing model-form uncertainties in Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulations: A data-driven, physics-informed Bayesian approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jcp.2016.07.038
The paper
Xiao, H., Wu, J.-L., Wang, J.-X., Sun, R., & Roy, C. J. (2016). Quantifying and reducing model-form uncertainties in Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulations: A data-driven, physics-informed Bayesian approach. Journal of Computational Physics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2016.07.038

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.