Skip to main content
Log in

On a Comparison of Solutions in Verification Problems

  • Published:
Mathematical Models and Computer Simulations Aims and scope

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. 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].

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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

  3. 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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Guide for the Verification and Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations (AIAA-G-077-1998) (American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 1998).

  5. 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).

  6. A. K. Alexeev and A. E. Bondarev, “On some features of Richardson extrapolation for compressible inviscid flows,” Math. Montisnigri XL, 42–54 (2017).

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. A. K. Alekseev, A. E. Bondarev, and I. M. Navon, “On triangle inequality based approximation error estimation,” arXiv:1708.04604 (2017).

  8. 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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. P. C. Mahalanobis, “On the generalized distance in statistics,” Proc. Natl. Inst. Sci. India 2 (1), 49–55 (1936).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. L. Wang, Y. Zhang, and J. Feng, “On the Euclidean distance of images,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 27 (8), 1334–1339 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. B. E. Edney, “Effects of shock impingement on the heat transfer around blunt bodies,” AIAA J. 6 (1), 15–21 (1968).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. H. W. Liepmann and A. Roshko, Elements of Gas Dynamics (Wiley, New York, 1957).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. V.A. Zorich, “Multidimensional geometry, functions of very many variables, and probability,” Theory Probab. Appl. 59 (3), 481–493 (2014).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. P. Sidiropoulos, “N-sphere chord length distribution,” arXiv:1411.5639v1 (2014).

  15. V. V. V’yugin, Kolmogorov Complexity and Algorithmic Randomness, Textbook (MIPT, Moscow, 2012) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  16. S. Repin, A Posteriori Estimates for Partial Differential Equations, Radon Series on Computational and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 4 (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2008).

  17. 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).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. 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).

  19. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. M. Sun and K. Katayama, “An artificially upstream flux vector splitting for the Euler equations,” J. Comput. Phys. 189 (1), 305–329 (2003).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 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).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. E. F. Toro, Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics. A Practical Introduction, 3rd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2009).

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project no. 19-01-00402.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to A. K. Alekseev or A. E. Bondarev.

Additional information

Translated by I. Tselishcheva

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S207004822101004X

Keywords:

Navigation