Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “verification & validation”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records

High-Fidelity Numerical Wave Tank Verification & Validation Study: Wave Generation Through Paddle Motion: Preprint

This paper presents a numerical benchmark study of wave propagation due to a paddle motion using different high-fidelity numerical models, which are capable of replicating the nearly actual physical wave tank testing. A full time series of the measured wave generation paddle motion which was used to generate wave propagation in the physical wave tank will be utilized in each of the models contributed by IEA OES Task 10's participants, which includes both computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and smooth hydrodynamic particle (SPH). The high-fidelity simulations of the physical wave testcase will allow for the evaluation of the initial transient effects from wave ramp-up and its evolution in the wave tank over time for two representative regular waves with varying levels of nonlinearity. A couple of interesting metrics like the predicted wave surface elevation at select wave probes, wave period, and phase-shift in time will be assessed to evaluate the relative accuracy of numerical models versus experimental data within specified time intervals. These models will serve as a guide for modelers in the wave energy community and provide a base case to allow further and more detailed numerical modeling of the fixed Kramer Sphere Cases under wave excitation force wave tank testing.

HYDRO ENERGY,TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

Verification, Validation, and Calibration Through a Causal Lens

While typical validation and verification approaches focus on identifying the associations between data elements using statistical and machine learning methods, the novel methods in this paper focus instead on identifying causal relationships between data elements. Statistical and machine-learning-based approaches are strictly data-driven, meaning that they provide quantitative comparison measures between data sets without explicitly considering the hypotheses behind them. This can lead to the erroneous conclusion that, if two data sets are close enough, the models that generated them are similar. In addition, when experimental and simulated data differ to an extent that fails to meet the acceptance criteria, calibration techniques are used to tweak simulation model parameters to reduce the gap between the two types of data. This produces the false expectation that a simulation model will match reality. The methods presented in this paper move away from these strictly data-driven methods for validation and calibration toward more robust, model-driven methods based on causal inference. Causal inference aims to identify the possible mechanisms that might have generated data. Thus, this analysis targets the prediction of the effects when one (or more) of the identified mechanisms are altered. There are many approaches to identify, quantify, and illustrate causal relationships. For the scope of this paper, directed graphs are employed as causal models. If the directed graph lacks cycles, it is known as a directed acyclic graph. A node in such a graph represents an observed data element while a directed edge connecting two nodes represents a causal relationship between two variables. The developed causal methods are designed to extract causal models from simulation models and experimental data. Causal models capture the causal relationships between data elements (e.g., simulated and experimental data). In this context, validation and verification are performed by comparing causal models. The proposed approach does not only inform system analysts on how a simulation model matches real-world data, but also identifies elements of the simulation model that should be revised when discrepancies between simulation and experimental data are observed. Through these causal methods, analysts can identify the portion of the model equation(s) that are behind an edge connecting two variables. Hence, once the structural differences between causal models have been determined, model calibration can occur by changing only those model parameters that impact the identified causal relationships.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

VALIDATION, VERIFICATION, AND CALIBRATION THROUGH A CAUSAL LENS

This paper presents an alternative method based on causal inference to perform validation, verification, and calibration of simulation models. While classical validation and verification approaches focus on the identification of the associations between data elements using statistical and machine learning methods, the novel methods in this paper focus instead on the identification of causal relationships between data elements. Statistical and machine learning-based approaches are strictly data-driven, meaning that they provide quantitative comparison measures between datasets without explicitly considering the hypotheses behind them. This can lead to the erroneous conclusion that, if two data sets are close enough, then the models that generated them are similar. In addition, when experimental and simulated data differ to an extent that fails to meet the acceptance criteria, calibration techniques are used to tweak simulation model parameters to reduce the gap between the two types of data. This produces the false expectation that a simulation model will match reality. The methods presented in this paper move away from these strictly data-driven methods for validation and calibration toward more robust, model-driven methods based on causal inference. Causal inference aims to identify the possible mechanisms that might have generated data. Thus, this analysis targets the prediction of the effects when one (or more) of the identified mechanisms are altered. There are many approaches to identify, quantify and illustrate causal relationships. For the scope of this paper, directed graphs are employed as causal models. If the directed graph lacks cycles it is known as a directed acyclic graph (DAG). A node in such a graph represents an observed data element while a directed edge connecting two nodes represents a causal relationship between two variables. The developed causal methods are designed to extract causal models from simulation models and from experimental data. Causal models capture the causal relationships between data elements (e.g., simulated and experimental data). In this context, validation and verification are performed by comparing causal models. The proposed approach does not only inform system analysts on how a simulation model matches real-world data, but also identifies elements of the simulation model that should be revised when discrepancies between simulation and experimental data are observed. Through these causal methods, analysts have a means to identify the portion of the model equation(s) that are behind an edge connecting two variables. Hence, once the structural differences between causal models have been determined, model calibration can occur by changing only those model parameters that impact the identified causal relationships.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Complex Systems Models and Their Applications: Towards a New Science of Verification, Validation & Uncertainty Quantification

