November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05

Annu. Rev. Fluid. Mech. 1997. 29:123–60
Copyright c 1997 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY
IN COMPUTATIONAL FLUID
DYNAMICS
P. J. Roache
Ecodynamics Research Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 9229, Albuquerque,
New Mexico 87119
KEY WORDS: numerical uncertainty, verification, validation, error estimation, computational
fluid dynamics
ABSTRACT
This reviewcovers Verification, Validation, Confirmation and related subjects for
computational fluid dynamics (CFD), including error taxonomies, error estima-
tion and banding, convergence rates, surrogate estimators, nonlinear dynamics,
and error estimation for grid adaptation vs Quantification of Uncertainty.
Introduction
The focus of this review is the quantification of uncertainty, the estimation
or banding of the numerical error of a final calculation in computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) and related fields in computational physics, mathematics, and
engineering. By final calculation I mean one considered to be used as is. The
motivation for this calculation is different than that for an error estimate used for
the process of solution-adaptive grid generation. Although the present methods
may be applicable to grid adaptation, and some of the methods described herein
were motivated by that problem, the grid adaptation problemhas vastly different
(though usually unacknowledged) requirements.
The key word is quantification of uncertainty, as opposed to vague and all
too common qualitative assessments. Quantification of uncertainty may also
involve more than just obtaining a good error estimate; in fact, the more conser-
vative procedure based on the grid-convergence index (described below) reports
an error band equal to three times an error estimate. Furthermore, I consider
123
0066-4189/97/0115-0123$08.00
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
124 ROACHE
here only a posteriori error estimation, being of the opinion that useful a priori
estimation is not possible for nontrivial fluid mechanics problems.
Policy Statements on Numerical Uncertainty
In 1986, the editors of the ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering (JFE) sawfit to
publish a brief policy statement (Roache et al 1986) requiring at least minimal
attention to the quantification
1
of numerical accuracy. Although the statement
seemed innocuous and seemed to address an obvious need, it still met significant
resistance. (Experience withthe implementationof the policyis giveninRoache
1990.) Since then, other journals have adopted similar explicit policies (ASME
Editorial Board 1994, AIAA 1994, Gresho & Taylor 1994). The JFE has
expanded its original policy, including a prohibition of methods with first-order
spatial accuracy (Freitas 1993a, 1995b; see discussion in Shyy & Shindir 1994,
Vanka 1994, Roache 1994b, Freitas 1994; Leonard 1995). An associate editor
of the AIAA Journal (W Oberkampf 1995, personal communication) estimates
that he needs to cite the journal policy in approximately three quarters of his
communications with manuscript authors.
The topic has alsobeenthe subject of several AmericanSocietyof Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) symposia and resulting series of special publications (Celik
& Freitas 1990, Celik et al 1993, Johnson & Hughes 1995), from which the
present article takes its title. Also see the related ASME publications on the
“CFD Triathlons” (Freitas 1993b, 1995a) and other benchmark comparison
exercises, for example, the international HYDROCOINand PSACOINprojects
(OECD 1988, 1990). These exercises give a fair cross-section of present CFD
practices in regard to numerical accuracy and generally are far from edifying.
Oldenburg & Pruess (1995) give an example of qualitatively different flow
revealed by even a cursory grid resolution study that was not discovered by any
participants in the HYDROCOIN code intercomparison exercise.
Verification and Validation: Numerical versus Conceptual
Modeling
It is useful at the onset to make the important semantic distinction between
verification and validation. Following Boehm (1981) and Blottner (1990),
I adopt the succinct description of verification as “solving the equations right,”
and of validation as “solving the right equations.” The code author defines pre-
cisely what partial differential equations (PDEs) are being solved and demon-
strates convincingly that they are solved correctly—that is, usually with some
1
Other aspects of confidence building in CFD, including broader issues of code quality-
assurance, confirmation, calibration, tuning, and certification, are found in Mehta (1989, 1991,
1995), Roache et al (1990), Aeschliman et al (1995), Oberkampf (1994), Oberkampf et al (1995),
Cosner (1995), Melnik et al (1995), and Roache (1995).
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 125
order of accuracy and always consistently, so that as some measure of dis-
cretization (e.g. the mesh increments) approaches zero, the code produces
a solution to the continuum PDEs; this is verification. Whether or not those
equations and that solution bear any relation to a physical problemof interest to
the code user is the subject of validation. In a meaningful sense, a code cannot
be validated; only a calculation (or range of calculations with a code) can be
validated. In my experience, dealing with other than algorithm developers, this
is a difficult concept and requires frequent reiteration.
Another way to make the distinction (i.e. to get to the idea behind the
words, beyond “mere” semantics) is to speak of numerical errors versus con-
ceptual modeling errors. An example of conceptual modeling versus numerical
modeling is the assumption of incompressibility. This is clearly a conceptual
modeling assumption. Is it the code builder’s fault, or any criticism of the code
itself, if the user incorrectly applies it? For example, dynamic stall involves
compressibility at a surprisingly low free-stream Mach number. Results from
an incompressible code may not agree with experiment very well, but we can-
not say that the code fails verification because it was applied to a compressible
flow problem, although we may have some sympathy for the user who is fooled
by dynamic stall. But no one would have sympathy for a user who applied
an incompressible flow code to a reentry vehicle at Mach 20. In such a case,
the lack of agreement with experiment is not a code problem but a modeling
problem. The same is true of many practical aspects of applying a CFD code.
The model includes more than the code. “Model” includes conceptual model-
ing assumptions (e.g. incompressibility, symmetry, etc). It also includes data
input to the code—e.g. geometry data, which often are not so easy to determine
accurately as one might expect, and boundary conditions and initial conditions.
Incorrect determination of any of these items can lead to failure of validation
of a model, with possibly no criticism of the code.
The question of solution uniqueness always arises with nonlinear equations,
and its position in the verification-validation distinction is important. If, as
stated above, we take verification to mean simply that a solution to the con-
tinuum PDEs is obtained, then the problem of PDE nonuniqueness is avoided.
This is probably being too easy on the code developer in some cases. Physi-
cally inadmissable solutions should be eliminated by the code—for example, a
shock-tube simulator shouldbe requiredtoeliminate expansionshocksolutions;
but nature abounds with physically nonunique solutions in fluid dynamics—for
example, hysteresis of airfoil stall and recovery, and bi-stable fluid amplifiers.
If nature cannot decide which solution to produce, we cannot expect more of
a code. Note that obtaining “a solution to the continuum PDEs” may involve
sorting through multiple numerical solutions for nonlinear problems; for exam-
ple, see later discussion of Yee et al (1991) and Lafon & Yee (1992). See also
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
126 ROACHE
especially Stephens & Shubin (1981), whose study of Euler solutions indicates
that the multiple numerical solutions converge to the same solution as the grid
is refined.
A related question is the stability of a solution. Although people usu-
ally think of artificial (i.e. numerical artifact) instability as a code difficulty,
the equally common situation is artificial stability, for example, a first-order
time-dependent code whose artificial viscosity damps out disturbances so that
accurate calculations of physical fluid instability would require impractically
high resolution. In my opinion, it is asking too much of a code to exactly mimic
stability boundaries except in the limit of →0. For example, it is not a fail-
ure of verification for a full Navier-Stokes code to produce steady shear-layer
solutions at Reynolds numbers known to be unstable; an unstable solution is
still a valid solution.
