Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T22:33:41.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Verification, Validation, Uncertainty Quantification, and Coarse-Graining

from Part I - Paradigms and Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2025

By
Filipe S. Pereira ,
William J. Rider ,
Fernando F. Grinstein  and
Luís Eça
Edited by
Fernando F. Grinstein ,
Filipe S. Pereira  and
Massimo Germano
Fernando F. Grinstein
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Filipe S. Pereira
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Massimo Germano
Affiliation:
Duke University, North Carolina
Get access

Summary

Quantifying and assessing the computational accuracy of coarse-graining simulations of turbulence is challenging and imperative to achieve prediction – computations and results with a quantified and adequate degree of uncertainty that can be confidently used in projects without reference data. Verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification (VVUQ) provide the tools and metrics to accomplish such an objective. This chapter reviews these methods and illustrates their importance to coarse-graining models. Toward this end, we first describe the sources of computational errors and uncertainties in coarse-graining simulations of turbulence, followed by the concepts of VVUQ. Next, we utilize the modified equation analysis and the physical interpretation of a complex problem to demonstrate the role of VVUQ in evaluating and enhancing the fidelity and confidence in numerical simulations. This is crucial to achieving predictive rather than postdictive simulations.

Type
Chapter
Information
Coarse Graining Turbulence
Modeling and Data-Driven Approaches and their Applications
 , pp. 222 - 260
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AIAA. 1998. Guide for the Verification and Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations. Technical report AIAA-G-077-1998. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
AIAA. 1999. Assessment of Experimental Uncertainty with Application to Wind Tunnel Testing. Technical report AIAA S-071. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
Annon. 2023. ADIFOR 2.0 Automatic Differentiation of Fortran. www.mcs.anl.gov/research/projects/adifor/.Google Scholar
ASME. 2009. Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer – ASME V&V 20–2009. ASME.Google Scholar
ASME. 2016. Multivariate Metrics – Supplement 1 of ASME V&V 20–2009. ASME.Google Scholar
ASME. 2022. Verification, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification Terminology in Computational Modeling and Simulations – ASME V&V 1–2022. ASME.Google Scholar
Blackwell, B. F., and Dowding, K. J. 2006. Sensitivity Analysis and Uncertainty Propagation of Computational Models. Pages 443–469 in Handbook of Numerical Heat Transfer, 2nd ed. Minkowycz, W. J., Sparrow, E. M. and Murthy, J. Y. (eds). Wiley.Google Scholar
Blottner, F. G. 1990. Accurate Navier–Stokes Results for the Hypersonic Flow over a Spherical Nosetip. AIAA Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 27, 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehm, B. W. 1981. Software Engineering Economics. 1st ed. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Box, G. E. P. 1979. Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building. Pages 201–236 in Robustness in Statistics, Launer, R. L., and Wilkinson, G. N. (eds). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brachet, M. E., Meiron, D. I., Orzag, S. A., Nickel, B. G., Morf, R. H., and Frisch, U. 1983. Small Scale Structure of the Taylor–Green Vortex. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 130, 411–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, M. P., Murua, A., and Sanz-Serna, J. M. 1994. Modified Equations for ODEs. Contemporary Mathematics, 172, 63–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celik, I., and Hu, G. 2004. Single Grid Error Estimation Using Error Transport Equation. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 126, 778–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celik, I., and Karatekin, O. 1997. Numerical Experiments on Application of Richardson Extrapolation with Nonuniform Grids. ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, 139, 584–590.Google Scholar
Celik, I., Chen, C. J., Roache, P. J., and Scheuerer, G. 1993. Symposium on Quantification of Uncertainty in Computational Fluid Dynamics, ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Conference.Google Scholar
Celik, I. B., Ghia, U., Roache, P. J., Freitas, C. J., Coleman, H., and Raad, P. E. 2008. Procedure for Estimation and Reporting of Uncertainty due to Discretization in CFD Applications. ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, 130, 078001.Google Scholar
Coleman, H. W., and Steele, W. G. 1999. Experimentation and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers. 2nd ed. Wiley.Google Scholar
