Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamental concepts
- Part II Code verification
- Part III Solution verification
- Part IV Model validation and prediction
- 10 Model validation fundamentals
- 11 Design and execution of validation experiments
- 12 Model accuracy assessment
- 13 Predictive capability
- Part V Planning, management, and implementation issues
- Appendix Programming practices
- Index
- Plate Section
- References
11 - Design and execution of validation experiments
from Part IV - Model validation and prediction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 March 2013
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamental concepts
- Part II Code verification
- Part III Solution verification
- Part IV Model validation and prediction
- 10 Model validation fundamentals
- 11 Design and execution of validation experiments
- 12 Model accuracy assessment
- 13 Predictive capability
- Part V Planning, management, and implementation issues
- Appendix Programming practices
- Index
- Plate Section
- References
Summary
Chapter 10, Model validation fundamentals, discussed the philosophy of validation experiments and how they differ from traditional experiments as well as calibration experiments. A validation experiment is conducted for the primary purpose of determining the predictive accuracy of a mathematical model. In other words, a validation experiment is designed, executed, and analyzed for the purpose of quantitatively determining the ability of a mathematical model and its embodiment in a computer code to simulate a well-characterized physical process. In this chapter we describe six primary guidelines for the design and execution of validation experiments. Our discussion will also deal with how these guidelines can be carried out and why they are sometimes difficult to execute in practice.
We will then discuss a high-quality validation experiment that the authors, as well as several others, designed and executed. The experiment is referred to as the Joint Computational/Experimental Aerodynamics Program (JCEAP). From the beginning of the project, it was designed to synergistically couple computational fluid dynamics development and an experimental research in a hypersonic wind tunnel. The program was initiated in 1990 at Sandia National Laboratories and came to a successful close in 1997. The program helped develop the six fundamental guidelines for the design and execution of high-quality validation experiments. We use JCEAP to exemplify these six guidelines and make recommendations for how they can be applied to validation experiments in general.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing , pp. 409 - 468Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
and (1998). Experimental methodology for computational fluid dynamics code validation. AIAA Journal. 36(5), 733–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1994). Fast-response, electronically-scanned multi-port pressure system for low-pressure hypersonic wind tunnel applications. AIAA Aerospace Ground Testing Conference, AIAA Paper 94-2580, Colorado Springs, CO, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.CrossRef
, , and (1995). A proposed methodology for CFD code verification, calibration, and validation. 16th International Congress on Instrumentation for Aerospace Simulation Facilities, Paper 95-CH3482-7, Dayton, OH, ICIASF.CrossRef
(1994). Quality Assessment for Wind Tunnel Testing. NATO Advisory Group for Aerospace Research & Development (AGARD), AGARD-AR-304.
(1999). Assessment of Experimental Uncertainty with Application to Wind Tunnel Testing. S-071A-1999, Reston, VA, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
(2003). Assessing Experimental Uncertainty – Supplement to AIAA S-071A-1999, Reston, VA, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
(1997). U.S. Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. Boulder, CO, American National Standards Institute.Google Scholar
(1998). Role of code validation and certification in the design environment. AIAA Journal. 36(5), 752–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1998). Validation issues for engine – airframe integration. AIAA Journal. 36(5), 759–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and , (2005). Statistics for Experimenters: Design, Innovation, and Discovery. 2nd edn., New York, John Wiley.Google Scholar
and . (1999). Experimentation and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers. 2nd edn., New York, John Wiley.Google Scholar
(1995). CFD validation requirements for technology transition. 26th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA Paper 95-2227, San Diego, CA, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.CrossRef
(2002). Tactical defenses against systematic variation in wind tunnel testing. 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, AIAA-2002-0885, Reno, NV, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.CrossRef
(2003). Blocking: a defense against long-period unexplained variance in aerospace ground testing. 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA-2003-0650, Reno, NV, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.CrossRef
(2007). Probability and Statistics for Engineers and the Sciences. 7th edn., Pacific Grove, CA, Duxbury.Google Scholar
