Estimation of Uncertainties for a Supersonic Retro-Propulsion Model Validation Experiment in a Wind Tunnel

A high-quality model validation experiment was performed in the NASA Langley Research Center Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel to assess the predictive accuracy of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models for a blunt-body supersonic retro-propulsion configuration at Mach numbers from 2.4 to 4.6. Static and fluctuating surface pressure data were acquired on a 5-inch-diameter test article with a forebody composed of a spherically-blunted, 70-degree half-angle cone and a cylindrical aft body. One non-powered configuration with a smooth outer mold line was tested as well as three different powered, forward-firing nozzle configurations: a centerline nozzle, three nozzles equally spaced around the forebody, and a combination with all four nozzles. A key objective of the experiment was the determination of experimental uncertainties from a range of sources such as random measurement error, flowfield non-uniformity, and model/instrumentation asymmetries. This paper discusses the design of the experiment towards capturing these uncertainties for the baseline non-powered configuration, the methodology utilized in quantifying the various sources of uncertainty, and examples of the uncertainties applied to non-powered and powered experimental results. The analysis showed that flowfield nonuniformity was the dominant contributor to the overall uncertainty a finding in agreement with other experiments that have quantified various sources of uncertainty

Assessment of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Models for Shock Boundary-Layer Interaction

A workshop on the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) prediction of shock boundary-layer interactions (SBLIs) was held at the 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. As part of the workshop numerous CFD analysts submitted solutions to four experimentally measured SBLIs. This paper describes the assessment of the CFD predictions. The assessment includes an uncertainty analysis of the experimental data, the definition of an error metric and the application of that metric to the CFD solutions. The CFD solutions provided very similar levels of error and in general it was difficult to discern clear trends in the data. For the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes methods the choice of turbulence model appeared to be the largest factor in solution accuracy. Large-eddy simulation methods produced error levels similar to RANS methods but provided superior predictions of normal stresses

Development and Use of Engineering Standards for Computational Fluid Dynamics for Complex Aerospace Systems

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and other advanced modeling and simulation (M&S) methods are increasingly relied on for predictive performance, reliability and safety of engineering systems. Analysts, designers, decision makers, and project managers, who must depend on simulation, need practical techniques and methods for assessing simulation credibility. The AIAA Guide for Verification and Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations (AIAA G-077-1998 (2002)), originally published in 1998, was the first engineering standards document available to the engineering community for verification and validation (V&V) of simulations. Much progress has been made in these areas since 1998. The AIAA Committee on Standards for CFD is currently updating this Guide to incorporate in it the important developments that have taken place in V&V concepts, methods, and practices, particularly with regard to the broader context of predictive capability and uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods and approaches. This paper will provide an overview of the changes and extensions currently underway to update the AIAA Guide. Specifically, a framework for predictive capability will be described for incorporating a wide range of error and uncertainty sources identified during the modeling, verification, and validation processes, with the goal of estimating the total prediction uncertainty of the simulation. The Guide's goal is to provide a foundation for understanding and addressing major issues and concepts in predictive CFD. However, this Guide will not recommend specific approaches in these areas as the field is rapidly evolving. It is hoped that the guidelines provided in this paper, and explained in more detail in the Guide, will aid in the research, development, and use of CFD in engineering decision-making

Measures of agreement between computation and experiment: Validation metrics

reportWith the increasing role of computational modeling in engineering design, performance estimation, and safety assessment, improved methods are needed for comparing computational results and experimental measurements. Traditional methods of graphically comparing computational and experimental results, though valuable, are essentially qualitative. Computable measures are needed that can quantitatively compare computational and experimental results over a range of input, or control, variables and sharpen assessment of computational accuracy. This type of measure has been recently referred to as a validation metric. We discuss various features that we believe should be incorporated in a validation metric and also features that should be excluded. We develop a new validation metric that is based on the statistical concept of confidence intervals. Using this fundamental concept, we construct two specific metrics: one that requires interpolation of experimental data and one that requires regression (curve fitting) of experimental data. We apply the metrics to three example problems: thermal decomposition of a polyurethane foam, a turbulent buoyant plume of helium, and compressibility effects on the growth rate of a turbulent free-shear layer. We discuss how the present metrics are easily interpretable for assessing computational model accuracy, as well as the impact of experimental measurement uncertainty on the accuracy assessment

Measures of agreement between computation and experiment: Validation metrics

With the increasing role of computational modeling in engineering design, performance estimation, and safety assessment, improved methods are needed for comparing computational results and experimental measurements. Traditional methods of graphically comparing computational and experimental results, though valuable, are essentially qualitative. Computable measures are needed that can quantitatively compare computational and experimental results over a range of input, or control, variables to sharpen assessment of computational accuracy. This type of measure has been recently referred to as a validation metric. We discuss various features that we believe should be incorporated in a validation metric, as well as features that we believe should be excluded. We develop a new validation metric that is based on the statistical concept of confidence intervals. Using this fundamental concept, we construct two specific metrics: one that requires interpolation of experimental data and one that requires regression (curve fitting) of experimental data. We apply the metrics to three example problems: thermal decomposition of a polyurethane foam, a turbulent buoyant plume of helium, and compressibility effects on the growth rate of a turbulent free-shear layer. We discuss how the present metrics are easily interpretable for assessing computational model accuracy, as well as the impact of experimental measurement uncertainty on the accuracy assessment

Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics

Verification and validation (V and V) are the primary means to assess accuracy and reliability in computational simulations. This paper presents an extensive review of the literature in V and V in computational fluid dynamics (CFD), discusses methods and procedures for assessing V and V, and develops a number of extensions to existing ideas. The review of the development of V and V terminology and methodology points out the contributions from members of the operations research, statistics, and CFD communities. Fundamental issues in V and V are addressed, such as code verification versus solution verification, model validation versus solution validation, the distinction between error and uncertainty, conceptual sources of error and uncertainty, and the relationship between validation and prediction. The fundamental strategy of verification is the identification and quantification of errors in the computational model and its solution. In verification activities, the accuracy of a computational solution is primarily measured relative to two types of highly accurate solutions: analytical solutions and highly accurate numerical solutions. Methods for determining the accuracy of numerical solutions are presented and the importance of software testing during verification activities is emphasized