The choice of using verification or validation was originally arbitrary and is
now recommended solely because of common developing use. (I have pub-
lished articles using the opposite definition.) In a common English thesaurus,
the terms verify, validate, and confirm are all synonyms, but the words are
used herein, and generally in code quality-assurance (QA), as technical terms
with more context-specific meaning. Such technical terms are preferably re-
lated to common use, but each term’s technical meaning is defined independent
of common use and in a specific technical context. This is not a universally
accepted attitude toward semantics. In a widely quoted paper that has been re-
cently described as brilliant in an otherwise excellent Scientific American article
(Horgan 1995), Oreskes et al (1994) think that we can find the real meaning of
a technical term by inquiring about its common meaning. They make much of
supposed intrinsic meaning in the words verify and validate and, as in a Greek
morality play, agonize over truth. They come to the remarkable conclusion
that it is impossible to verify or validate a numerical model of a natural sys-
tem. Now most of their concern is with groundwater flow codes, and indeed,
in geophysics problems, validation is very difficult. But they extend this to
all physical sciences. They clearly have no intuitive concept of error toler-
ance, or of range of applicability, or of common sense. My impression is that
they, like most lay readers, actually think Newton’s law of gravity was proven
wrong by Einstein, rather than that Einstein defined the limits of applicability
of Newton. But Oreskes et al (1994) go much further, quoting with approval
(in their footnote 36) various modern philosophers who question not only
whether we can prove any hypothesis true, but also “whether we can in fact
prove a hypothesis false.” They are talking about physical laws—not just
codes but any physical law. Specifically, we can neither validate nor inval-
idate Newton’s Law of Gravity. (What shall we do? No hazardous waste
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 127
disposals, no bridges, no airplanes, no . . . .) See also Konikow & Bredehoeft
(1992) and a rebuttal discussion by Leijnse & Hassanizadeh (1994). Clearly,
we are not interested in such worthless semantics and effete philosophizing,
but in practical definitions, applied in the context of engineering and science
accuracy.
Inadequate Error Taxonomies
Several taxonomies of errors given in the literature are inadequate and mislead-
ing, in my opinion. Not all lists are taxonomies. For example, the list “flora,
fauna, mammals, dogs” is not an adequate biological taxonomy. Mammals are
not separate from fauna but are part of it, as are dogs. But we see this kind of
false taxonomy often in CFD.
For example, so-called grid-generation errors (Ferziger 1993) are not sepa-
rate from discretization errors. For the verification of a code or a calculation,
there are no such things as grid-generation errors [nor are there “errors associ-
ated with coordinate transformations” (Ferziger 1993)]. Indeed, bad grids add
to discretization error size, but they do not add new terms. This does not mean
that one grid is as good as another, or that a really bad grid cannot magnify
errors, but only that these so-called grid-generation errors do not need to be
considered separately from other discretization errors in a grid-convergence
test. If the grid-convergence test is performed, and the errors are shown to
reduce as O(
2
), for example, then all discretization errors are verified. One
does not need to separately estimate or band the grid-generation errors.
Likewise for Karniadakis’s (1995) proposed numerical error bar (see also
Vanka 1995), which consists of separately estimated numerical errors from
boundary conditions, computational domain size, temporal errors, and spatial
errors. This is clearly a false taxonomy. Numerical errors at boundaries can
be ordered in [e.g. the various approaches for wall vorticity (Roache 1972)]
or possibly nonordered in [e.g. the boundary-layer-like ∂p/∂n = 0, or
the downstream (outflow) boundary location (Roache 1972)]. Ordered errors
will tend to zero as the discretization improves, so that a boundary error from
wall vorticity evaluation need not be considered separately from spatial errors.
That taxonomy (Karniadakis 1995) already includes temporal errors and spatial
errors and computational domain size errors, so that both ordered and non-
ordered boundary errors are already counted elsewhere in the taxonomy. Since
the intention in (Karniadakis 1995) is to provide a quantitative breakdown in
the sources of numerical error in an error band, the proposed taxonomy is not
only confused but misleading.
Note, however, that outflow boundary errors may prove to be ordered not in
but in 1/l, where l is the distance from the region of interest (e.g. an airfoil)
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
128 ROACHE
to the outflow boundary. [See Zingg’s (1993) data, shown in Roache (1994a)
to be first-order in 1/l.]
The subject of outflow boundary conditions does produce some fuzziness
in categorization of Verification vs. Validation, in my opinion. The error can
be ordered, as above, and therefore can be part of verification. That is, it is
up to the user (who is doing the conceptual modeling) to estimate or band
the error caused by the position of the outflow boundary. But if the code has
some sophisticated outflow condition (e.g. a simple vortex condition for Euler
equations), then the distinction is not so clear. Certainly the equations used are
clear, and the code may “solve the equations right” (i.e. verification), yet there
exists another benchmark solely from the mathematics (the case with infinite
boundary distance) which could be used to justify the outflowcondition without
recourse to physical experiment (which would be associated with validation).
Another example of the same semantic failure arises whenwe consider bench-
marking a turbulent boundary-layer code or parabolized Navier-Stokes (PNS)
code against a Reynolds-stress-averaged full Navier-Stokes (NS) code. Pre-
sume that both codes are convincingly verified, that is, they correctly solve their
respective equations. Suppose that the PNS code results agree well with the
NS code results for some range of parameters (e.g. including angle of attack).
This agreement is not included in the term verification, since the verification
of the PNS code has already been completed prior to the NS benchmarking.
Then we could say that the agreement has demonstrated that the PNS code is
“solving the right equations” in one sense, that is, it justifies the use of parabolic
marching equations. Yet to claim validation would be over-reaching, since we
have not demonstrated the adequacy of the turbulence model by comparison
with experiment. We have “solved the right equations” only in an intermediate
sense of demonstrating that the PNS equations adequately represent the full
NS equations, but not in the ultimate sense of validation, of “solving the right
physical equations.”
Unfortunately, such “mere semantics” may become of vital interest to code
QA when dealing with regulatory agencies such as the EPA or with legal defi-
nitions in a NASA contract.
Taxonomy for Additional Information for Error Estimates
Once we have produced a CFD solution of the governing partial differential
equations, it is clear that we require some additional information in order to
quantitatively estimate the uncertainty or numerical accuracy. The following
taxonomy of sources of this additional information provides a framework for
the discussion. By the word grid, I refer to any measure of discretization
(e.g. Cartesian grid, nonorthogonal grid, number of Fourier modes in a spectral
solution, number of discrete vortices).
