Comparison of the V&V10.1 and V& Source: Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification:;2022:;volume( 007 ):;issue: 002::page 21004-1DOI: 10.1115/1.4053881Publisher: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Abstract: The determination of the transverse tip deflection of an elastic, hollow, tapered, cantilever, box beam under a uniform loading applied over half the length of the beam presented in the V&
|
Show full item record
contributor author | Eça, L. | |
contributor author | Dowding, K. | |
contributor author | Moorcroft, D. | |
contributor author | Ghia, U. | |
date accessioned | 2022-05-08T09:00:37Z | |
date available | 2022-05-08T09:00:37Z | |
date copyright | 3/15/2022 12:00:00 AM | |
date issued | 2022 | |
identifier issn | 2377-2158 | |
identifier other | vvuq_007_02_021004.pdf | |
identifier uri | http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4284622 | |
description abstract | The determination of the transverse tip deflection of an elastic, hollow, tapered, cantilever, box beam under a uniform loading applied over half the length of the beam presented in the V& | |
description abstract | V10.1 standard is used to compare the application of the validation procedures presented in the V& | |
description abstract | V10.1 and V& | |
description abstract | V20 standards. Both procedures aim to estimate the modeling error of the mathematical/computational model used in the simulations taking into account the variability of the modulus of elasticity of the material used in the beam and the rotational flexibility at the clamped end of the beam. The paper discusses the four steps of the two error quantification procedures: (1) characterization of the problem including all the assumptions and approximations made to obtain the experimental and simulation data | |
description abstract | (2) selection of the validation variable | |
description abstract | (3) determination of the different quantities required by the validation metrics in the two error quantification procedures | |
description abstract | (4) outcome of the two validation procedures and its discussion. The paper also discusses the inclusion of experimental, input, and numerical uncertainties (assumed or demonstrated to be negligible in V& | |
description abstract | V10.1) in the two validation approaches. This simple exercise shows that different choices are made in the two alternative approaches, which lead to different ways of characterizing the modeling error. The topics of accuracy requirements and validation comparisons (model acceptance/rejection) for engineering applications are not addressed in this paper. | |
publisher | The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) | |
title | Comparison of the V& | |
title | V10.1 and V& | |
title | V20 Modeling Error Quantification Procedures for the V& | |
title | V10.1 Example | |
type | Journal Paper | |
journal volume | 7 | |
journal issue | 2 | |
journal title | Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification | |
identifier doi | 10.1115/1.4053881 | |
journal fristpage | 21004-1 | |
journal lastpage | 21004-7 | |
page | 7 | |
tree | Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification:;2022:;volume( 007 ):;issue: 002 | |
contenttype | Fulltext |