Abstract—
The impact of the choice of the proximity measure for the numerical and reference solutions is discussed in terms of the verification of the calculations and software. If no reference solution is available, the deterministic and stochastic options for estimating computational errors are considered using an ensemble of solutions obtained by different numerical algorithms. The relation between the norm of the solution error and the error of valuable functionals is studied via the Cauchy–Bunyakovsky–Schwarz inequality. The results of numerical tests for the two-dimensional Euler equations, which demonstrate how the choice of the proximity measure affects the estimation of the approximation error on the ensemble of solutions and show the efficiency of the considered algorithms, are presented. The comparison of different proximity measures (norms and metrics) both for estimating the computational error and for comparing the flow fields that correspond to both small variations in the flow structure and qualitatively different flow patterns is a new element of the paper. The application of the errors of valuable functionals for the evaluation of the approximation errors in practical terms is also novel. The feasibility for computationally cheap (single-grid, in contrast to the Richardson extrapolation method) quantitative verification of solutions considered and analyzed in the paper seems useful for the implementation of the Russian standards for numerical solution verification and CFD code validation.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
GOST (State Standard) No. R 57 700.12–2018, Numerical modeling of supersonic inviscid gas flows. Software Verification / National Standard of the Russian Federation for Numerical Modeling of Physical Processes (Moscow, 2018) [in Russian].
A. L. Zheleznyakova, “Verification and validation technologies for gas dynamic simulations,” Fiz.-Khim. Kinet. Gaz. Din. 19 (2), 1–62 (2018) [in Russian]. https://doi.org/10.33257/PhChGD.19.2.687
O.A. Kovyrkina and V.V. Ostapenko, “On the practical accuracy of shock-capturing schemes,” Math. Models Comput. Simul. 6 (2), 183–191 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1134/S2070048214020069
Guide for the Verification and Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations (AIAA-G-077-1998) (American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 1998).
Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer (ASME V&V 20-2009), An American National Standard (ASME, Santa Clara, CA, 2009).
A. K. Alexeev and A. E. Bondarev, “On some features of Richardson extrapolation for compressible inviscid flows,” Math. Montisnigri XL, 42–54 (2017).
A. K. Alekseev, A. E. Bondarev, and I. M. Navon, “On triangle inequality based approximation error estimation,” arXiv:1708.04604 (2017).
A. K. Alekseev and A. E. Bondarev, “Estimation of the distance between true and numerical solutions,” Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 59 (6), 857–863 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0965542519060034
P. C. Mahalanobis, “On the generalized distance in statistics,” Proc. Natl. Inst. Sci. India 2 (1), 49–55 (1936).
L. Wang, Y. Zhang, and J. Feng, “On the Euclidean distance of images,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 27 (8), 1334–1339 (2005).
B. E. Edney, “Effects of shock impingement on the heat transfer around blunt bodies,” AIAA J. 6 (1), 15–21 (1968).
H. W. Liepmann and A. Roshko, Elements of Gas Dynamics (Wiley, New York, 1957).
V.A. Zorich, “Multidimensional geometry, functions of very many variables, and probability,” Theory Probab. Appl. 59 (3), 481–493 (2014).
P. Sidiropoulos, “N-sphere chord length distribution,” arXiv:1411.5639v1 (2014).
V. V. V’yugin, Kolmogorov Complexity and Algorithmic Randomness, Textbook (MIPT, Moscow, 2012) [in Russian].
S. Repin, A Posteriori Estimates for Partial Differential Equations, Radon Series on Computational and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 4 (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2008).
R. Courant, E. Isaacson, and M. Rees, “On the solution of nonlinear hyperbolic differential equations by finite differences,” Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 5 (3), 243–255 (1952).
A. G. Kulikovskii, N. V. Pogorelov, and A. Yu. Semenov, Mathematical Aspects of Numerical Solution of Hyperbolic Systems (Fizmatlit, Moscow, 2001; Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 2001).
B. van Leer, “Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. V. A second-order sequel to Godunov’s method,” J. Comput. Phys. 32 (1), 101–136 (1979).
M. Sun and K. Katayama, “An artificially upstream flux vector splitting for the Euler equations,” J. Comput. Phys. 189 (1), 305–329 (2003).
S. Osher and S. Chakravarthy, “Very high order accurate TVD schemes,” in Oscillation Theory, Computation, and Methods of Compensated Compactness. Ed. by C. Dafermos, J. L. Ericksen, D. Kinderlehrer, and M. Slemrod, The IMA Volumes in Mathematics and Its Applications (Springer, New York, 1986), Vol. 2, pp. 229–274.
S. Yamamoto and H. Daiguji, “Higher-order-accurate upwind schemes for solving the compressible Euler and Navier-Stokes equations,” Comput. Fluids 22 (2–3), 259–270 (1993).
E. F. Toro, Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics. A Practical Introduction, 3rd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2009).
Funding
This study was supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project no. 19-01-00402.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Translated by I. Tselishcheva
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alekseev, A.K., Bondarev, A.E. On a Comparison of Solutions in Verification Problems. Math Models Comput Simul 13, 154–161 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1134/S207004822101004X
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S207004822101004X