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 129
Sources of Additional Information for Error Estimation, Given
a CFD Solution of the Governing PDEs on a Grid
A. Additional Solution(s) of the Governing Equations on Other Grids
A.1 Grid Refinement
A.2 Grid Coarsening
A.3 Other Unrelated Grid(s)
B. Additional Solution(s) of the Governing Equations on the Same Grid
B.1 Higher-order Accuracy Solution(s)
B.2 Lower-order Accuracy Solution(s)
C. Auxiliary PDE Solutions on the Same Grid
D. Auxiliary Algebraic Evaluations on the Same Grid; Surrogate Estimators
D.1 Nonconservation of Conservation Variables
D.2 Nonconservation of Higher Moments
D.3 Zhu-Zienkiewicz-type Estimators
D.4 Convergence of Higher-order Quadratures
The following are brief remarks on this taxonomy, some of which will be
justified and amplified in later discussion:
Categories A and B involve the direct, unambiguous evaluation of any error
measure of engineering or scientific interest. For Category A, no additional
CFD code development or modifications are required. For Category B, no
additional grid generation is required.
The approach of Category C (e.g. Van Straalen et al 1995) does not simply
involve a local evaluation of something. The key aspect here is that errors are
transported (i.e. advected, diffused). However, a simple local evaluation of
something, without advection, is just what you want to guide solution adap-
tation, hence, the different needs of error estimation for solution adaptation
versus quantification of uncertainty for a final calculation.
Category D, involving algebraic evaluations on the same grid, is cheap, needs
no additional grid generation, and uses no significant dynamic memory. How-
ever, the error evaluated usually has no direct relation to any error measure of
engineering or scientific interest.
Grid Refinement and Coarsening
Systematic grid-convergence studies are the most common, most straightfor-
ward and arguably constitute the most reliable technique for the quantification
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
130 ROACHE
of numerical uncertainty. Unlike the other methods available, this approach
can be used to dependably consider the convergence of any quantity of interest,
as well as the usual L
2
and L

norms.
By grid-convergence studies people usually mean Category A.1 (grid refine-
ment), but Category A.2 (grid coarsening) usually would make more sense. If
completely solved solutions are obtained on two grids, presumably the finer
grid solution would be used, so the coarse grid solution could be used to es-
timate the error. Whether one refines or coarsens just depends on which grid
was calculated first. So for completely solved solutions, grid refinement and
coarsening are identical.
A disadvantage of Category A methods is that multiple-grid generation is
required. Cartesian grids obviously pose no problem. For boundary-fitted
structured grids, the simplest method for grid doubling (halving) is to generate
the finest grid first, using whatever method is preferred (e.g. see Knupp &
Steinberg 1994) and then obtain the coarser grids by removing every other
point (e.g. see Zingg 1993). For noninteger grid refinement (coarsening),
the same generating equations and parameters should be used. See Roache
(1993a, 1994) for further discussion, including nonstructured grid refinement
(see also Pelletier & Ignat 1995) and structured refinement of nonstructured
grids.
Error estimation using other unrelated grids (Category A.3) poses an interest-
ing challenge. By unrelated grids I mean two or more grids that are overlapping
but not simply obtained one fromthe other. For example, say grid Ais finer than
grid B in some regions but coarser in others, such as might be obtained in two
steps of an r-type (redistribution) solution-adaptive grid. It would seem that
the two solutions on unrelated grids would provide the additional information
necessary to estimate the uncertainty in either, but to my knowledge a method
for doing so has not been invented.
In order to quantify the uncertainty with systematically refined (coarsened)
grids, we need the convergence rate p to estimate the error. For now, we are
assuming that p is known, that is, that we are using a rigorously verified code
and are now concerned with quantification of the uncertainty of a particular
calculation using two grid solutions. The same methods can be converted to
verify a code, that is, to verify (or determine) p. Code verification is discussed
in a later section.
A Method for Uniform Reporting of Grid-Convergence Studies:
The Grid-Convergence Index
This sectionpresents a summaryof the mainresults of Roache (1993a,b; 1994a).
The grid-convergence index (GCI) presents a simple method for uniform re-
porting of grid-convergence studies without any restriction to integer refinement
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 131
(e.g. griddoubling). The GCI is basedongeneralizedRichardsonExtrapolation
involving comparison of discrete solutions at two different grid spacings.
Richardson Extrapolation
Richardson Extrapolation, also known as h
2
extrapolation, the deferred ap-
proach to the limit, and iterated extrapolation, was first used by Richardson in
1910 and later embellished in 1927. The discrete solutions f are assumed to
have a series representation, in the grid spacing h, of
f = f [exact ] + g
1
h + g
2
h
2
+ g
3
h
3
+· · · (1)
The functions g
1
, g
2
, and so on are defined in the continuum and do not depend
on any discretization. For infinitely differentiable solutions, these functions are
related to all orders to the solution derivatives through the elementary Taylor
series expansions, but this is not a necessary assumption for Richardson Extrap-
olation, nor is the infinite series indicated in Equation 1. It is only necessary
that Equation 1 be a valid definition for the order of the discretization. Thus,
the extrapolation may be valid for finite element solutions, and so on.
For a second-order method, g
1
= 0. Then the idea is to combine two
separate discrete solutions, f
1
and f
2
, on two different grids with (uniform)
discrete spacings of h
1
(fine grid) and h
2
(coarse grid), so as to eliminate the
leading-order error terms in the assumed error expansion, that is, to solve for g
2
at the grid points in Equation 1, substitute this value into Equation 1, and obtain
a more accurate estimate of f [exact ]. The result is the original statement
(Richardson 1927) for h
2
extrapolation:
f = f [exact ] +
_
h
2
2
f
1
−h
2
1
f
2
___
h
2
2
−h
2
1
_
+ H.O.T. (2)
where H.O.T. are higher-order terms. Using the grid refinement ratio r =
h
2
/h
1
, this result can be conveniently expressed in terms of a correction to the
fine-grid solution f
1
, dropping H.O.T.:
f [exact ]

= f
1
+( f
1
− f
2
)/(r
2
−1). (3)
The most common use of this method is with a grid doubling, or halving.
(As noted earlier, these are identical, that is, we just have a coarse grid and a
fine grid.) With r = 2, Equation 3 becomes
f [exact ]

= 4/3 f
1
−1/3 f
2
. (4)
It is often stated that Equation 4 is fourth-order accurate if f
1
and f
2
are
second-order accurate. Actually, as known by Richardson, this statement is
true only if odd powers are absent in the expansion (Equation 1), which he
achieved by assuming the exclusive use of second-order centered differences.
If uncentered differences are used (e.g. upstreamweighting of advection terms),
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
132 ROACHE
even if these are second-order accurate (3-point upstream), the h
2
extrapolation
is third-order accurate, not fourth. As a practical limitation, even extrapola-
tions based on centered differences do not display the anticipated fourth-order
accuracy until the cell Reynolds number Rc is reduced; for the 1-D advection-
diffusion equation with Dirichlet boundary conditions, Rc < 3 is required
(Roache & Knupp 1993).
Although Richardson Extrapolation is most commonly applied to grid doubl-
ing and is often stated to be applicable only to integer grid refinement (e.g.
Conte & DeBoor 1965), this is not required. In order to use Equation 3, it is
necessary to have values of f
1
and f
2
at the same points, which would seem
to require commonality of the discrete solutions and, therefore, integer grid
refinement ratios r (grid doubling, tripling, and so on). However, even in his
1910 paper, Richardson looked forward to defining a continuum f
2
by higher-
order interpolation, and in his 1927 paper had a specific approach worked out.
