Uncertainties and CFD Code Validation

A new approach to computational fluid dynamics code validation is developed that gives proper consideration to experimental and simulation uncertainties. The comparison error is defined as the difference between the data and simulation values and represents the combination of all errors. The validation uncertainly is defined as the combination of the uncertainties in the experimental data and the portion of the uncertainties in the CFD prediction that can be estimated. This validation uncertainty sets the level at which validation can be achieved. The criterion for validation is that the magnitude of the comparison error must be less than the validation uncertainty. If validation is not accomplished, the magnitude and sign of the comparison error can be used to improve the mathematical modeling. Consideration is given to validation procedures for a single code, multiple codes and/or models, and predictions of trends. Example results of verification/validation are presented for a single computational fluid dynamics code and for a comparison of multiple turbulence models. The results demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed validation strategy. This new approach for validation should be useful in guiding future developments in computational fluid dynamics through validation studies and in the transition of computational fluid dynamics codes to design.

[1]  Robert Beard,et al.  Effects of kinetic rate uncertainty on the predicted performance of small hydrogen thrusters , 1996 .

[2]  F. Blottner,et al.  Accurate Navier-Stokes results for the hypersonic flow over a spherical nosetip , 1989 .

[3]  Unmeel B. Mehta,et al.  Guide to credible computer simulations of fluid flows , 1996 .

[4]  Nobuhide Kasagi,et al.  Prediction of Anisotropy of the Near-Wall Turbulence With an Anisotropic Low-Reynolds-Number k–ε Turbulence Model , 1990 .

[5]  P. Roache QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS , 1997 .

[6]  W. G. Steele,et al.  Evaluation of correlated bias approximations in experimental uncertainty analysis , 1996 .

[7]  U. Mehta Credible Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations , 1998 .

[8]  D. W. Zingg,et al.  Grid studies for thin-layer Navier-Stokes computations of airfoil flowfields , 1992 .

[9]  Hugh W. Coleman,et al.  Experimentation and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers , 1989 .

[10]  Hugh W. Coleman Uncertainty considerations in validating CFD codes with experimental data , 1996 .

[11]  Joseph G. Marvin,et al.  Perspective on Computational Fluid Dynamics Validation , 1995 .

[12]  V. C. Patel,et al.  Near-wall turbulence models for complex flows including separation , 1988 .

[13]  W. G. Steele,et al.  Engineering application of experimental uncertainty analysis , 1995 .

[14]  Hugh W. Coleman,et al.  Implications of Correlated Bias Uncertainties in Single and Comparative Tests , 1995 .

[15]  William L. Oberkampf,et al.  Methodology for computational fluid dynamics code verification/validation , 1995 .

[16]  H. Lomax,et al.  Thin-layer approximation and algebraic model for separated turbulent flows , 1978 .

[17]  Frederick Stern,et al.  Solid/free-surface juncture boundary layer and wake , 1998 .