This report contains the written footprint of a Sandia-hosted workshop held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, June 22-23, 2016 on “Complex Systems Models and Their Applications: Towards a New Science of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification,” as well as of pre-work that fed into the workshop. The workshop’s intent was to explore and begin articulating research opportunities at the intersection between two important Sandia communities: the complex systems (CS) modeling community, and the verification, validation and uncertainty quantification (VVUQ) community The overarching research opportunity (and challenge) that we ultimately hope to address is: how can we quantify the credibility of knowledge gained from complex systems models, knowledge that is often incomplete and interim, but will nonetheless be used, sometimes in real-time, by decision makers?

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

Computer Modeling and Simulation: Increasing Reliability by Disentangling Verification and Validation

Verification and validation (V&V) of computer codes and models used in simulations are two aspects of the scientific practice of high importance that recently have been discussed widely by philosophers of science. While verification is predominantly associated with the correctness of the way a model is represented by a computer code or algorithm, validation more often refers to the model’s relation to the real world and its intended use. Because complex simulations are generally opaque to a practitioner, the Duhem problem can arise with verification and validation due to their entanglement; such an entanglement makes it impossible to distinguish whether a coding error or the model’s general inadequacy to its target should be blamed in the case of a failure. I argue that a clear distinction between computer modeling and simulation has to be made to disentangle verification and validation. Drawing on that distinction, I suggest to associate modeling with verification and simulation, which shares common epistemic strategies with experimentation, with validation. To explain the reasons for their entanglement in practice, I propose a Weberian ideal–typical model of modeling and simulation as roles in practice. I examine an approach to mitigate the Duhem problem for verification and validation that is generally applicable in practice and is based on differences in epistemic strategies and scopes. Based on this analysis, I suggest two strategies to increase the reliability of simulation results, namely, avoiding alterations of verified models at the validation stage as well as performing simulations of the same target system using two or more different models. In response to Winsberg’s claim that verification and validation are entangled I argue that deploying the methodology proposed in this work it is possible to mitigate inseparability of V&V in many if not all domains where modeling and simulation are used.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Verification Validation and Uncertainty Quantification for CGS

The overall conduct of verification, validation and uncertainty quantification (VVUQ) is discussed through the construction of a workflow relevant to computational modeling including the turbulence problem in the coarse grained simulation (CGS) approach. The workflow contained herein is defined at a high level and constitutes an overview of the activity. Nonetheless, the workflow represents an essential activity in predictive simulation and modeling. VVUQ is complex and necessarily hierarchical in nature. The particular characteristics of VVUQ elements depend upon where the VVUQ activity takes place in the overall hierarchy of physics and models. In this chapter, we focus on the differences between and interplay among validation, calibration and UQ, as well as the difference between UQ and sensitivity analysis. The discussion in this chapter is at a relatively high level and attempts to explain the key issues associated with the overall conduct of VVUQ. The intention is that computational physicists can refer to this chapter for guidance regarding how VVUQ analyses fit into their efforts toward conducting predictive calculations.

Rider, William J.↗

MCNP ® Code Version 6.3.0 Verification & Validation Testing

This report describes the verification and validation testing performed on MCNP ® code version 6.3.0. The purpose of this report is to act as a compendium of test suite descriptions and results. Accordingly the document is divided into two parts. Part I (this part) describes each test suite in the following sections. Part II provides the results of testing each suite and comparisons to experimental and/or alternative computational results, as appropriate.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

MCNP® Code Version 6.3.1: Verification & Validation Testing (Rev.1)

This report describes the verification and validation testing performed on MCNP® code version 6.3.1. The purpose of this report is to act as a compendium of test suite descriptions and results. Accordingly the document is divided into two parts. Part I (this part) describes each test suite in the following sections. Part II provides the results of testing each suite and comparisons to experimental and/or alternative computational results, as appropriate.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