Ferziger (1993) alludes to this approach with less detail but more generality.
Similarly, Richardson Extrapolation is commonly applied only to obtaining a
higher-order estimate on the coarse grid with h
2
= 2h
1
, but Roache & Knupp
(1993) show how to obtain fourth-order accuracy on all fine-grid points by
simple second-order interpolation, not of the solution values f
2
, but of the ex-
trapolated correction from Equation 4, that is, by second-order interpolation of
1/3( f
1
− f
2
). The use of simple second-order interpolation avoids complexities
with nonuniform grids and near-boundary points.
Richardson (1910, 1927) also considered sixth-order extrapolation (using
three grid solutions to eliminate g
2
and g
4
), parabolic and elliptic equations,
staggered grids (then called interpenetrating lattices), rapid oscillations and the
2h wavelength limit, a priori error estimates, singularities, integral equations,
statistical problems, Fourier coefficients, and other noncalculus problems. For
example, Richardson (1927) showed the power of the method in an elegant
example of extrapolating two very crude approximations to a circle, namely
an inscribed square and an inscribed hexagon, to get an estimate of π with
three-figure accuracy.
The usual assumptions of smoothness apply, as well as the assumption
(often verified) that the local error order is indicative of the global error order.
The extrapolation must be used with considerable caution, since it involves the
additional assumption of monotone truncation-error convergence in the mesh
spacing h. This assumption may not be valid for coarse grids. Also, the ex-
trapolation magnifies machine round-off errors and incomplete iteration errors
(Roache 1972). In spite of these caveats, the method is extremely convenient to
use compared to forming and solving direct fourth-order discretizations, which
involve more complicated stencils, wider bandwidth matrices, special con-
siderations for near-boundary points and non-Dirichlet boundary conditions,
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 133
additional stability analyses, and so on, especially in nonorthogonal coordi-
nates that generate cross-derivative terms and generally complicated equations.
Such an application was given by the present author in Roache (1982).
The method is in fact oblivious to the equations being discretized and to
the dimensionality of the problem and can easily be applied as a postproces-
sor (Roache 1982) to solutions on two grids with no reference to the codes,
algorithms, or governing equations that produced the solutions, as long as the
original solutions are indeed second-order accurate. (By this somewhat abu-
sive but common terminology, I mean a solution obtained with a second-order
accurate method applied in its asymptotic range.) The difference between the
second-order solution and the extrapolated fourth-order solution is itself a use-
ful diagnostic tool, obviously being an error estimator (although it does not
provide a true bound on the error except possibly for certain trivial problems).
It was used very carefully, with an experimental determination rather than an
assumption of the local order of convergence, by de Vahl Davis (1983) in his
classic benchmark study of a model free-convection problem. See Nguyen &
Maclaine-Cross (1988) for application to heat exchanger pressure drop coeffi-
cients. Zingg (1993) applied the Richardson error estimator to airfoil lift and
drag calculations in body-fitted grids. Zingg’s work demonstrates the necessity
of grid-convergence testing even when experimental data are available. In four
of seven cases, experimental agreement was better with coarse-grid calcula-
tions than with fine! Also, his data indicate that Richardson Extrapolation can
be applied to the estimation of far-field boundary errors, with the error being
first order in the inverse of distance to the boundary (Roache 1994a). Blottner
(1990) has used the same procedure to estimate effects of artificial dissipation
terms in hypersonic flow calculations.
An important aspect of Richardson Extrapolation is that it applies not only to
point-by-point solution values but also to solution functionals (e.g. lift coeffi-
cient C
L
for an aerodynamics problem or integrated discharge for a groundwa-
ter flow problem), provided that consistent or higher-order methods are used in
the evaluations (e.g. second- or higher-order quadratures for lift) as well as the
basic assumption that the order of the method applies globally as well as locally.
If Richardson Extrapolation is applied to produce (say) fourth-order accurate
grid values, one could in principle calculate a fourth-order accurate functional
like C
L
from the grid values, but it would require careful implementation of
fourth-order accurate quadratures. It is much simpler to apply the extrapo-
lation directly to the C
L
s obtained in each grid, requiring only second-order
quadratures. Indeed, this is a major attraction of Richardson Extrapolation
compared to using fourth-order accurate stencils solved either directly or by
deferred corrections. (Note, however, that the two approaches yield different
answers, although both are fourth-order accurate if done properly.)
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
134 ROACHE
Asignificant yet overlooked disadvantage of Richardson Extrapolation is that
the extrapolated solution generally is not conservative in the sense of maintain-
ing conservation properties (e.g. Roache 1972). This shortcoming could well
dictate that Richardson Extrapolation not be used. For example, if it were used
on the groundwater flow simulations for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP
PA Dept. 1992), it would be more accurate in some norm but would introduce
additional nonconservative (i.e. lack of conservation property) source terms
into the radionuclide transport equation. de Vahl Davis (1983, p. 256) pointed
out the more fundamental problem that the extrapolated solution is “no longer
internally consistent; the values of all the variables do not satisfy a system of
finite difference approximations.” It is also noteworthy that Richardson (1927)
pointed out that the accuracy of the extrapolation does not apply to arbitrarily
high derivatives of the solution. The extrapolation can introduce noise to the
solution, which, although low level, may decrease the accuracy of the solution
higher derivatives.
Thus, it is not advocated (Roache 1993a,b, 1994a) that Richardson Extrapo-
lation necessarily be used to improve the reported solution, since that decision
involves these considerations and possibly others. What is advocated is that,
regardless of whether Richardson Extrapolation is used to improve the solution,
the GCI based on the generalized theory of Richardson Extrapolation should
be used to uniformly report grid-convergence tests.
A fine-grid Richardson error estimator approximates the error in a fine-grid
solution, f
1
, by comparing this solution to that of a coarse grid, f
2
, and is
defined as
E
f i ne
1
=
ε
1 −r
p
, (5)
while a coarse-grid Richardson error estimator approximates the error in a
coarse-grid solution, f
2
, by comparing the solution to that of a fine grid, f
1
,
and is defined as
E
coarse
2
=
r
p
ε
1 −r
p
, (6)
where
ε = f
2
− f
1
, (7)
f
2
= a coarse-grid numerical solution obtained with grid spacing h
2
,
f
1
= a fine-grid numerical solution obtained with grid spacing h
1
,
r = refinement factor between the coarse and fine grid
(r = h
2
/h
1
> 1), and
p = formal order of accuracy of the algorithm.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 135
The actual error A
1
of the fine-grid solution may be expressed (Roache 1993a,
1994a) as
A
1
= E
1
+O
_
h
p+l
, E
2
1
_
, (8)
where l = 1 generally or l = 2 if centered differences have been used. Thus,
E
1
is an ordered estimator and is a good approximation when E
1
1.
As noted above, it is neither necessary nor often desirable to use r = 2, or
grid doubling (halving). Accurate application of these generalized Richardson-
based grid-error estimators requires that the observed convergence rate equals
the formal convergence rate. This requirement implies that the leading-order
truncation error term in the error series truly dominates the error.
