model-based rigorous uncertainty quantification in complex ... · otm ─ terminal ballistics v =...
TRANSCRIPT
-
Model-Based Rigorous UncertaintyQuantification in Complex Systems
M OrtizM. OrtizCalifornia Institute of Technology
Congress on Numerical Methods in Engineering(CMNE 2011)
University of CoimbraC i b P t l J 17 2011
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
Coimbra, Portugal, June 17, 2011M. Ortiz
CMNE11- 1
-
ASC/PSAAP Centers
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 2
-
Hypervelocity impact as an example of a complex systemp y
Challenge: Predict hypervelocity impact phenomena (10Km/s ) with quantified margins and uncertainties
NASA Ames Research Center E fl h f h l it t tEnergy flash from hypervelocity test
at 7.9 Km/s
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
Hypervelocity impact test bumper shield(Ernst-Mach Institut, Freiburg Germany)
M. OrtizCMNE11- 3
-
Quantification of margins and uncertainties (QMU)( )
• Aim: Predict mean performance and uncertainty in the behavior of complex physical/engineered systems
• Example: Short-term weather prediction,– Old: Prediction that tomorrow will rain in Coimbra…
New: Guarantee same with 99% confidence– New: Guarantee same with 99% confidence…• QMU is important for achieving confidence in high-
consequence decisions, designs• Paradigm shift in experimental science, modeling and
simulation, scientific computing (predictive science):Deterministic Non deterministic systems– Deterministic → Non-deterministic systems
– Mean performance → Mean performance + uncertainties– Tight integration of experiments, theory and simulation
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 4
– Robust design: Design systems to minimize uncertainty– Resource allocation: Eliminate main uncertainty sources
-
Certification view of QMU
system inputs
performance measures
responsefunctioninputs measures
• Random variables
• Known or
• Observables• Subject to
performance• Known or unknown pdfs
• Controllable,
performance specs
• Random due
S t bl k b
uncontrollable, unknown-unknowns
to randomnessof inputs or of system
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 5
System as black boxunknowns system
-
Certification view of QMU
• Certification = Rigorous guarantee that complex system will perform safely and according to specifications
• Certification criterion: Probability of failure must be below tolerance,
• Alternative (conservative)Alternative (conservative) certification criterion: Rigorous upper bound of probability of failure must be below tolerancemust be below tolerance,
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 6
• Challenge: Rigorous, measurable/computable upper bounds on the probability of failure of systems
-
Concentration of measure (CoM)
• CoM phenomenon (Levy, 1951): Functions over1951): Functions over high-dimensional spaces with small local oscillations in each variable are almost constant
• CoM gives rise to a classCoM gives rise to a class of probability-of-failure inequalities that can be
d f iused for rigorous certification of complex systems
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 7
Paul Pierre Levy (1886-1971)
-
The diameter of a function
• Oscillation of a function of one variable:
• Function subdiameters:
• Function diameter:evaluation requires
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 8
qglobal optimization!
-
McDiarmid’s inequality
McDiarmid C (1989) “On the method of bounded differences” In J Simmons (ed ) Surveys in
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 9
McDiarmid, C. (1989) On the method of bounded differences . In J. Simmons (ed.), Surveys inCombinatorics: London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series 141. Cambridge University Press.
-
McDiarmid’s inequality
• Bound does not require distribution of inputs• Bound depends on two numbers only:
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 10
p yFunction mean and function diameter!
-
McDiarmid’s inequality and QMU
Probability of failure Upper bound Failure tolerance
• Equivalent statement (confidence factor CF):
• Rigorous definition of margin (M)
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 11
• Rigorous definition of uncertainty (U)
-
McDiarmid’s inequality and QMU
• CoM Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) ‘does the job’:– Rigorous upper bounds on PoFs for complex systemsg pp p y– Rigorous definitions of ‘uncertainty’ and ‘margin’– Does not require knowledge of input parameters pdfs– Reduces UQ to determination of:
• Mean performance E[G]S t di t D• System diameter DG
• But determination of response diameter is a global optimization problem over parameter space: Solutionoptimization problem over parameter space: Solution requires exceedingly many function evaluations
• Strictly experimental implementation is often impractical
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 12
• Alternative: Model-Based Uncertainty Quantification!
