This content is not included in
your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Verification & Validation: Process and Levels Leading to Qualitative or Quantitative Validation Statements
Technical Paper
2004-01-1752
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Annotation ability available
Sector:
Language:
English
Abstract
The concepts of Verification and Validation (V&V) can be oversimplified in a succinct manner by saying that “verification is doing things right” and “validation is doing the right thing”. In the world of the Finite Element Method (FEM) and computational analysis, it is sometimes said “verification means solving the equations right” and “validation means solving the right equations”. In other words, if one intends to give an answer to the equation “2+2=”, then one must run the resulting code to assure that the answer “4” results. However, if the nature of the physics or engineering problem being addressed with this code is multiplicative rather than additive, then even though Verification may succeed (2+2=4 etc), Validation will fail because the equations coded are not those needed to address the real world (multiplicative) problem. When this simple explanation of V&V is extended to the multidimensional world of nonlinear FEM with multiple application scenarios, the V&V process becomes complicated very quickly. It is essentially impossible to “fully verify a code” or “fully validate a model”. The appropriate Level of V&V is a function of the time available to do the V&V evaluations, and this should in turn be a function of the Risk that will be incurred if the V&V is not done, or the risk that will be mitigated if a given level of V&V is done. We will describe a process for V&V based on Levels (with a fractional rating system from 0 to 1). V&V “Levels” can provide a necessary first step beyond “yes or no” in answering the question of whether a capability has been verified or validated. We then discuss a 4-step quantitative implementation for V&V once a given Level has been chosen. Next, we provide short examples from metal forming, crashworthiness, and engine performance of the different process Levels for V&V, and the qualitative and quantitative statements that can be credibly made as a function of the V&V Level assessed. We suggest that one of the key end products of V&V is to provide the information needed for predictive adequacy for the intended application, and that adequacy is a balance between rigor and expediency obtained from risk management.
Recommended Content
Technical Paper | Steel Processing Effects on Impact Deformation of UltraLight Steel Auto Body |
Technical Paper | Structural SMC-Material, Process and Performance Review |
Technical Paper | Development of Tooling for a Light Weight Steel Kühl Wheel |
Authors
Citation
Logan, R. and Nitta, C., "Verification & Validation: Process and Levels Leading to Qualitative or Quantitative Validation Statements," SAE Technical Paper 2004-01-1752, 2004, https://doi.org/10.4271/2004-01-1752.Also In
References
- Pilch, M.
- Logan, R.W. Nitta, C.K. “Verification & Validation (V&V) Methodology and Quantitative Reliability at Confidence (QRC): Basis for an Investment Strategy” Nov 2002
- Roache, P.J. Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering Hermosa Publishers Albuquerque, NM 1998
- Trucano, T.G. Pilch, M. Oberkampf, W.L. “General Concepts for Experimental Validation of ASCI Code Applications” 2002
- Logan, R.W. Maker, B.N “The Relative Sensitivity of Formability to Anisotropy” SAE paper 970440 , in Sheet Metal Stamping Development Applications, SP-1221, SAE 1997
- Lee, J.K. Kinzel, G.L. Wagoner, R.H. “NUMISHEET 96” Proc. 3 rd Int’l Conf: Numerical Simulation of 3D Sheet Metal Forming Processes The Ohio State University 1996
- Logan, R.W. Perfect, S.A. Parkinson, R.D. “Energy Absorption in Aluminum Extrusions for a Spaceframe Chassis” SAE paper 951079 , proc. 9 th Vehicle Structural Mechanics symposia 1995
- Cafeo, J.A. Roache, P.J. April 2002
- Logan, R.W. Nitta, C.K. “Validation, Uncertainty, and Quantitative Reliability at Confidence (QRC)” Jan 2003
- Ross, H. et al “Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis to Develop Roadside Safety Policies and Guidelines” August 1990
- Paez, T.L. Hinnerichs, T.D. Hasselman, T.K. Wathugala, G.W. “Comparing Bottom-Up and Top-Down Approaches for Total Uncertainty Quantification” presented at 7 th U.S. Nat’l. Congress for Computational Mechanics (7 th USNCCM) 2003