Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamental concepts
- Part II Code verification
- Part III Solution verification
- Part IV Model validation and prediction
- Part V Planning, management, and implementation issues
- 14 Planning and prioritization in modeling and simulation
- 15 Maturity assessment of modeling and simulation
- 16 Development and responsibilities for verification, validation and uncertainty quantification
- Appendix Programming practices
- Index
- Plate Section
- References
16 - Development and responsibilities for verification, validation and uncertainty quantification
from Part V - Planning, management, and implementation issues
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 March 2013
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamental concepts
- Part II Code verification
- Part III Solution verification
- Part IV Model validation and prediction
- Part V Planning, management, and implementation issues
- 14 Planning and prioritization in modeling and simulation
- 15 Maturity assessment of modeling and simulation
- 16 Development and responsibilities for verification, validation and uncertainty quantification
- Appendix Programming practices
- Index
- Plate Section
- References
Summary
This chapter discusses some perspectives on the responsibilities for the development, conduct, delivery, and management of verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification (VV&UQ). The topics considered here deal with both technical and nontechnical issues, but all are focused on the strategic goals of improved credibility and proper use of simulations. Our experience, and the experience of others, has convinced us that while technical issues and computing resources are important, they are not the limiting factor in improving the credibility and usefulness of scientific computing used in a decision-making environment. We believe that nontechnical issues have significantly constrained the improvements in credibility that VV&UQ can provide.
Examples of the issues discussed in this chapter are (a) suggestions for needed technical developments in VV&UQ, (b) responsibilities for the various technical activities that encompass VV&UQ, (c) recommendations for management responsibilities and leadership in deploying VV&UQ practices, (d) development of V&V databases for general use, and (e) development of industrial and engineering standards for V&V.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing , pp. 728 - 756Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
, , , , and (2005). Verification of some commercial CFD codes on atypical CFD problems. 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Paper 2005–0682, Reno, NV, AIAA.CrossRef
(2006). ABAQUS Benchmarks Manual. Version 6.6, Providence, RI, ABAQUS Inc.
(2005). ANSYS Verification Manual. Release 10.0, Canonsburg, PA, ANSYS, Inc.
and , eds. (2000). ERCOFTAC Special Interest Group on Quality and Trust in Industrial CFD: Best Practices Guidelines, Lausanne Switzerland, European Research Community on Flow, Turbulence, and Combustion.Google Scholar
(2001). Inviting Disaster-Lessons from the Edge of Technology. 1st edn., New York, HarperCollins.Google Scholar
(2004). CSNI International Standard Problem Procedures, CSNI Report No. 17 – Revision 4. NEA/CSNI/R(2004)5, Paris, France, Nuclear Energy Agency, Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations.
(1989). The Logic of Failure, Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations, Cambridge, MA, Perseus Books.Google Scholar
(2000). Portal to Fluid Dynamics Database Resources. .
, , , , , , , , , , , , and (2003). Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report Volume I. Washington, DC, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Government Printing Office.
(2004). Statistical analysis of computational fluid dynamic solutions from the Drag Prediction Workshop. Journal of Aircraft. 41(1), 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2004). Statistical analysis of CFD solutions from 2nd Drag Prediction Workshop. 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 4951–4981.CrossRef
and (2001). Quality and trust in industrial CFD – a European perspective. 39th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA Paper 2001–0656, Reno, NV, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
, , , , , , , , , and (2005). Data summary from the second AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Drag Prediction Workshop. Journal of Aircraft. 42(5), 1165–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , and (2003). Data summary from the first AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Drag Prediction Workshop. Journal of Aircraft. 40(5), 875–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006). Reactor Accidents: Institutional Failure in the Nuclear Industry. 2nd edn., Sidcup, Kent, UK, Nuclear Engineering International.Google Scholar
(2006). NAFEMS Website. .
(1977). Loss of Coolant Accident Standard Problems. Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations, Report No. 17, Paris, France, Nuclear Energy Agency.
(2000). CFD Verification and Validation: NPARC Alliance. .
and (2008). Verification and validation benchmarks. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 238(3), 716–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2004). Verification, validation, and predictive capability in computational engineering and physics. Applied Mechanics Reviews. 57(5), 345–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1994). Design Paradigms: Case Histories of Error and Judgment in Engineering, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ed. (2004). Cognitive Illusion: a Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. New York, Psychology Press.Google Scholar
(2001). Thematic Network on Quality and Trust for the Industrial Applications of CFD. .
(1997). Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents, Burlington, VT, Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
and (1998). Toward establishing credibility in computational fluid dynamics simulations. AIAA Journal. 36(5), 668–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1998). Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering, Albuquerque, NM, Hermosa Publishers.Google Scholar
, , and (2005). Study of CFD variation on transport configurations for the second Drag-Prediction Workshop. Computers & Fluids. 34(7), 785–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1996). The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA, Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
, , , and (2002). Navier–Stokes solvers in European aircraft design. Progress in Aerospace Sciences. 38(8), 601–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1996). Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems. 12(4), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 1
- Cited by