From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations Date of download: 12/24/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations J. Verif. Valid. Uncert. 2016;1(2):021006-021006-8. doi:10.1115/1.4032196 Figure Legend: Mean liquid penetration from experiments, LHS, and PCE along with liquid penetration for a single simulation using the mean values of the uncertain input parameters. The results are all consistent with one another; the single simulation results predict the same approximate quasi-steady liquid length, but with greater variability.

From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations Date of download: 12/24/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations J. Verif. Valid. Uncert. 2016;1(2):021006-021006-8. doi:10.1115/1.4032196 Figure Legend: Standard deviation of liquid penetration for experimental and UQ methods. The UQ methods predict greater variability throughout the injection duration. The variability jumps suddenly around 1.0 ms ASOI as the individual spray events that constitute the averages begin to vaporize at different times.

From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations Date of download: 12/24/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations J. Verif. Valid. Uncert. 2016;1(2):021006-021006-8. doi:10.1115/1.4032196 Figure Legend: Mean vapor penetration from experiments, LHS, and PCE along with the vapor penetration for a single simulation using the mean values of the uncertain input parameters. The results, including the single injection input mean, are all quite close until very late when the input mean simulation begins to underpredict relative to the experiments while the UQ methods both start to overpredict slightly.

From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations Date of download: 12/24/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations J. Verif. Valid. Uncert. 2016;1(2):021006-021006-8. doi:10.1115/1.4032196 Figure Legend: Standard deviation of vapor penetration for experiment and UQ methods. The uncertainty in the UQ results is several times that of the experiments and grows at a much faster rate than the experimental uncertainty.

From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations Date of download: 12/24/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations J. Verif. Valid. Uncert. 2016;1(2):021006-021006-8. doi:10.1115/1.4032196 Figure Legend: Experiment (left), PCE (center), and LHS (right) measured or predicted liquid probability contours 0.7 ms ASOI. The outermost isolines of the PCE and LHS results are similar to the experimental contour, but the total probability bands of the UQ results are wider, with contour lines filling the interior of the spray shapes.

From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations Date of download: 12/24/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations J. Verif. Valid. Uncert. 2016;1(2):021006-021006-8. doi:10.1115/1.4032196 Figure Legend: Vapor probability contours 2.0 ms ASOI for experiment (left) and either numerical parameter (center) or physical boundary condition (right) only uncertainty alone. The physical-only results are much closer to the experimental results, while the numerical-only results do not resemble the experimental spray shape.

From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations Date of download: 12/24/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations J. Verif. Valid. Uncert. 2016;1(2):021006-021006-8. doi:10.1115/1.4032196 Figure Legend: Liquid probability contours 0.7 ms ASOI for experiment (left) and either numerical parameter (center) or physical boundary condition (right) uncertainty alone. The outer contours are very similar, but the experimental data have a very narrow probability band, while both simulation subsamples show much wider probability bands.

From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations Date of download: 12/24/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations J. Verif. Valid. Uncert. 2016;1(2):021006-021006-8. doi:10.1115/1.4032196 Figure Legend: Vapor penetration standard deviation of PCE subsamples using only either numerical or physical boundary conditions. The standard deviation from only the numerical parameters is much larger than either the experiment or physical boundary condition variability.

From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations Date of download: 12/24/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations J. Verif. Valid. Uncert. 2016;1(2):021006-021006-8. doi:10.1115/1.4032196 Figure Legend: Mean vapor penetration of the experiment and subsamples of the PCE data of either numerical or physical boundary condition uncertainty. The subsamples predict mean vapor penetration curves that diverge only slightly at the end of the spray.

From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations Date of download: 12/24/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations J. Verif. Valid. Uncert. 2016;1(2):021006-021006-8. doi:10.1115/1.4032196 Figure Legend: Liquid penetration standard deviation of the experiment and subsamples of the PCE data using only either numerical or physical boundary uncertainty. Using only numerical parameter uncertainty results in a much higher standard deviation throughout the simulation, while using only physical boundary condition uncertainty results in a standard deviation that is very similar to the measured data.

From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations Date of download: 12/24/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations J. Verif. Valid. Uncert. 2016;1(2):021006-021006-8. doi:10.1115/1.4032196 Figure Legend: Mean liquid penetration of the experiment and subsamples of the PCE data using only either numerical or physical boundary condition uncertainty. Both subsets predict mean liquid penetrations that are very close to the measured data.

From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations Date of download: 12/24/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Uncertainty Quantification of Large-Eddy Spray Simulations J. Verif. Valid. Uncert. 2016;1(2):021006-021006-8. doi:10.1115/1.4032196 Figure Legend: Experiment (left), PCE (center), and LHS (right) measured or predicted vapor probability contours 2.0 ms ASOI. The simulation results are very different from the experiment with much larger variability predicted in the vapor contours.