Show simple item record

contributor authorWhiting, Nolan W.
contributor authorRoy, Christopher J.
contributor authorDuque, Earl
contributor authorLawrence, Seth
contributor authorOberkampf, William L.
date accessioned2023-08-16T18:13:04Z
date available2023-08-16T18:13:04Z
date copyright1/13/2023 12:00:00 AM
date issued2023
identifier issn2377-2158
identifier othervvuq_008_01_011001.pdf
identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4291642
description abstractModel validation is the process of determining the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the true value in the real world. The results of a model validation study can be used to either quantify the model form uncertainty or to improve/calibrate the model. The model validation process becomes complex when there is uncertainty in the simulation and/or experimental outcomes. These uncertainties can be in the form of aleatory uncertainties due to randomness or epistemic uncertainties due to lack of knowledge. Five different approaches are used for addressing model validation and predictive capability: (1) the area validation metric (AVM), (2) a modified area validation metric (MAVM) with confidence intervals, (3) the validation uncertainty procedure from ASME V&V 20, (4) a calibration procedure interpreted from ASME V&V 20, and (5) identification of the model discrepancy term using Bayesian estimation. To provide an unambiguous assessment of these different approaches, synthetic experimental data is generated from computational fluid dynamics simulations of an airfoil with a flap. A simplified model is then developed using thin airfoil theory. The accuracy of the simplified model is assessed using the synthetic experimental data. The quantities examined include the two-dimensional lift and moment coefficients for the airfoil with varying angles of attack and flap deflection angles. Each of these approaches is assessed for the ability to tightly encapsulate the true value at conditions both where experimental results are provided and prediction locations where no experimental data are available. Generally, it was seen that the MAVM performed the best in cases where there is a sparse amount of data and/or large extrapolations. Furthermore, it was found that Bayesian estimation outperformed the others where there is an extensive amount of experimental data that covers the application domain.
publisherThe American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
titleAssessment of Model Validation, Calibration, and Prediction Approaches in the Presence of Uncertainty
typeJournal Paper
journal volume8
journal issue1
journal titleJournal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification
identifier doi10.1115/1.4056285
journal fristpage11001-1
journal lastpage11001-21
page21
treeJournal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification:;2023:;volume( 008 ):;issue: 001
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record