-
Model-Based QMU
system inputs
performance measures
responsefunctioninputs measures
• Random variables
• Known or
• Observables• Subject to
performance• Known or unknown pdfs
• Controllable,
performance specs
• Random due uncontrollable, unknown-unknowns
to randomnessof inputs or of system
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 13
System model
unknowns system
-
Model-based QMU ‒ Perfect model
System model
• Assume deterministic system (no scatter)• Assume model is perfect (F=G)• Assume that mean performance and system diameter
can be computed exactly• Then UQ can be carried out entirely in cyber-space,
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 14
Then UQ can be carried out entirely in cyber space,no experiments are required!
-
Case Study – Steel/Al ballistics
Barrel Pressure Gun
Light d t t
Target and projectile
detector(velocity ) Data
recorder LeCroy
• Target/projectile materials:– Target: Al 6061-T6 plates (6”x 6”)– Projectile: S2 Tool steel balls (5/16”)
• Model input parameters (X): – Plate thickness (0.032’’-0.063’’) Optimet
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
( )– Impact velocity (200-400 m/s)
OptimetMiniConoscan
3000M. Ortiz
CMNE11- 15
-
Case Study – Steel/Al ballistics
350
40060
operating range(180-400 m/s)
250
300
350
not perforated
locity (m
/s)
30
40
50
rea (m
m2)
32 milli‐inch
‘cliff’
150
200perforated
rojectile
Vel
10
20
30
erforated ar 40 milli‐inch50 milli‐inch
63 milli‐inchballistic
limit
10030 40 50 60 70
P
Plate thickness (milli‐inch)
00 100 200 300 400
P
Impact Velocity (m/s)
Perforation area vs. impact velocity(note small data scatter!)
Perforation/non-perforationboundary
• System output (Y): Perforation area!
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
• System output (Y): Perforation area! • Certification criterion: Y>0 (lethality)
M. OrtizCMNE11- 16
-
Optimal-Transportation Meshfree (OTM) model of terminal ballistics( )
• Optimal transportation theory is a useful tool for ti t i ll t di t L i fgenerating geometrically-exact discrete Lagrangians for
flow problems• Inertial part of discrete Lagrangian measures distanceInertial part of discrete Lagrangian measures distance
between consecutive mass densities (in sense of Wasserstein)Di H il i i l f i i• Discrete Hamilton principle of stationary action: Variational time integration scheme:– Symplectic, time reversible, exact conservationSymplectic, time reversible, exact conservation– Variational convergence (Γ-convergence, B. Schmidt)
• Extension to inelasticity: Variational constitutive updates
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
Li, B., Habbal, F. and Ortiz, M., IJNME, 83 (2010) 1541-1579M. Ortiz
CMNE11- 17
-
OTM – Spatial discretizationnodal points:
materiali tpoints
incrementaldeformationdeformation
mapping
Nodes carry field information
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
o Nodes carry field informationo Matl. points carry matl. state
M. OrtizCMNE11- 18
-
OTM ─ Nodal point set
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
Steel projectile/aluminum plate: Nodal set M. OrtizCMNE11- 19
-
OTM ─ Material point set
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
Steel projectile/aluminum plate: Material point set M. OrtizCMNE11- 20
-
OTM ─ Max-ent interpolation
• Max-ent interpolation is smooth, meshfreemeshfree
• Finite-element interpolation is recovered as a limit
• Rapid decay, short range• Monotonicity, maximum principle
G d l i ti• Good mass lumping properties• Kronecker-delta property at the
boundary:boundary:– Displacement boundary conditions – Compatibility with finite elements
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
Arroyo, M. and Ortiz, M., IJNME, 65 (2006) 2167-2202M. Ortiz
CMNE11- 21
-
OTM ─ Spatial discretization nodal points:
materiali t
• Max-ent interpolation at material point p determinedpoints material point p determined by nodes in its local environment Np
• Local environments determined ‘on-the-fly’ by range searchesrange searches
• Local environments evolve continuously during flow (dynamic reconnection)
• Dynamic reconnection requires no remapping of
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
requires no remapping of history variables!
