Abstract

This paper presents the assessment of the performance of nine discretization uncertainty estimates based on grid refinement studies including methods that use grid triplets and others that use a largest number of data points, which in this study was set to five. The uncertainty estimates are performed for the dataset proposed for the 2017 ASME Workshop on Estimation of Discretization Errors Based on Grid Refinement Studies including functional and local (boundary and interior) flow quantities from the two-dimensional flows of an incompressible fluid over a flat plate and the NACA 0012 airfoil. The data were generated with a Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) solver using three eddy-viscosity turbulence models with double precision and sufficiently tight iterative convergence criteria to ensure that the numerical error is dominated by the discretization error. The use of several geometrically similar grid sets with different near-wall cell sizes for the same flow conditions lead to a wide range of convergence properties for the selected flow quantities, which enables the assessment of the numerical uncertainty estimators in conditions that are representative of the so-called practical applications.The evaluation of uncertainty estimates is based on the ratio of the uncertainty estimate over the “exact error” that is obtained from an “exact solution” obtained from extra grid sets significantly more refined than those used to generate the Workshop data. Although none of the methods tested fulfilled the goal of bounding the exact error 95 times out of 100 that was tested, the results suggest that the methods tested are useful tools for the assessment of the numerical uncertainty of practical numerical simulations even for cases where it is not possible to generate data in the “asymptotic range.”

References

1.
TECNICO LISBOA, “Workshop on Estimation of Discretization Errors Based on Grid Refinement Studies,” accessed Sept. 11, 2021,http://web.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/ist12278/Discretization/Workshop_discretization_2017.htm
2.
Eça
,
L.
,
Vaz
,
G.
, and
Hoekstra
,
M.
,
2018
, “
A Contribution for the Assessment of Discretization Error Estimators Based on Grid Refinement Studies
,”
ASME J. Verif., Validation Uncertainty Quantif.
,
3
(
2
), p.
021001
.10.1115/1.4040803
3.
Roache
,
P. J.
,
1998
,
Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering
,
Hermosa Pub, Socorro, NM
.
4.
Roache
,
P. J.
,
2009
,
Fundamentals of Verification and Validation
,
Hermosa Pub, Socorro, NM
.
5.
Oberkampf
,
W. L.
, and
Roy
,
C. J.
,
2010
,
Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing
,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
.
6.
Xing
,
T.
, and
Stern
,
F.
,
2010
, “
Factors of Safety for Richardson Extrapolation
,”
ASME J. Fluids Eng.
,
132
(
6
), p.
061403
.10.1115/1.4001771
7.
Xing
,
T.
, and
Stern
,
F.
,
2011
, “
Closure to Discussion of ‘Factors of Safety for Richardson Extrapolation’ (2011, ASME J. Fluids Eng., 133, p. 115501)
,”
ASME J. Fluids Eng.
,
133
(
11
), p.
115502
.10.1115/1.4005030
8.
Roache
,
P. J.
,
1994
, “
Perspective: A Method for Uniform Reporting of Grid Refinement Studies
,”
ASME J. Fluids Eng.
,
116
(
3
), pp.
405
413
.10.1115/1.2910291
9.
ASME
,
2009
, “
Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer
,” V V 20 - 2009(R2021),
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
, New York
.
10.
Phillips
,
T. S.
, and
Roy
,
C. J.
,
2016
, “
A New Extrapolation-Based Uncertainty Estimator for Computational Fluid Dynamics
,”
ASME J. Verif., Validation Uncertainty Quantif.
,
1
(
4
), p.
041006
.10.1115/1.4035666
11.
Eça
,
L.
, and
Hoekstra
,
M.
,
2014
, “
A Procedure for the Estimation of the Numerical Uncertainty of CFD Calculations Based on Grid Refinement Studies
,”
J. Comput. Phys.
,
262
, pp.
104
130
.10.1016/j.jcp.2014.01.006
12.
Fox
,
J.
,
2002
,
An R and S-Plus Companion to Applied Regression
, 1st ed.,
Sage Publications
, Thousand Oaks, CA.
13.
Rider
,
W.
,
Witkowski
,
W.
,
Kamm
,
J. R.
, and
Wildey
,
T.
,
2016
, “
Robust Verification Analysis
,”
J. Comput. Phys.
,
307
, pp.
146
163
.10.1016/j.jcp.2015.11.054
14.
Spalart
,
P. R.
, and
Allmaras
,
S. R.
,
1994
, “
A One Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows
,”
Rech. Aerosp.-Fr. Ed.
, (
1
), pp.
5
21
.
15.
Menter
,
F. R.
,
1994
, “
Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications
,”
AIAA J.
,
32
(
8
), pp.
1598
1605
.10.2514/3.12149
16.
Menter
,
F. R.
,
Kuntz
,
M.
,
Langtry
,
R.
,
Nagano
,
Y.
,
Tummers
,
M. J.
, and
Hanjalic
,
K.
,
2003
, “
Ten Years of Industrial Experience With the SST Turbulence Model
,”
Internal Symposium, Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer
, Vol.
4
,
New York
,
Begell House
, pp.
625
632
.
17.
MenterEgorov
,
F. Y.
, and
Rusch
,
D.
,
2006
, “
Steady and Unsteady Flow Modelling Using the k-sqrt(k)L Model
,”
Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer 5: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium
,
K.
Hanjalic
,
Y.
Nagano
, and
S.
Jakirlic
, eds.,
Dubrovnik, Croatia
, Sept. 25–29,
Begell House
,
New York
, pp.
403
406
.
18.
Eça
,
L.
,
Pereira
,
F.
, and
Vaz
,
G.
,
2018
, “
Viscous Flow Simulations at High Reynolds Numbers Without Wall Functions: Is y + 1 Enough for the Near-Wall Cells?
,”
Comput.Fluids
,
170
, pp.
157
175
.10.1016/j.compfluid.2018.04.035
19.
MARIIN, “MARIN,” accessed Sept. 11, 2021, www.refresco.org
You do not currently have access to this content.