首页> 美国政府科技报告 >Comparing 10 Methods for Solution Verification, and Linking to Model Validation
【24h】

Comparing 10 Methods for Solution Verification, and Linking to Model Validation

机译:比较10种解决方案验证方法和链接到模型验证

获取原文

摘要

Grid convergence is often assumed as a given during computational analyses involving discretization of an assumed continuum process. In practical use of finite difference and finite element analyses, perfect grid convergence is rarely achieved or assured, and this fact must be addressed to make statements about model validation or the use of models in risk analysis. We have previously provided a 4-step quantitative implementation for a quantitative V&V process. One of the steps in the 4-step process is that of Solution Verification. Solution Verification is the process of assuring that a model approximating a physical reality with a discretized continuum (e.g. finite element) code converges in each discretized domain to a converged answer on the quantity of subsequent validation interest. The modeling reality is that often we are modeling a problem with a discretized code because it is neither continuous spatially (e.g. contact and impact) nor smooth in relevant physics (e.g. shocks, melting, etc). The typical result is a non-monotonic convergence plot that can lead to spurious conclusions about the order of convergence, and a lack of means to estimate residual solution verification error or uncertainty at confidence. We compare ten techniques for grid convergence assessment, each formulated to enable a quantification of solution verification uncertainty at confidence and order of convergence for monotonic and nonmonotonic mesh convergence studies. The more rigorous of these methods require a minimum of four grids in a grid convergence study to quantify the grid convergence uncertainty. The methods supply the quantitative terms for solution verification error and uncertainty estimates needed for inclusion into subsequent model validation, confidence, and reliability analyses. Naturally, most such methodologies are still evolving, and this work represents the views of the authors and not necessarily the views of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号