Measures of agreement between computation and experiment: validation metrics

  • Authors:

  • William L. Oberkampf;Matthew F. Barone

  • Affiliations:

  • Validation and Uncertainty, Quantification Department, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM;Aerosciences and Compressible Fluid Mechanics Department, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM

  • Venue:
  • Journal of Computational Physics - Special issue: Uncertainty quantification in simulation science
  • Year:
  • 2006

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.01

Visualization

Abstract

With the increasing role of computational modeling in engineering design, performance estimation, and safety assessment, improved methods are needed for comparing computational results and experimental measurements. Traditional methods of graphically comparing computational and experimental results, though valuable, are essentially qualitative. Computable measures are needed that can quantitatively compare computational and experimental results over a range of input, or control, variables to sharpen assessment of computational accuracy. This type of measure has been recently referred to as a validation metric. We discuss various features that we believe should be incorporated in a validation metric, as well as features that we believe should be excluded. We develop a new validation metric that is based on the statistical concept of confidence intervals. Using this fundamental concept, we construct two specific metrics: one that requires interpolation of experimental data and one that requires regression (curve fitting) of experimental data. We apply the metrics to three example problems: thermal decomposition of a polyurethane foam, a turbulent buoyant plume of helium, and compressibility effects on the growth rate of a turbulent free-shear layer. We discuss how the present metrics are easily interpretable for assessing computational model accuracy, as well as the impact of experimental measurement uncertainty on the accuracy assessment.