Crow, S. C. 1970. Stability Theory for a Pair of Trailing Vortices. AIAA Journal, 8(12), 2172–2179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dol, H. S., Kok, J. C., and Oskam, B. 2002 (14–17 January). Turbulence Modelling for Leading-Edge Vortex Flows. In: Proceedings of the 40th American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drikakis, D., Fureby, C., Grinstein, F. F., and Youngs, D. 2007. Simulation of Transition and Turbulence Decay in the Taylor–Green Vortex. Journal of Turbulence, 8(20).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eça, L. 2022. Verification and Validation in Industrial CFD. Instituto Superior Tecnico, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
Eça, L., and Hoekstra, M. 2009. Evaluation of Numerical Error Estimation Based on Grid Refinement Studies With the Method of Numerical Solutions. Computers & Fluids, 38(8), 1580–1591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eça, L., and Hoekstra, M. 2014. A Procedure for the Estimation of the Numerical Uncertainty of CFD Calculations Based on Grid Refinement Studies. Journal of Computational Physics, 262, 104–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eça, L., Hoekstra, M., and Vaz, G. 2012. Manufactured Solutions for Steady-Flow Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes Solvers. International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics, 26, 313–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eça, L., M., C., Vaz, G., Hoekstra, M., and Pereira, F. S. 2016. On Code Verification of RANS Solvers. Journal of Computational Physics, 310, 418–439.Google Scholar
Eça, L., Lopes, R., Pereira, F. S., and Vaz, G. 2019a (May 17–22). Numerical and Parameter Uncertainties: Are They Independent. Pages VVS2019–5125 in ASME 2019 Verification and Validation Symposium.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eça, L., Vaz, G., Toxopeus, S., and Hoekstra, M. 2019b. Numerical Errors in Unsteady Flow Simulations. ASME Journal of Verification, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification, 4, 021001.Google Scholar
Eça, L., Pereira, F. S., Vaz, G., Lopes, R., and Toxopeus, S. 2020 (May 20–22). On The Role of Discretization Errors in the Quantification of Parameter Uncertainties. Pages VVS2020–13055 in ASME 2020 Verification and Validation Symposium.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisfeld, B. 2004 (December). Implementation of Reynolds Stress Models into the DLR-FLOWer Code. Technical report IB 124-2004/31. Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR), Braunschweig, Germany.Google Scholar
Eisfeld, B., and Brodersen, O. 2005 (6–9 June). Advanced Turbulence Modelling and Stress Analysis for the DLR-F6 Configuration. In: Proceedings of the 23rd American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Applied Aerodynamics Conference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisfeld, B., Rumsey, C., and Togiti, V. 2016. Verification and Validation of a Second-Moment-Closure Model. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Journal, 54(5), 1524–1542.Google Scholar
Étienne, S., Garon, A., and Pelletier, D. 2012. Some Manufactured Solutions for Verification of Fluid-Structure Interaction Codes. Computers & Structures, 106–107, 56–67.Google Scholar
Fureby, C., and Grinstein, F. F. 2002. Large Eddy Simulation of High-Reynolds-Number Free and Wall-Bounded Flow. Journal of Computational Physics, 181(1), 68–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Germano, M. 1992. The Filtering Approach. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 238, 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gittings, M., Weaver, R., Clover, M., Betlach, T., Byrne, N., Coker, R., Dendy, E., Hueckstaedt, R., New, K., Oakes, W. R., Ranta, D., and Stefan, R. 2008. The RAGE Radiation-Hydrodynamic Code. Computational Science & Discovery, 1(1), 015005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottlieb, S., Ketcheson, D. I, and Shu, C.-W. 2009. High Order Strong Stability Preserving Time Discretizations. Journal of Scientific Computing, 38(3), 251–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, D. F., and Sanz-Serna, J. M. 1986. On the Scope of the Method of Modified Equations. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 7(3), 994–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grinstein, F. F., and Pereira, F. S. 2021. Impact of Numerical Hydrodynamics in Turbulent Mixing Transition Simulations. Physics of Fluids 33, 035126 (2021); doi:10.1063/5.0034983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grinstein, F. F., Margolin, L. G., and Rider, W. J. 2010. Implicit Large Eddy Simulation: Computing Turbulent Flow Dynamics. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grinstein, F. F., Pereira, F. S., and Rider, W. J. 2023. Numerical Approximations Formulated as LES Models. Chap. 10 of Numerical Methods in Turbulence Simulations, Moser, R. (ed). Elsevier.Google Scholar
