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.

Issue Section:
Research Papers
Topics:
Computational fluid dynamics, Uncertainty, Errors, Simulation, Design, Modeling, Turbulence
1.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), 1994, “Editorial Policy Statement on Numerical Accuracy and Experimental Uncertainty,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1.
2.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), 1997, “Guide to the Assessment of Uncertainty in Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations,” AIAA G-077, Jan. 1997 draft of a recommended practices document.
3.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), 1993, “Editorial Policy Statement on the Control of Numerical Accuracy,” ASME JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING, Vol. 115, No. 3.
4.
Baldwin, B. S., and Lomax, H., 1978, “Thin Layer Approximation and Algebraic Model for Separated Turbulent Flows,” AIAA Paper AIAA 78-257.
5.
Beard, R. M., and Landrum, D. B., 1996, “Effects of Kinetic Rate Uncertainty on the Predicted Performance of Small Hydrogen Thrusters,” AIAA Paper AIAA-96-2856.
6.
Blottner, F. G., 1990, “Accurate Navier-Stokes Results for the Hypersonic Flow over a Spherical Nosetip,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 27, No. 2.
7.
Brown, K. K., Coleman, H. W., and Butas, J. P., 1994, “Impact of Uncertainty on Modeling and Testing of the Space Shuttle Main Engine,” ASME FED-Vol. 205.
8.
Brown, K. K., Coleman, H. W., Steele, W. G., and Taylor, R. P., 1996, “Evaluation of Correlated Bias Error Effects in Experimental Uncertainty Analysis,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 34, No. 5.
9.
Celik, I., Chen, C. J., Roache, P. J., and Scheuerer, G., eds., 1993, Quantification of Uncertainty in Computational Fluid Dynamics, ASME FED-Vol. 158.
10.
Chen
H. C.
, and
Patel
V. C.
,
1988
, “
Near-Wall Turbulence Models for Complex Flows Including Separation
,”
AIAA Journal
, Vol.
26
, No.
6
, pp.
641
–
648
.
11.
Chen, B., 1996, “Computational Fluid Dynamics of Four-Quadrant Marine-Propulsor Flow,” M. S. thesis, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Iowa.
12.
Chen, B., and Stern, F., 1997, “Computation of Marine-Propulsor Flow—Part 1: Design Condition,” in preparation.
13.
Coleman, H. W., 1996, “Uncertainty Considerations in Validating CFD Codes with Experimental Data,” AIAA Paper AIAA-96-2027.
14.
Coleman, H. W., and Steele, W. G., 1989, Experimentation and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers, Wiley, New York.
15.
Coleman, H. W., and Steele, W. G., 1995, “Engineering Application of Uncertainty Analysis,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 33, No. 10.
16.
Coleman, H. W., Steele, W. G., and Taylor, R. P., 1995, “Implications of Correlated Bias Uncertainties in Single and Comparative Tests,” ASME JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING, Vol. 117, No. 4.
17.
Gresho, P. M., and Taylor, C., 1994, “Editorial,” International Journal of Numerical Methods in Fluids, Vol. 19, No. 12.
18.
International Association of Hydraulic Research (IAHR), 1994, “Guidelines for Documenting the Validity of Computational Modeling Software”.
19.
International Towing Tank Conference (ITTC), 1996, 21st ITTC Proceedings, Bergen, Norway.
20.
Jessup, S. D., 1989, “An Experimental Investigation of Viscous Aspects of Propeller Blade Flow,” Ph.d. Dissertation, School of Engineering and Architecture, The Catholic University of America.
21.
Jessup, S. D., 1994, “Propeller Blade Flow Measurements Using LDV,” ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, Lake Tahoe, NV.
22.
Longo, J., Huang, H. P., and Stern, F., 1998, “Solid-Fluid Juncture Boundary Layer and Wake,” to appear in Experiments in Fluids.
23.
Marvin, J. G., 1995, “Perspective on Computational Fluid Dynamics Validation,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 33, No. 10.
24.
Mehta, U. B., 1996, “Guide to Credible Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 12, No. 5.
25.
Melnik, R. E., Siclari, M. J., Barber, T. J., and Verhoff, A., “A Process for Industry Certification of Physical Simulation Codes,” AIAA Paper 94-2235.
26.
Myong, H. K., and Kasagi, N., 1991, “Prediction of Anisotropy of the Near-Wall Turbulence with an Anisotropic Low-Reynolds Number k-ε Model,” ASME JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING, Vol. 112.
27.
Oberkampf, W. L., Blottner, F. G., and Aeschliman, D. P., 1995, “Methodology for Computational Fluid Dynamics Code Verification/Validation,” AIAA Paper AIAA-95-2226.
28.
Roache
P. J.
,
1997
, “
Quantification of Uncertainty in Computational Fluid Dynamics
,”
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
, Vol.
29
, pp.
123
–
160
.
29.
Rood, E. P., 1996, “Validation Strategy for “RANS” Computational Ship Hydrodynamics,” Second International Conference on Hydrodynamics, Hong Kong.
30.
Sreedhar, M., and Stern, F., 1997, “Non-Linear Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Model for Solid/Free-Surface Boundary Layer and Wake,” 3rd Forum on Advances in Num. Modeling of Free Surface and Interface Fluid Dynamics, ASME FED Summer Meeting, Vancouver, Canada.
31.
Stern, F., Zhang, D. H., Chen, B., Kim, H. T., and Jessup, S., 1994, “Computation of Viscous Marine Propulsor Blade and Wake Flow,” Proc. 20th ONR Symposium on Naval Hydro., Santa Barbara, CA.
32.
Stern, F., Paterson, E. G., and Tahara, Y., 1996, “CFDSHIP-IOWA: Computational Fluid Dynamics Method for Surface-Ship Boundary Layers and Wakes and Wave Fields,” Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, University of Iowa, IIHR Report No. 381.
33.
Zingg, D. W., 1992, “Grid Studies for Thin-Layer Navier-Stokes Computations of Airfoil Flowfields,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 30, No. 10.
This content is only available via PDF.
Copyright © 1997
 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
You do not currently have access to this content.