M. OrtizCMNE11- 22
-
OTM ─ Flow chart
(i) Explicit nodal coordinate update:
(ii) Material point update:position:
deformation:
volume:volume:
density:
(iii) Constitutive update at material points
(iv) Reconnect nodal and material points (range searches),
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
( ) p ( g ),recompute max-ext shape functions
M. OrtizCMNE11- 23
-
OTM ─ Seizing contact
body 1 body 2linearmomentum
ll ti !cancellation!
nodesnodesmaterial points
Seizing contact (infinite friction)
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
g ( )is obtained for free in OTM!
(as in other material point methods) M. OrtizCMNE11- 24
-
OTM ─ Seizing contact
body 1 body 2linearmomentum
ll ti !cancellation!
nodesnodesmaterial points
Seizing contact (infinite friction)
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 25
g ( )is obtained for free in OTM!
(as in other material point methods)
-
OTM - Fracture & fragmentation
• Proof of convergence of variational element erosion to Griffith fracture:– Schmidt, B., Fraternali, F. and Ortiz,
M., SIAM J. Multiscale Model. Simul., 7(3) (2009) 1237-1366.
• OTM implentation: Variational erosion of material points (by ε-erosion of material points (by ε-neighborhood construction),
crack • Alternatively: Material point failure + comminution:Pandolfi A Conti S and Ortiz M
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
– Pandolfi, A., Conti, S. and Ortiz, M., JMPS, 54 (2006) 1972-2003
M. OrtizCMNE11- 26
-
OTM - Fracture & fragmentation
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
[Campbell et al., 2007]
-
OTM - Fracture & fragmentation
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
[Campbell et al., 2007]
-
OTM ─ Terminal ballistics
V = 365 m/s
S2 tool steel projectile
Al6061 T6 plate
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
Al6061-T6 plate
M. OrtizCMNE11- 29
-
OTM ─ Terminal ballistics
V = 365 m/s
S2 tool steel projectile
Al6061 T6 plate
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
Al6061-T6 plate
M. OrtizCMNE11- 30
-
OTM ─ Terminal ballistics
V = 2500 m/s
440C steel projectile
Al6061 T6 plate
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
Al6061-T6 plate
M. OrtizCMNE11- 31
-
OTM ─ Terminal ballistics
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
-
OTM – Terminal ballistics
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 33
-
OTM – Terminal ballistics
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 34
-
Case Study I – Steel/Al ballistics
60
operating range(180-400 m/s)
30
40
50
ea (m
m2)
32 milli‐
10
20
30
erforated are
inch40 milli‐inch50 milli‐inchthickness 4.33 mm2
00 100 200 300 400
Pe
Impact Velocity (m/s)
Modeldiameter DF
velocity 4.49 mm2
total 6.24 mm2
Model mean E[F] 47.77 mm2
• Lethality can be certified with ~ 10-51 confidence!
Model mean E[F] 47.77 mm
Confidence factor M/U 7.66Steel/Al ballisticsresponse function
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
• Lethality can be certified with ~ 10 51 confidence!• Number of response function evaluations ~ 2,000 M. Ortiz
CMNE11- 35
-
Uncertainty quantification ‘crimes’
• Models are inexact in general! • How does lack of model fidelity contribute to uncertainty?y y• Is rigorous model-based certification possible in the face
of modeling error?• Mean performance E[F] cannot be computed exactly for
complex systems• Instead mean performance E[F] is approximated byInstead, mean performance E[F] is approximated by
empirical mean:
• What is the effect of the empirical mean approximation on
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 36
p ppuncertainty quantification?