Heinz, S. 2020. A Review of Hybrid RANS-LES Methods for Turbulent Flows: Concepts and Applications. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 114, 100597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helton, J. C., and Davis, F. J. 2000. Sampling Based Methods. Pages 101–153 of: Sensitivity Analysis. Saltelli, A., Chan, K. and Scott, E. M. (eds). Wiley.Google Scholar
Helton, J. C., and Davis, F. J. 2003. Latin Hypercube Sampling and the Propagation of Uncertainty in Analyses of Complex Systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 81, 23–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helton, J. C., Johnson, J. D., Sallaberry, C. J., and Storlie, C. B. 2006. Survey of Sampling-Based Methods for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 91(10–11), 1175–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, R. G. 2006. Model Validation: Model Parameter and Measurement Uncertainty. Journal of Heat Transfer, 128(4), 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirt, C. W. 1968. Heuristic Stability Theory for Finite-Difference Equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 2(4), 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iman, R. L., and Shortencarier, M. J. 1984 (Mar.). A FORTRAN 77 Program and User’s Guide for the Generation of Latin Hypercube and Random Samples for Use With Computer Models. Techreport SAND83-2356. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.Google Scholar
Jeong, J., and Hussain, F. 1995. On the Identification of a Vortex. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 285, 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kida, S., and Takaoka, M. 1994. Vortex Reconnection. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 26, 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knupp, P., and Salari, K. 2002. Verification of Computer Codes in Computational Science and Engineering. 1st ed. CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laporte, F., and Leweke, T. 2002. Elliptic Instability of Counter-Rotating Vortices: Experiment and Direct Numerical Simulation. AIAA Journal, 40(12), 2483–2494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. J., Kim, H. R., Kim, W. J., and Van, S. H. 2003. Wind Tunnel Tests on Flow Characteristics of the KRISO 3,600 TEU Containership and 300K VLCC2 Double-Deck Ship Models. Journal of Ship Research, 47(1), 24–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leweke, T., and Williamson, C. 1998. Cooperative Elliptic Instability of a Vortex Pair. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 360, 85–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leweke, T., Le Dizés, S., and Williamson, C. H. K. 2016. Dynamics and Instabilities of Vortex Pairs. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 48(1), 507–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolin, L. G., and Rider, W. J. 2002. A Rationale for Implicit Turbulence Modelling. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 39(9), 821–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolin, L. G., and Rider, W. J. 2005. The Design and Construction of Implicit LES Models. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 47(10–11), 1173–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martins, J. R. R. A. 2023. A Guide to the Complex-Step Derivative Approximation. https://mdolab.engin.umich.edu/wiki/guide-complex-step-derivative-approximation.Google Scholar
McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J., and Conover, W. J. 1979. A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code. Technometrics, 21(2), 239–245.Google Scholar
Menter, F. R., Kuntz, M., and Langtry, R. 2003 (12–17 October). Ten Years of Industrial Experience with the SST Turbulence Model. Pages 625–632 in Proceedings of the Fourth Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer.Google Scholar
Muralha, J., Eça, L., and Klaij, C. M. 2020. Code Verification of a Pressure-Based Solver for Subsonic Compressible Flows. Journal of Verification, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification, 5, 041001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norberg, C. 2003. Fluctuating Lift on a Circular Cylinder: Review and New Measurements. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 17(1), 57–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberkampf, W. L., and Roy, C. J. 2010. Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberkampf, W. L., and Truncano, T. G. 2002. Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 38, 209–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, D., and Roache, P. J. 2006. Verification and Validation of Computational Heat Transfer. Chapter 13 in Handbook of Numerical Heat Transfer, 2nd ed. Minkowycz, W. J., Sparrow, E. M. and Murthy, J. Y. (eds). Wiley.Google Scholar
Pereira, F. S. 2012 (October). Verification of ReFRESCO with the Method of Manufactured Solutions. M.Phil. thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