(2007). Dealing with Uncertainties: a Guide to Error Analysis, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
and (2008). Design and Analysis of Experiments: Volume 1 – Introduction to Experimental Design. 2nd edn., Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley.Google Scholar
(1995). Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. Geneva, Switzerland, International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
(2008). Uncertainty of Measurement – Part 3: Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. ISO/IEC Guide 98-3:2008, Geneva, Switzerland, International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
(1995). Perspective on computational fluid dynamics validation. AIAA Journal. 33(10), 1778–1787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1987). A Critical Assessment of Wind Tunnel Results for the NACA 0012 Airfoil. Washington, DC, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.Google Scholar
(1988). Describing the uncertainties in experimental results. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science. 1(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1990). Uncertainty: a Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. 1st edn., Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1992). Joint Computational/Experimental Aerodynamics Research on a Hypersonic Vehicle: Part 1, Experimental Results. AIAA Journal. 30(8), 2000–2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1998). Issues in computational fluid dynamics code verification and validation. AIAA Journal. 36(5), 687–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2002). Verification and validation in computational fluid dynamics. Progress in Aerospace Sciences. 38(3), 209–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1985). SWERVE Surface Pressure Measurements at Mach Numbers 3 and 8. SAND84-2149, SECRET Formerly Restricted Data, Albuquerque, NM, Sandia National Laboratories.
, , and (1993). Experimental Aerodynamics Research on a Hypersonic Vehicle. SAND92-1411, Albuquerque, NM, Sandia National Laboratories.Google Scholar
, , and (1995). Surface pressure measurements for CFD code validation in hypersonic flow. 26th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA Paper 95-2273, San Diego, CA, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.CrossRef
, , , , and (1996). Surface pressure measurements on a hypersonic vehicle. 34th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA Paper 96-0669, Reno, NV, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.CrossRef
and (1995). Verification of computational aerodynamics predictions for complex hypersonic vehicles using the INCA code. 33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.CrossRef
(1996). A summary/overview of selected computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code validation/calibration activities. 27th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA Paper 96-2053, New Orleans, LA, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.CrossRef
(2005). Measurement Errors and Uncertainties: Theory and Practice. 3rd edn., New York, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
(1998). Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering, Albuquerque, NM, Hermosa Publishers.Google Scholar
, , and (2000). Verification and validation for laminar hypersonic flowfields. Fluids 2000 Conference, AIAA Paper 2000-2550, Denver, CO, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.CrossRef
, , and (2003a). Verification and validation for laminar hypersonic flowfields, Part 1: Verification. AIAA Journal. 41(10), 1934–1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2003b). Verification and validation for laminar hypersonic flowfields, Part 2: Validation. AIAA Journal. 41(10), 1944–1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2007). Measurement Uncertainty: an Approach via the Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
and (1991). Effect of transverse curvature on the stability of compressible boundary layers. AIAA Journal. 29(10), 1596–1602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1992). Linear stability of three-dimensional boundary layers over axisymmetric bodies at incidence. AIAA Journal. 30(4), 905–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1981). Flux vector splitting of the inviscid gasdynamic equations with applications to finite-difference methods. Journal of Computational Physics. 40, 263–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1992). Joint computational/experimental aerodynamics research on a hypersonic vehicle: Part 2, Computational results. AIAA Journal. 30(8), 2010–2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (1995a). Implementation of a parallel algorithm for thermo-chemical nonequilibrium flow solutions. AIAA 33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA Paper 95-0152, Reno, NV, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
, , , , and (1995b). PINCA: A scalable Parallel Program for Compressible Gas Dynamics with Nonequilibrium Chemistry. SAND94-2436, Albuquerque, NM, Sandia National Laboratories.Google Scholar
(1987). Implicit and Symmetric Shock Capturing Schemes. NASA, NASA-TM-89464.
- 5
- Cited by