Design and execution of a verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification plan for a numerical model of left ventricular flow after LVAD implantation

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are implantable pumps that act as a life support therapy for patients with severe heart failure. Despite improving the survival rate, LVAD therapy can carry major complications. Particularly, the flow distortion introduced by the LVAD in the left ventricle (LV) may induce thrombus formation. While previous works have used numerical models to study the impact of multiple variables in the intra-LV stagnation regions, a comprehensive validation analysis has never been executed. The main goal of this work is to present a model of the LV-LVAD system and to design and follow a verification, validation and uncertainty quantification (VVUQ) plan based on the ASME V&V40 and V&V20 standards to ensure credible predictions. The experiment used to validate the simulation is the SDSU cardiac simulator, a bench mock-up of the cardiovascular system that allows mimicking multiple operation conditions for the heart-LVAD system. The numerical model is based on Alya, the BSC’s in-house platform for numerical modelling. Alya solves the Navier-Stokes equation with an Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) formulation in a deformable ventricle and includes pressure-driven valves, a 0D Windkessel model for the arterial output and a LVAD boundary condition modeled through a dynamic pressure-flow performance curve. The designed VVUQ plan involves: (a) a risk analysis and the associated credibility goals; (b) a verification stage to ensure correctness in the numerical solution procedure; (c) a sensitivity analysis to quantify the impact of the inputs on the four quantities of interest (QoIs) (average aortic root flow $Q^{avg}_{Ao}$, maximum aortic root flow $Q^{max}_{Ao}$, average LVAD flow $Q^{avg}_{VAD}$, and maximum LVAD flow $Q^{max}_{VAD}$; (d) an uncertainty quantification using six validation experiments that include extreme operating conditions. Numerical code verification tests ensured correctness of the solution procedure and numerical calculation verification showed a grid convergence index (GCI)95% <3.3%. The total Sobol indices obtained during the sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ejection fraction, the heart rate, and the pump performance curve coefficients are the most impactful inputs for the analysed QoIs. The Minkowski norm is used as validation metric for the uncertainty quantification. It shows that the midpoint cases have more accurate results when compared to the extreme cases. The total computational cost of the simulations was above 100 [core-years] executed in around three weeks time span in Marenostrum IV supercomputer. This work details a novel numerical model for the LV-LVAD system, that is supported by the design and execution of a VVUQ plan created following recognised international standards. We present a methodology demonstrating that stringent VVUQ according to ASME standards is feasible but computationally expensive.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

Supplemental material for: Verification, validation, and results of an approximate model for the stress of a Tokamak toroidal field coil at the inboard midplane

This is the supplemental material for the manuscript "Verification, validation, and results of an approximate model for the stress of a Tokamak toroidal field coil at the inboard midplane" submitted to Fusion Engineering and Design. This material includes PDF writeups of the derivations of the axisymmetric extended plane strain model, the elastic properties smearing model, and 20+ MATLAB scripts and functions which implement the model and generate the figures in the paper.

Swanson, CPS↗

BIGHORN Computational Fluid Dynamics Theory, Methodology, and Code Verification & Validation Benchmark Problems

This document presents the theoretical background for a hybrid finite-element / finite-volume fluid flow solver, namely BIGHORN, based on the Multiphysics Object Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE) computational framework developed at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). An overview of the numerical methods used in BIGHORN are discussed and followed by a presentation of the formulation details. The document begins with the governing equations for the compressible fluid flow, with an outline of the requisite constitutive relations. A second-order finite volume method used for solving the compressible fluid flow problems is presented next. A Pressure-Corrected Implicit Continuous-fluid Eulerian (PCICE) formulation for time integration is also presented. The multi-fluid formulation is being developed. Although multi-fluid is not fully-developed, BIGHORN has been designed to handle multi-fluid problems. Due to the flexibility in the underlying MOOSE framework, BIGHORN is quite extensible, and can accommodate both multi-species and multi-phase formulations. This document also presents a suite of verification & validation benchmark test problems for BIGHORN. The intent for this suite of problems is to provide baseline comparison data that demonstrates the performance of the BIGHORN solution methods on problems that vary in complexity from laminar to turbulent flows. Wherever possible, some form of solution verification has been attempted to identify sensitivities in the solution methods, and suggest best practices when using BIGHORN.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