To account for the uncertainty in these generalized Richardson-based error
estimates due to various factors and to put all grid-convergence studies on the
same basis as grid doubling with a second-order method, a safety factor is
incorporated into these estimators and the GCI is defined for fine and coarse
grids as
GCI
f i ne
1
= F
s
|E
1
| (9)
GCI
coarse
2
= F
s
|E
2
| (10)
F
s
> 1 can be interpreted as a safety factor, since F
s
= 1 gives GCI = |E|.
That is, the error band reduces to the best estimate of the error, analogous to
a 50% error band of experimental data. I recommended (Roache 1993a, b;
1994a) a more conservative value of F
s
= 3. This value also has the advantage
of relating any grid-convergence study (any r and p) to one with a grid doubling
and a second-order method (r = 2, p = 2). I emphasize that the GCIs are not
error estimators but are three (or F
s
) times the error estimators, representing
error bands in a loose statistical sense. Ostensibly, if we have a fine-grid and
a coarse-grid solution, we would be expected to use the fine-grid solution, so
reporting of the above fine-grid evaluation of GCI would apply. However, a
practical scenario occurs for which the contrary situation applies, i.e. we use
the coarse-grid solution. Consider a parametric study in which hundreds of
variations are to be run. (For example, consider a 3-D time-dependent study of
dynamic stall, with perhaps 3 Mach numbers, 6 Reynolds numbers, 6 airfoil-
thickness ratios, 3 rotor-tip designs, and 2 turbulence models, for a total of 648
combinations.) A scrupulous approach would require a grid-refinement study
for each case, but most engineers would be satisfied with one or a few good
grid-refinement tests, expecting, for example, that a grid adequate for a NACA
0012 airfoil could be assumed to be adequate for a NACA0015 airfoil. (In fact,
this is often not justified by experience. For example, stall characteristics can
be quite sensitive to thickness ratio.) So for the bulk of the stack of calculations,
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
136 ROACHE
we would be using the coarse-grid solution, and we want a GCI for this solution.
That is, we derive a GCI from Equation 5, not as the correction to the fine-grid
solution f
1
, but as the correction to the coarse-grid solution f
2
. In this case,
the error estimate changes and must be less optimistic.
A recent application of the GCI to airfoil calculations is given by Lotz et al
(1995), whichdemonstrates the power of the methodwithout the needfor integer
grid refinement and its application with solution-adaptive grids. Pelletier &
Ignat (1995) have shown that the GCI is applicable, at least in a rough sense,
to unstructured grid refinement.
The motivation for using F
s
> 1 is that F
s
= 1 is analogous to a 50% error
band on experimental data, which is not adequate. My originally recommended
value (Roache 1993a,b; 1994a) of F
s
= 3 is conservative and relates the grid
convergence study to one with a grid doubling with a second-order method. For
many reasons (see below) this is not unduly conservative when only two grids
are used in the study. However, it is nowclear that F
s
= 3 is overly conservative
for scrupulously performed grid convergence studies using three or more grid
solutions to experimentally determine the observed order of convergence p
(e.g. see the papers in Johnson & Hughes 1995). For such high-quality studies,
a modest and more palatable value of F
s
= 1.25 appears to be adequately
conservative. However, for the more common two-grid study (often performed
reluctantly, at the insistence of journal editors) I still recommend the value
F
s
= 3 for the sake of uniform reporting and adequate conservatism.
Code Verification
So far, this article has been concerned with error estimation, or verification of a
calculation. It has been assumed throughout that the code itself has been verified
independently. If a code has an error (not an ordered error, but a mistake), then
performance of grid-convergence studies or other error-estimation techniques
will not faithfully produce quantification of the uncertainty. However, the
same techniques can be used to verify the code separately, including its order of
convergence, bymonitoringgridconvergence towarda nontrivial exact solution.
It is always possible to obtain a nontrivial exact solution for this procedure, if
necessary, by specifying the exact solution and adding the appropriate forcing
function to the governing PDEs (Steinberg & Roache 1985, Shih et al 1989,
Ethier & Steinmen 1994, Westerink & Roache 1995). The necessary condition
is that the solution be nontrivial, that is, that it have significant solution structure
to exercise higher-derivative calculations. Significantly, it is not at all necessary
that the solution be realistic in any sense. Physically realistic solutions will
be more convincing to the mathematically naive (and therefore have value in
the real world of regulatory agencies, contract management, and so on), but
the code verification is just as well accomplished by nonphysical solutions.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 137
(For the alternative philosophy, see Oberkampf 1994, Oberkampf et al 1995,
and Aeschliman et al 1995.) Additional realistic solutions (such as Sudicky &
Frind 1982, corrected) can be used in additional confirmation exercises (Roache
1995).
I claim that this method of code verification via systematic grid-convergence
testing (whether or not the GCI is used) is both general and rigorous, and has
proven remarkably sensitive in revealing small and subtle coding errors and
usage inconsistencies, as indicated by the following examples (Westerink &
Roache 1995; Salari et al 1995):
A. In verification tests of a commercial groundwater flow code, a first-order
error in a single corner cell in a strongly elliptic problemcaused the observed
convergence to be first-order accurate (Roache et al 1990).
B. In verification tests of our SECO FLOW 2D variable density groundwater
flowcode, first-order extrapolation for ghost cell values of only one quantity
(aquifer thickness) along one boundary caused the observed convergence
to be first-order accurate (Roache 1993c,d).
C. In contaminant transport calculations (advection-diffusion + decay, retar-
dation, and matrix diffusion), use of a plausible single-grid-block represen-
tation for a point source as the grid is refined introduces error in a finite
volume (or block-centered finite difference) formulation. In this cell con-
figuration, the cell faces align with the boundaries of the computational
domain, and doubling the number of cells requires the location of the single
cell representing the source to shift by /2. It is to be expected that the
solution accuracy in the neighborhood of the source would be affected. But
surprisingly, the accuracy of time-integrated discharge across boundaries
far from the source was also degraded to first-order accuracy (Salari et al
1995).
D. The observed convergence rate of ostensibly second-order-accurate turbu-
lent-boundary-layer codes (Wilcox 1993) can be degraded, apparently by
conditional statements limiting eddy viscosity and defining the boundary-
layer edge (DC Wilcox 1995, personal communication,).
E. Airfoil codes can exhibit the expected second-order convergence rates for
lift and drag but less for moment, possibly because of approximations in-
volved in applying quasi-periodicity across cut-planes of a C-grid
(K Salari 1995, personal communication).
F. When a 2-D compressible driven cavity problem is solved with an even
number of vertical grid lines, one must average velocity profiles from grid
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
138 ROACHE
lines on each side of the centerline rather than use only one; otherwise, the
convergence will be first-order (Roache & Salari 1990).
Note that in Examples C and F apparently first-order behavior was obtained
with second-order verified codes; the problem in Example C was a subtle con-
ceptual modeling error and in Example F was a not-so-subtle postprocessing
error. In both cases, the codes had no coding errors and were applied in the
asymptotic range.