-
UQ crime and punishment
• Two functions that describe the system:– Experiment: G(X) F(X) G(X) M d li f tiExperiment: G(X)– Model: F(X)
• McDiarmid bound monotonic in diameter
F(X)-G(X) ≡ Modeling-error function
• Conservative certification criterion:• Triangular inequality:
Conservative certification criterion:
• m : Margin hit (emp. mean)• D : Model diameter (variability of model)
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 37
• DF: Model diameter (variability of model)• DF-G: Modeling error (badness of model)
-
Model-based QMU – McDiarmid
• Working assumptions:– F-G far more regular than F
or G aloneor G alone– Global optimization for DF-G
converges fast (e.g. BFGS)– Evaluation of D requires
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 38
– Evaluation of DF-G requires few experiments
-
Model-based QMU – McDiarmid
• Calculation of DF requires exercising model only
• Evaluation of DF-G requires (few) experiments
• Uncertainty Quantification burden mostly shifted to modeling and simulation!
• Rigorous certification not achievable by modeling and simulation alone!
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 39
g
-
Case Study – OTM modeling error
OTM simulations
/s)
experimental
OTM simulations
a (m
m2 )
velo
city
(m perforation
ratio
n ar
ea
vno perforation
Per
for
OTM simulationsexperimental
thickness (thousands of an inch)
p
velocity (m/s)
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
Measured vs. computed perforation areaM. Ortiz
CMNE11- 40
-
Sample UQ Analysis – Ballistic range
Modelthickness 4.33 mm2
velocity 4.49 mm2operating range(180 400 m/s)
50
60
m2)
diameter DFy
total 6.24 mm2
Modelingthickness 4.96 mm2
velocity 2 16 mm2
(180-400 m/s)
20
30
40
ed area (m
m
32 milli‐inch40 milli‐i h
Modeling error DF-G
velocity 2.16 mm2
total 5.41 mm2
Uncertainty DF + DF-G 11.65 mm2
0
10
20
0 100 200 300 400
Perforate inch
50 milli‐inch
y F F GEmpirical mean 47.77 mm2
Margin hit α (ε’=0.1%) 4.17 mm20 100 200 300 400
Impact Velocity (m/s)Confidence factor M/U 3.74
• Perforation can be certified with ~ 1-10-12 confidence!
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
Perforation can be certified with 1 10 confidence!• Total number of experiments ~ 50 → Approach feasible!
M. OrtizCMNE11- 41
-
Beyond McDiarmid - Extensions
• A number of extensions of McDiarmid may be required in practice:– Some input parameters cannot be controlled– There are unknown input parameters (unknown unknowns)– There is experimental scatter (G defined in probability)There is experimental scatter (G defined in probability)– McDiarmid may not be tight enough (convergence?)– Model itself may be uncertain (epistemic uncertainty)
D t t b il bl ‘ d d’ (l d t )– Data may not be available ‘on demand’ (legacy data)
• Extensions of McDiarmid that address these challenges include:– Martingale inequalities (unknown unknowns, scatter…)– Partitioned McDiarmid inequality (convergent upper bounds)
Optimal Uncertainty Quantification (OUQ)
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
– Optimal Uncertainty Quantification (OUQ)– Optimal models (least epistemic uncertainty)
M. OrtizCMNE11- 42
-
Concluding remarks…
• QMU represents a paradigm shift in predictive science:– Emphasis on predictions with quantified uncertaintiesp p q– Unprecedented integration between simulation and experiment
• QMU supplies a powerful organizational principle in predicti e science Theorems r n entire centers!predictive science: Theorems run entire centers!
• QMU raises theoretical and practical challenges:– Tight and measureable/computable probability-of-failure upper g / p p y pp
bounds (need theorems!)– Efficient global optimization methods for highly non-convex,
high-dimensionality, noisy functionsg y, y– Effective use of massively parallel computational platforms,
heterogeneous and exascale computing– High-fidelity models (multiscale effective behavior )
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
High fidelity models (multiscale, effective behavior…)– Experimental science for UQ (diagnostics, rapid-fire testing…)…
M. OrtizCMNE11- 43
-
Concluding remarks…
Thank you!y
PSAAP: Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program
M. OrtizCMNE11- 44