VERA-CS Verification & Validation Plan

This report summarizes the current status of VERA-CS Verification and Validation for PWR Core Follow operation and proposes a multi-phase plan for continuing VERA-CS V&V in FY17 and FY18. The proposed plan recognizes the hierarchical nature of a multi-physics code system such as VERA-CS and the importance of first achieving an acceptable level of V&V on each of the single physics codes before focusing on the V&V of the coupled physics solution. The report summarizes the V&V of each of the single physics codes systems currently used for core follow analysis (ie MPACT, CTF, Multigroup Cross Section Generation, and BISON / Fuel Temperature Tables) and proposes specific actions to achieve a uniformly acceptable level of V&V in FY17. The report also recognizes the ongoing development of other codes important for PWR Core Follow (e.g. TIAMAT, MAMBA3D) and proposes Phase II (FY18) VERA-CS V&V activities in which those codes will also reach an acceptable level of V&V. The report then summarizes the current status of VERA-CS multi-physics V&V for PWR Core Follow and the ongoing PWR Core Follow V&V activities for FY17. An automated procedure and output data format is proposed for standardizing the output for core follow calculations and automatically generating tables and figures for the VERA-CS Latex file. A set of acceptance metrics is also proposed for the evaluation and assessment of core follow results that would be used within the script to automatically flag any results which require further analysis or more detailed explanation prior to being added to the VERA-CS validation base. After the Automation Scripts have been completed and tested using BEAVRS, the VERA-CS plan proposes the Watts Bar cycle depletion cases should be performed with the new cross section library and be included in the first draft of the new VERA-CS manual for release at the end of PoR15. Also, within the constraints imposed by the proprietary nature of plant data, as many as possible of the FY17 AMA Plant Core Follow cases should also be included in the VERA-CS manual at the end of PoR15. After completion of the ongoing development of TIAMAT for fully coupled, full core calculations with VERA-CS / BISON 1.5D, and after the completion of the refactoring of MAMBA3D for CIPS analysis in FY17, selected cases from the VERA-CS validation based should be performed, beginning with the legacy cases of Watts Bar and BEAVRS in PoR16. Finally, as potential Phase III future work some additional considerations are identified for extending the VERA-CS V&V to other reactor types such as the BWR.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Progress Towards A New CTH Code Verification & Validation Test Suite

The CTH multiphysics hydrocode is used in a wide variety of important calculations. An essential part of ensuring hydrocode accuracy and credibility is thorough code verification and validation (V&V). In the past, CTH V&V work (particularly verification) has not been consistently well documented. In FY19, we have made substantial progress towards addressing this need. In this report, we present a new CTH V&V test suite composed of traditional hydrocode verification problems used by similar ASC codes as well as validation problems for some of the most frequently used materials models and capabilities in CTH. For the verification problems, we present not only results and computed errors, but also convergence rates. Validation problems include mesh refinement studies, providing evidence that results are converging.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗

Verification & Validation of High-Order Short-Characteristics-Based Deterministic Transport Methodology on Unstructured Grids

The research team has developed a practical, high-order, discrete-ordinates, short characteristics neutron transport code for three-dimensional configurations represented on unstructured tetrahedral grids that can be used for realistic reactor physics applications at both the assembly and core levels. This project will perform a comprehensive verification and validation of this new computational tool against both a continuous-energy Monte Carlo simulation (e.g. MCNP) and experimentally measured data, an essential prerequisite for its deployment in reactor core modeling. Verification is divided into three phases. The team will first conduct spatial mesh and expansion order refinement studies to monitor convergence of the numerical solution to reference solutions. This is quantified by convergence rates that are based on integral error norms computed from the cell-by-cell difference between the code’s numerical solution and its reference counterpart. The latter is either analytic or very fine- mesh numerical solutions from independent computational tools. For the second phase, the team will create a suite of code-independent benchmark configurations to enable testing the theoretical order of accuracy of any particular discretization of the discrete ordinates approximation of the transport equation. For each tested case (i.e. mesh and spatial approximation order), researchers will execute the code and compare the resulting numerical solution to the exact solution on a per cell basis to determine the distribution of the numerical error. The final activity comprises a comparison to continuous-energy Monte Carlo solutions for zero-power critical configuration measurements at Idaho National Laboratory’s Advanced Test Reactor (ATR). Results of this comparison will allow the investigators to distinguish between modeling errors and the above-listed discretization errors introduced by the deterministic method, and to separate the sources of uncertainty.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

SU-E-T-524: In-Vivo Diode Dosimetry Proton Therapy Range Verification Validation Study for Pediatric CSI

