Comparison of the V&V10.1 and V&V20 Modeling Error Quantification Procedures for the V&V10.1 Example

IF 0.5 Q4 ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification Pub Date : 2022-02-16 DOI:10.1115/1.4053881
L. Eça, K. Dowding, D. Moorcroft, U. Ghia
{"title":"Comparison of the V&V10.1 and V&V20 Modeling Error Quantification Procedures for the V&V10.1 Example","authors":"L. Eça, K. Dowding, D. Moorcroft, U. Ghia","doi":"10.1115/1.4053881","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n 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&V10.1 standard is used to compare the application of the validation procedures presented in the V&V10.1 and V&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.\n 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; 2-selection of the validation variable; 3- determination of the different quantities required by the validation metrics in the two error quantification procedures; 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&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.","PeriodicalId":52254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4053881","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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&V10.1 standard is used to compare the application of the validation procedures presented in the V&V10.1 and V&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; 2-selection of the validation variable; 3- determination of the different quantities required by the validation metrics in the two error quantification procedures; 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&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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
V&V10.1和V&V20建模误差量化程序的比较
在超过V&V10.1标准中规定的梁长度一半的均匀载荷下,弹性、空心、锥形、悬臂、箱形梁的横向尖端挠度的测定用于比较V&V10.1和V&V20标准中提出的验证程序的应用。这两个程序都旨在估计模拟中使用的数学/计算模型的建模误差,同时考虑到梁中使用的材料的弹性模量的可变性和梁夹紧端的旋转灵活性。本文讨论了两个误差量化过程的四个步骤:1 .问题的表征,包括为获得实验和仿真数据所做的所有假设和近似;2-验证变量的选择;确定两个误差量化程序中验证指标所需的不同数量;两个验证程序的结果及其讨论。本文还讨论了两种验证方法中包含的实验、输入和数值不确定性(假设或证明在V&V10.1中可以忽略不计)。这个简单的练习表明,在两种可选方法中做出了不同的选择,从而导致表征建模误差的不同方法。本文没有讨论工程应用的精度要求和验证比较(模型接受/拒绝)的主题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
16.70%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Automatic Ground-Truth Image Labeling for Deep Neural Network Training and Evaluation Using Industrial Robotics and Motion Capture Using Responsive Feedback in Scaling a Gender Norms-Shifting Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health Intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo. A Solution Verification Study For Urans Simulations of Flow Over a 5:1 Rectangular Cylinder Using Grid Convergence Index And Least Squares Procedures Strategies for Computational Fluid Dynamics Validation Experiments On the Verification of Finite Element Determinations of Stress Concentration Factors for Handbooks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1