Esoteric Errors in Code Verification
General CFD or computational physics codes [more general than the simple
Poisson equation in nonorthogonal coordinates of Steinberg & Roache (1985)]
would be difficult to include in a theorem because of esoteric errors. The
difficult aspects of the codes are not algebraic complexity [in Steinberg &
Roache (1985) we convincingly verified 1800 lines of dense Fortran]; the more
difficult and vexing problems come from option combinations and conditional
differencing. Esoteric errors can arise because of nonlinear flux limiters like
FCT, TVD, hybrid or type-dependent differencing, and so on (Steinberg &
Roache 1985).
Code Verification versus Verification of Calculations
In this review, I distinguish between verification of codes and verification of
individual calculations. Clearly, code verification must be done before the
verification of a (real) calculation can proceed. However, this distinction works
both ways; it is not enough to perform a calculation of a new problem with
a verified code. A code may be rigorously verified to be (say) second-order
accurate, but when applied to a new problem, this fact provides no estimate of
accuracy or confidence interval, that is, of the size of the error (as opposed to the
order of the error). Even though the real problem solution may be converging
at the same rate (say second-order) as the code verification problem, it is still
necessary to perform grid-convergence tests in order to band the numerical
error. (It would be preferable to have different words for these two verification
activities, but I am at a loss for a clarifying term.) The very important point,
independent of the semantics, is that use of a verified code is not enough. This
point is probably well recognized by present readers, but it is not universally
so. Especially in the commercial CFD arena, user expectations are often that
the purchase and use of a “really good code” will remove from the user the
obligation of “doing his homework,” that is, the straightforward but tedious
work of verification of calculations via systematic grid-convergence studies.
This unrealistic hope is sometimes encouraged by advertising.
Unfortunately, the situation may be even more difficult than this, in that a
new calculation may not even exhibit the verified order of convergence. If the
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 139
code verification problem(s) are in some sense close to the real problem of in-
terest, the order of convergence (e.g. second-order) from the code verification
exercise may be assumed to hold for the real problem. However, there is a
distinction to be made between the formal order of convergence (as indicated
by analyses of the discretization), the actual asymptotic order of convergence,
and the observed (or apparent) order of convergence. Note that there may be
more than one formal analysis, especially for nonlinear problems, so that formal
order of convergence is not necessarily unique. Then the actual asymptotic rate
of convergence may differ from a formal rate, due to competition of truncation
error terms for a particular problem (Westerink & Roache 1995). This situa-
tion typically arises when higher grid resolution reveals higher modes of the
solution, which often occurs in atmospheric and ocean modeling (Westerink
& Roache 1995, Dietrich et al 1990) and could be expected in high Reynolds
number DNS (Direct Numerical Simulation) calculations. It is also possible,
and not altogether unusual, to observe superconvergence, that is, an actual
asymptotic convergence rate higher than a formal rate, due to cancellation (or
partial cancellation) of space and time truncation errors. This observation is
evident in the classical situation of (what are generally) first- or second-order
methods for constant velocity advection problems producing the exact answers
for unity Courant number (Roache 1972). Finally, the observed convergence
rate p may differ from the actual asymptotic convergence rate due to failure to
achieve the asymptotic range of grid resolution. This is especially obvious if
solution singularities are present, in which case the method of grid refinement
still can be used to estimate uncertainty, but local values of observed p near the
singularity are required (de Vahl Davis 1983).
The cause of the discrepancy between an observed convergence rate and the
actual asymptotic convergence rate may or may not be revealed by formal anal-
ysis. For example, in Roache & Knupp (1993), a method was presented for
completing classical Richardson Extrapolation. The classical method combines
two second-order solutions on a coarse grid and a doubled fine grid to produce
a fourth-order accurate solution, but only on the coarse grid. The completed
algorithmwas devised to produce a fourth-order solution on the entire fine grid.
However, initial grid-convergence studies indicated only a third-order conver-
gence rate for the steady-state Burgers equation, even though the formal rate
was fourth order. Further analysis by PM Knupp then showed that, because
of truncation error competition particular to the steady Burgers solution, the
higher-order terms in the error expansion include the Reynolds number param-
eter Re, and that the asymptotic range for fourth-order accuracy occurs only for
Re x 3.
For these reasons, it appears to be preferable to verify a code with a non-
realistic problem that has nontrivial but regular solution behavior (e.g. a tanh
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
140 ROACHE
function) rather than to use a realistic problem that displays the confusing trun-
cation error competition.
Extraction of Convergence Rate from Grid-Convergence Tests
When using grid-convergence studies to estimate the size of the discretization
error, it is necessary to have at least two grid solutions and an a priori knowledge
of the convergence rate p, for example, to have verified that the code is second-
order accurate ( p = 2). If an exact solution is known or constructed (see
above), it is straightforward to extract the order of convergence p from results
of a systematic grid-convergence test using at least two grid solutions; this
serves to verify a code. However, it is also desirable to verify the order p for an
actual problem, since the observed order of convergence depends on achieving
the asymptotic range, which is problem dependent, and the observed order
may differ from the formal (theoretical) order, or from the order verified for a
test case, for a variety of reasons (see discussion above and a more complete
discussion in Westerink & Roache 1995). Without an exact solution for the
actual problem, it is necessary to have at least three grid solutions to extract p.
Thus, if there is any suspicion that the grid resolution is not in the asymptotic
range, three grid solutions are necessary to verify (or determine) the observed
rate of convergence and thereby allow estimation of the error.
Blottner (1990) andothers use graphical means, plottingthe error onlogpaper
and extracting the order from the slope. This procedure requires evaluation of
the error itself, which is of course generally not known. If the finest grid solution
is taken to be the reference value (unfortunately, often called the exact value,
which it obviously is not), then the observed order will be accurate only for
those grids far from the finest, and the calculated order approaching the finest
grid will be indeterminate. Blottner (1990) improves on this by estimating the
exact value by Richardson Extrapolation (see also Shirazi & Truman 1989),
but this procedure is somewhat ambiguous since the order is already needed in
order to perform the Richardson Extrapolation.
If the grid refinement is performed with constant r (not necessarily r = 2,
but constant), then the order can be extracted directly from three grid solutions,
without a need for estimating the exact solution, following de Vahl Davis (1983,
p. 254). With subscript 1 indicating the finest grid in the present notation,
p = ln
_
f
3
− f
2
f
2
− f
1
_
/ ln(r). (11)
Ageneralization of this procedure, not restricted to constant r, is possible using
the generalized theory of Richardson Extrapolation (Roache 1993a, b; 1994a).
For constant r, Equation 19 (typo corrected) of Roache (1994a) may be used
to verify an assumed order p. (It is not necessary to use the GCI itself.) One
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 141
calculates
α = GCI
f i ne
12
_
GCI
f i ne
23
. (12)
If α ≈ r
p
, then p is the observed order. However, Equation 12 also requires
r to be constant over the three grid set, and it cannot be used to calculate p
directly since p is implicitly present in the GCIs. The more general procedure
(Roache 1995a) is to solve the equation
ε
23
_
r
p
23
−1
_ = r
p
12
_
ε
12
_
r
p
12
−1
_
_
(13)
for p. This is simple for r constant (not necessarily 2 or integer), giving
p = ln(ε
23

12
)/ lnr. (14)
(Note that Equation 14 differs slightly from Equation 11 but is equivalent to the
order of the approximation involved.)