Purpose: With the aim of reducing acute esophageal radiation toxicity in pediatric patients receiving craniospinal irradiation (CSI), we investigated the implementation of an in-vivo, adaptive proton therapy range verification methodology. Simulation experiments and in-phantom measurements were conducted to validate the range verification technique for this clinical application. Methods: A silicon diode array system has been developed and experimentally tested in phantom for passively scattered proton beam range verification for a prostate treatment case by correlating properties of the detector signal to the water equivalent path length (WEPL). We propose to extend the methodology to verify range distal to the vertebral body for pediatric CSI cases by placing this small volume dosimeter in the esophagus of the anesthetized patient immediately prior to treatment. A set of calibration measurements was performed to establish a time signal to WEPL fit for a “scout” beam in a solid water phantom. Measurements are compared against Monte Carlo simulation in GEANT4 using the Tool for Particle Simulation (TOPAS). Results: Measurements with the diode array in a spread out Bragg peak of 14 cm modulation width and 15 cm range (177 MeV passively scattered beam) in solid water were successfully validated against proton fluence rate simulations in TOPAS. The resulting calibration curve allows for a sensitivity analysis of detector system response with dose rate in simulation and with individual diode position through simulation on patient CT data. Conclusion: Feasibility has been shown for the application of this range verification methodology to pediatric CSI. An in-vivo measurement to determine the WEPL to the inner surface of the esophagus will allow for personalized adjustment of the treatment plan to ensure sparing of the esophagus while confirming target coverage. A Toltz acknowledges partial support by the CREATE Medical Physics Research Training Network grant of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Grant number: 432290)

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

Verification, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification in Thermal Hydraulics, Freeman Scholar Lecture (2019)

Engineering problems are generally solved by analytical models or computer codes. These models, in addition to conservation equations, also include many empirical relationships and approximate numerical methods. Each of these components contributes to the uncertainty in the prediction. A systematic approach to judge the applicability of the code to the intended application is needed. It starts from verification of implementation of formulation in the code, identification of important phenomena, finding relevant tests with quantified uncertainty for these phenomena, and validation of the code by comparing predictions with the relevant test data. The relevant tests must address phenomena as expected in the intended application. In case of small size or limited condition tests, the scaling analyses are needed to assess the relevancy of the tests. Finally, a statement of uncertainty in the prediction is needed. Systematic approaches are described to aggregate uncertainties from different components of the code for intended application. Here, verification, validation, and uncertainty quantifications (VVUQs) are briefly described.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

FY2021 Improvements to the New CTH Code Verification & Validation Test Suite

Over the past few years, the CTH multiphysics hydrocode has overhauled its software quality and testing processes, implementing current best practices in software quality and building a robust V&V test suite comprised of traditional hydrocode verification problems, including ASC Tri-Lab Test Suite and Enhanced Tri-Lab Test Suite problems, as well as validation problems for some of CTH’s most frequently used equations of state, materials models, and other key capabilities. Substantial progress towards building this new test suite was made in FY19 and FY20. In FY21, the test suite has been expanded to include verification and validation tests of the Steinberg-Guinan-Lund (ST) viscoplastic model and the Johnson Cook (JFRAC) fracture model. Additionally, two new verification tests were added, covering hydrodynamics and high explosive (HE) modeling capabilities: the Kidder Gaussian density problem and the Escape of HE Products (EHEP) problem from the Tri-Lab Test Suite. This report discusses each of these test problems in detail. Verification test results are compared to analytic solutions. Validation test results are compared to experimental data. Wherever possible, convergence or mesh refinement studies are included. Additionally, while implementing the Kidder verification problem, a bug was identified that affects the use of tables to initialize pressure or density in 1D or 2D calculations. A brief discussion of the bug and its fix is included. CTH demonstrates good performance overall on the new test suite problems. Simulation results showed good agreement with analytic solutions for the Kidder problem, with convergence rates ranging between 1.8 and sub-linear, and relatively good agreement for the EHEP problem, though convergence rates for pressure and density were nearly 0. The ST and JFRAC strain rate loading verification tests show good agreement with analytic solutions. Likewise, CTH simulation results show good agreement with experimental validation data, including Taylor rod impact testing, for the materials tested. Future V&V work will focus on adding 2D and 3D versions of existing verification tests as well as adding validation tests of other frequently used capabilities such as other fracture models.

42 ENGINEERING↗