Pereira, F. S., Eça, L., and Vaz, G. 2017. Verification and Validation Exercises for the Flow around the KVLCC2 Tanker at Model and Full-Scale Reynolds Numbers. Ocean Engineering, 129, 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, F. S., Vaz, G., Eça, L., and Girimaji, S. S. 2018. Simulation of the Flow around a Circular Cylinder at Re = 3,900 with Partially-Averaged Navier–Stokes Equations. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 69, 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, F. S., Vaz, G., and Eça, L. 2019a. Evaluation of RANS and SRS Methods for Simulation of the Flow Around a Circular Cylinder in the Sub-Critical Regime. Ocean Engineering, 186(106067).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, F. S., Eça, L., and Vaz, G. 2019b. Simulation of Wingtip Vortex Flows with Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes and Scale-Resolving Simulation Methods. AIAA Journal, 57, 932–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, F. S., Grinstein, F. F., Israel, D. M., Rauenzahn, R., and Girimaji, S. S. 2021a. Modeling and Simulation of Transitional Rayleigh–Taylor Flow with Partially-Averaged Navier–Stokes Equations. Physics of Fluids, 33, 115118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, F. S., Grinstein, F. F., Israel, D. M., Rauenzahn, R., and Girimaji, S. S. 2021b. Modeling and Simulation of Transitional Taylor–Green Vortex Flow with Partially Averaged Navier–Stokes Equations. Physical Review Fluids, 6, 054611.Google Scholar
Pereira, F. S., Grinstein, F. F., Israel, D. M., Rauenzahn, R., and Girimaji, S. S. 2021c. Partially Averaged Navier–Stokes Equations Closure Modeling for Variable-Density Turbulent Flow. Physical Review Fluids, 6, 084602.Google Scholar
Pereira, F. S., Eça, L., Vaz, G., and Girimaji, S. S. 2021d. Toward Predictive RANS and SRS Computations of Turbulent External Flows of Practical Interest. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 28, 3953–4029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, F. S., Grinstein, F. F., Israel, D. M., and Eça, L. 2022a. Verification and Validation: The Path to Predictive Scale-Resolving Simulations of Turbulence. ASME Journal of Verification, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification, 7(2), 021003.Google Scholar
Pereira, F. S., Pellone, S., Desjardins, T., Charonko, J., and Doss, F. 2024. Modeling and Simulation of Rayleigh–Taylor and Richtmeyer–Meshov Mixing Flows with Scale-Resolving Simulation Method (in elaboration).Google Scholar
Pereira, F. S., Grinstein, F. F., and Israel, D. 2020. Effect of the Numerical Discretization Scheme in Shock-Driven Turbulent Mixing. Computers and Fluids, 201, 104487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, F. S., Grinstein, F. F., Israel, D. M., and Eça, L. 2022b. Verification and Validation: The Path to Predictive Scale-Resolving Simulations of Turbulence. Journal of Verification, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification, 7(2), 021003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, T. S., Derlaga, J. M., Roy, C. J., and Borggaard, J. 2017. Error Transport Equation Boundary Conditions for the Euler and Navier–Stokes Equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 330, 46–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, T. S., and Roy, C. J. 2011. Residual Methods for Discretization Error Estimation. Pages AIAA 2011–3870 in 20th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, S. B. 1999. A Perspective on Turbulence Modeling. Pages 53–67 in Modeling Complex Turbulent Flows, 1st ed. Salas, M. D., Hefner, J. N. and Sakell, L. (eds). ICASE LaRC Interdisciplinary Series in Science and Engineering, vol. 7. Springer.Google Scholar
Rayleigh, Lord. 1882. Investigation of the Character of the Equilibrium of an Incompressible Heavy Fluid of Variable Density. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 14, 170–177.Google Scholar
Richardson, L. F. 1911. The Approximate Arithmetical Solution by Finite Differences of Physical Problems Involving Differential Equations, with an Application to the Stresses in a Masonry Dam. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 210, 307–357.Google Scholar
Richardson, L. F., and Gaunt, J. A. 1927. The Deferred Approach to the Limit. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 226, 299–361.Google Scholar
Rider, W., Witkowski, W., Kamm, J. R., and Wildey, T. 2016. Robust Verification Analysis. Journal of Computational Physics, 307, 146–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roache, P. J. 1994. Perspective: A Method for Uniform Reporting of Grid Refinement Studies. ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, 116(3), 405–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roache, P. J. 1998. Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering. 1st ed. Hermosa Publishers.Google Scholar
Roache, P. J. 2003 (6–9 January). Error Bars for CFD. Pages AIAA 2003–0408 in 41st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roache, P. J. 2004. Building PDE Codes to Be Verifiable and Validatable. Computing in Science and Engineering, 6, 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roache, P. J. 2009. Fundamentals of Verification and Validation. Hermosa Publishers.Google Scholar