If r is not constant during the grid refinement, Equation 13 is transcendental
in p. Usual solution techniques (e.g. Newton-Raphson) can apply, but one
should allow for observed p < 1. This result can happen even for simple
problems at least locally (de Vahl Davis 1983), and in some cases the observed
p < 0 (unfortunately, behavior far away from asymptotic convergence can be
nonmonotone). Also, r ∼ 2 will be easier to solve than r ∼ 1 +δ, and r 2
is probably not of much interest. For well-behaved synthetic cases, simple
substitution iteration with a relaxation factor ω ∼ 0.5 works well. With ρ =
previous iterate for p, the iteration equation is
p = ωρ +(1 −ω)
ln(β)
ln(r
12
)
(15a)
β =
_
r
ρ
12
−1
_
_
r
ρ
23
−1
_
ε
23
ε
12
. (15b)
Note this form of the iteration gives the exact answer in one step for the case
of r = 2 and ω = 0.
Predicting the Required Grid Resolution
Once p is known with some confidence, one may predict the next level of grid
refinement r

necessary to achieve a target accuracy, expressed as a target error
estimate E
1
or a target GCI
1
called GCI

. With GCI
23
being the value from
Equation 2 for the previous two grids,
r

=
p
_
GCI

/GCI
23
. (16)
This result, of course, depends only on the assumed definition of order of the
discretization error, that is, only on c = error/
p
and not on the GCI theory
itself.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
142 ROACHE
Special Considerations for Turbulence Modeling
Special considerations are required for turbulence modeling and for other fields
with multiple scales. Here, the code theoretical performance can be verified
(within a tolerance) for a range of parameters but could fail in another range.
It is necessary to get the grid resolution into the asymptotic range in order to
do grid-convergence testing. Virtually any grid is in the asymptotic range for a
simple Laplace equation. For any boundary-layer calculation, it is clear that the
initial (coarse) grid must get some points into the boundary layer. For turbulence
modeling without wall functions (Wilcox 1993, Shirazi & Truman 1989) the
grid must get some points into the wall layer. For turbulence modeling with wall
functions, the grid should not get into the wall layer (Celik & Zhang 1995). In
my interpretation, the wall functions should be viewed as an elaborate nonlinear
boundary condition, and the grid-convergence exercise should be done fromthe
edge of the wall layer out. Similarly, for large eddy simulations (LES), as used
in aerodynamic turbulence research and in atmospheric and ocean modeling
with sub-grid turbulence modeling, the grid convergence must not go to zero,
or else the Reynolds stresses will be counted twice, once from the full Navier-
Stokes terms and once modeled from the LES terms. Also, the presence of
any switching functions, such as length determinations for the Baldwin-Lomax
turbulence model (Wilcox 1993) can easily corrupt second-order convergence
rates.
Finally, the grid-resolution requirements are much more demanding for tur-
bulent boundary layers, just as laminar boundary layers are much more de-
manding than inviscid flows. For example, Claus & Vanka (1992) found that
2.4 million nodes (256 × 96 × 96) did not demonstrate grid independence of
the computed velocity and turbulence fields of crossflow jets.
Special Considerations for Artificial Dissipation
Special considerations are required for any numerical treatment that effectively
changes the governing PDEs as the grid is refined. Sub-grid turbulence mod-
eling was mentioned earlier. The other important but troublesome numerical
methods are those that treat shock-like problems with any kind of artificial
dissipation that depends on the grid size. (Shock-like problems means either
true shocks or simply regions of unresolvable large solution structure involving
solution gradients, curvatures, and various combinations.) This includes both
explicit artificial dissipation (in which an identifiable additional term is added
to the governing PDEs, whether treated explicitly or implicitly in the solution
algorithm) and implicit dissipation introduced locally via nonlinear flux lim-
iters (FCT, TVD, ENO, PPM, and so on). If not addressed, these terms corrupt
the convergence behavior. See Kuruvila & Anderson (1985) for discussion of
difficulties and pitfalls of doing convergence studies with artificial dissipation
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 143
terms in the equations. The explicit dissipation approach can be treated cor-
rectly and rigorously, as in Blottner (1990) and Shirazi & Truman (1989).
The artificial viscosity of first-order upstream differencing (Roache 1972)
requires no special consideration other than its slow convergence. However,
hybrid methods in their various forms cause more problems. By adaptively
changing the weighting given to first-order and second-order stencils, depend-
ing on the local cell Reynolds number Rc, these methods by definition are
ultimately second-order accurate, but only when the resolution is so fine that
the hybrid algorithm itself is inoperative, typically when Rc < 2. Over the
practical range of resolution of interest, the order is ill-defined, but the empiri-
cally observed order is, as expected, somewhere vaguely between 1 and 2 (e.g.
see Celik & Zhang 1995). Unfortunately, hybrid methods are commonly used
in commercial codes, wherein the emphasis is often on code robustness at the
sacrifice of accuracy. The same ill-defined behavior is observed for the class
of Allen-Southwell methods (Roache 1972).
Error Estimation from Higher-Order Solutions
on the Same Grid
Category B.1 methods estimate the accuracy of a base solution by comparison
with “higher-order accuracy solution(s).” (Again, note the somewhat abusive
but common terminology.) Richardson (1908) again scooped modern error-
estimationpapers byinventingCategoryB.1, error estimationfromhigher-order
solutions on the same grid, noting that the difference between a second-order
accurate solution and a fourth-order accurate solution is itself an ordered error
estimator. The higher-order accuracy solution might be obtained via a new
solution of higher-order discretizations using FDM (finite difference methods),
FVM (finite volume methods), FEM (finite element methods), and so on, or by
deferred corrections, compact differences (again direct or deferred corrections,
and so on).
For the technique of error estimation from higher-order solutions on the
same grid, much the same advantages and limitations apply as with the grid-
convergence technique. It applies to all point values and functionals (e.g. lift,
drag); x and t errors may be estimated independently or coupled; and the error
estimate includes nonlinear coupling. These methods are not commonly used
because they require additional code capability, unlike grid-convergence tests
(Category A). On the other hand, these Category B methods do not require
additional grid generation.
The development costs of the additional code capability may be minimized
by noting several points. If we were intending to use the higher-order solution
itself, many restrictions and requirements could apply, such as full iterative
convergence, strict conservation, and so on. However, if our only use of the
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
144 ROACHE
higher-order solution is to estimate the error of the base solution, these consid-
erations are not so important. The point is that error estimation of, for example,
a second-order solution using fourth order methods is less demanding numer-
ically than obtaining a fourth-order solution for direct use. Also, though not
generally recognized, directional splitting works. (The following development
has not been completed for cross-derivative terms, which in any case may re-
quire some careful formulation for higher-order stencils and should be verified
rigorously.)
