4.4 Article

Bayesian Model Calibration Using High-Fidelity Simulations of a Mach 8 Scramjet Isolator and Combustor

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/00102202.2023.2239447

关键词

Bayesian; calibration; scramjet; reduced modeling; >

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study develops a calibration procedure for a one-dimensional model of the wall pressure in a scramjet flowpath. Using wall pressure measurements from three-dimensional simulations, the six model parameters are tuned using a Bayesian methodology. The results show that the calibrated model can capture the mean wall pressure in both the isolator and combustor. The procedure can converge for both uniform and Gaussian priors, and physically-consistent correlations between parameters are obtained.
The development of complex physical systems, such as scramjets, requires comprehensive assessments of the relevant performance envelopes. Because high-fidelity simulations and experiments are generally too expensive to perform over a wide range of operating conditions, reduced models can be especially useful for exploring the design space. However, these models often involve empirical parameters which must be calibrated using high-fidelity data sets. The present work develops a calibration procedure for a one-dimensional model of the wall pressure in a scramjet flowpath. Using wall pressure measurements from three-dimensional simulations, the six model parameters are tuned using a Bayesian methodology. The results show that the tuned model is largely able to capture the mean wall pressure in both the isolator and combustor. The calibration procedure is able to converge for both uniform and Gaussian priors, provided that the Gaussian priors are sufficiently wide. Physically-consistent correlations between parameters are obtained, which could inform further reductions in the model's dimensionality. Application of the model to additional flow conditions shows good agreement to simulations not used in the calibration procedure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据