Roy, C. J., and Oberkampf, W. L. 2011. A Comprehensive Framework for Verification, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification in Scientific Computing. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 200(25–28), 2131–2144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, C. J., and Oberkampf, W. L. 2012. A Holistic Approach to Uncertainty Quantification with Application to Supersonic Nozzle Thrust. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification, 2(4), 363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, C. J., Nelson, C. C., Smith, T. M., and Ober, C. C. 2004. Verification of Euler/Navier–Stokes Codes using the Method of Manufactured Solutions. International Journal of Numerical Methods in Fluids, 44, 599–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shu, C.-W. 1988. Total-Variation-Diminishing Time Discretizations. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 9(6), 1073–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shunn, L., Ham, F., and Moin, P. 2012. Verification of Variable-Density Flow Solvers Using Manufactured Solutions. Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 3801–3827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smagorjnsky, J. 1983. The Beginnings of Numerical Weather Prediction and General Circulation Modeling: Early Recollections. Pages 3–37 of: Advances in Geophysics, vol. 25. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Spalart, P. R., and Venkatakrishnan, V. 2016. On the Role and Challenges of CFD in the Aerospace Industry. The Aeronautical Journal, 120(1223), 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, F., Muste, M., Beninati, M.-L., and Eichinger, W. E. 1999. Summary of Experimental Uncertainty Assessment Methodology with Example. IIHR Technical report No. 406. University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.Google Scholar
Stern, F., Wilson, R. V., Coleman, H. W., and Paterson, E. G. 2001. Comprehensive Approach to Verification and Validation of CFD Simulations – Part 1: Methodology and Procedures. ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, 123, 793–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, G. 1968. On the Construction and Comparison of Difference Schemes. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 5(3), 506–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, G. 1950. The Instability of Liquid Surfaces When Accelerated in a Direction Perpendicular to Their Planes. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 201(1065), 192–196.Google Scholar
Taylor, G. I., and Green, A. E. 1937. Mechanism of the Production of Small Eddies from Large Ones. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 158.Google Scholar
Thornber, B., Mosedale, A., Drikakis, D., Youngs, D., and Williams, R. J. R. 2008. An Improved Reconstruction Method for Compressible Flows with Low Mach Number Features. Journal of Computational Physics, 227(10), 4873–4894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trucano, T. G., Pilch, M., and Oberkampf, W. L. 2002 (March). General Concepts for Experimental Validation of ASCI Code Applications. Technical Report SAND2002-0341. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, USA.Google Scholar
Veluri, S. P., Roy, C. J., and Luke, E. A. 2012. Comprehensive Code Verification Techniques for Finite Volume CFD Codes. Computers & Fluids, 70, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VonNeumann, J., and Richtmyer, R. D. 1950. A Method for the Numerical Calculation of Hydrodynamic Shocks. Journal of Applied Physics, 21(3), 232–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warming, R. F., and Hyett, B. J. 1974. The Modified Equation Approach to the Stability and Accuracy Analysis of Finite-Difference Methods. Journal of computational physics, 14(2), 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, B. M., and Koskelo, A. 2020. A Practical Validation Assessment Workflow. Journal of Verification, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification, 5, 011004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, S. 1991. Mathematica: A System for Doing Mathematics by Computer. Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Wyss, G. D., and Jorgensen, K. H. 1998 (Feb.). A User Guide to LHS: Sandia’s Latin Hypercube Sampling Software. techreport SAND98-0210. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.Google Scholar
Xing, T., and Stern, F. 2010. Factors of Safety for Richardson Extrapolation. ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, 132, 061403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yao, J., and Hussain, F. 2020. Separation Scaling for Viscous Vortex Reconnection. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 900(R4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×