We use a notation similar to that above for multiple grid solutions: f denotes
the exact solution, f
2
the second-order accurate solution, and f
4
the fourth-order
accurate solution; C
2x
are the coefficients of the Taylor’s theorem expansion
for the second-order solution in the x-direction, and so on; and R
2x
are the
remaining terms in the complete second-order expansion in x, and so on. Then,
in two dimensions,
f = f
2
+C
2x
x
2
+ R
2x
+C
2y
y
2
+ R
2y
(17)
and
f = f
4
+C
4x
x
4
+ R
4x
+C
4y
y
4
+ R
4y
. (18)
Defining the error of the second-order solution E
2
to be
E
2
= f − f
2
(19)
and substituting for f from Equation 18, we obtain
E
2
= f
4
− f
2
+0(
4
). (20)
This is the basic (Richardson 1908) result that the difference between the
second- and fourth-order solutions on the same grid is itself a fourth-order
error estimate for the second-order solution (a result so obvious that it hardly
deserves to be named a theorem). Likewise obvious, if we define the error of
the fourth-order solution E
4
to be
E
4
= f − f
4
(21)
and substituting for f from Equation 18, we obtain
E
4
= f
2
− f
4
+0(
2
) (22)
for a second-order error estimator for the fourth-order solution.
The somewhat less obvious result is for the directional splitting of the higher-
order solutions, which can be much easier to implement than a fully directional
higher-order solution. Let f
4x
denote the solution obtained with fourth-order
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 145
discretization in x and second-order in y, and f
4y
denote the solution obtained
with fourth-order discretization in y and second-order in x. The C
2x
coefficients
are unchanged from the previous definitions. Then
f = f
4x
+C
4x
x
4
+ R
4x
+C
2y
y
2
+ R
2y
(23)
and
f = f
4y
+C
4y
y
4
+ R
4y
+C
2x
x
2
+ R
2x
. (24)
We nowestimate the difference between f
4x
and f
2
, using Equations 23 and 17,
respectively (if we dropped the higher-order remainder terms at this point, we
would prove the resulting estimator to be second-order accurate, but by retaining
these terms presently, we show that the estimator is fourth-order accurate)
f
4x
− f
2
= f −C
4x
x
4
− R
4x
−C
2y
y
2
− R
2y
−{ f −C
2x
x
2
− R
2x
−C
2y
y
2
− R
2y
}
= C
2x
x
2
+ R
2x
−C
4x
x
4
− R
4x
.
(25)
Similarly, we estimate the difference between f
4y
and f
2
using Equations 24
and 17, respectively:
f
4y
− f
2
= f −C
4y
y
4
− R
4y
−C
2x
x
2
− R
2x
−{ f −C
2x
x
2
− R
2x
−C
2y
y
2
− R
2y
}
= C
2y
y
2
+ R
2y
−C
4y
y
4
− R
4y
.
(26)
Adding Equations 25 and 26 gives
f
4x
+ f
4y
−2 f
2
= C
2x
x
2
+ R
2x
+C
2y
y
2
+ R
2y
−C
4x
x
4
− R
4x
−C
4y
y
4
− R
4y
.
(27)
In comparison with Equation 17, the first four terms on the right-hand side of
Equation 27 are identically equal to f − f
2
, without approximation. (That
is, the remainder terms R
2x
and R
2y
are included.) The last four terms on the
right-hand side of Equation 27 are O(
4
). With the definition given in Equation
19, we have the error of the second-order solution E
2
to be estimated as
E
2
= f
4x
+ f
4y
−2 f
2
+O(
4
). (28)
Thus the estimate for the second-order solution can be obtained to fourth order
by directionally split fourth-order solutions.
Error Estimation from Lower-Order Solutions
on the Same Grid
Certainly a lower-order solution on the same grid could be used to estimate the
uncertainty of the higher-order solution (Category B.2), in the same way that
grid coarsening can be used rather than grid refinement, but I know of no such
applications.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
146 ROACHE
Residual Evaluation and Transport
In one type of Category C method (auxiliary PDE solutions on the same grid)
and in Category D methods as well, residuals of the solution are evaluated.
In the Category C methods, these residuals are used as a source term to a
linearized error equation that mimics the governing equations. That is, the
errors are advected, diffused, and so on. In the various flavors of this approach,
much is made of the distinction between “exact error residual equations” and
“approximate error residual equations.” There is less than meets the eye in this
distinction, because somewhere in the development, additional approximations
are required. Indeed, there can be no exact evaluation of the error of the discrete
point-wise solution by passing it through the continuum operator(s) of the
governing PDEs, since the domain of the PDEs requires more than point-wise
values. The philosophy of FEM, or the underlying conceptual model of FEM
practitioners, is usuallydistinct fromFVMandFDMinthis regard, oftenleading
to disconnects in communications. To most FDM and FVM practitioners, the
numerical solution consists of point-wise, discrete values of the flow variables
(as well as related solution functionals, such as drag coefficients and so on,
obtained by numerical quadratures of the discrete values.) To FDM and FVM
people, the termresidual ordinarily refers to the algebraic residual, the leftovers
from the numerical solutions of the discrete algebraic equations, that will result
from incomplete iterative solution or from accumulated round-off errors in a
direct matrix solver. Therefore, it makes no sense to FDM or FVM people
to speak about estimating the discretization error of a PDE solution, which
involves real-number system arithmetic, by evaluating the (algebraic) residual,
which may be made arbitrarily small no matter how crude and inaccurate the
discretization may be. (In fact, the cruder the discretization, the easier it is to
reduce this algebraic residual.)
FEMpractitioners have a different viewpoint. They invariably conceptualize
the numerical solution as more than point-wise, since the selection and con-
struction of the inter-element basis functions is an essential part of the FEM
methodology. Thus, they conceptualize their numerical solution as a continuum
solution and, thence, are led to consider the (differential) residual resulting from
passing this solution function through the PDE operator. When an FEM author
talks about residuals, he or she refers to what I distinguish here as differential
residuals. (Incidentally, I believe that this difference in attitude and semantics
can be traced to the historical accident that FDM practice grew up with iter-
ative solvers, whereas FEM practice grew up with direct solvers.) Note the
major distinction between these approaches: The second (differential) residual
would be nonzero even if the computer used true real-number arithmetic, but
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 147
the first (algebraic) residual actually can be driven to machine zero in many
(not necessarily all) algorithms/codes.
Once this useful semantic distinction is made, we can examine the differ-
ences in the approach. The practices are indeed different, but the difference is
not as essential as one might be led to think. First of all, we note that most
(moderate-order) FEM solutions, although they produce functions, cannot be
passed through the PDE operator everywhere because they are not smooth at
element boundaries. This limitation can be sidestepped by using the weak or
integral form of the governing equations. Note, however, that conceptualizing
the solution as a continuum function engenders some problems. For example,
the solution may not be truly (locally and globally) conservative, that is, con-
serving of mass, momentum, and/or energy, even though the conservation form
(Roache 1972) of the equations was used. Also, when these FEM solutions
are graphed for presentation of results, and often when they are postprocessed
for evaluation of solution functionals such as drag coefficients, the basis func-
tions are not used. The quadratures can use the same algorithms used for FDM
solutions or for any point-wise data. Conversely, on the FDM/FVM side, it
is not necessary to conceptualize the solution as consisting of only the dis-
crete (node or volume) points. Indeed, a simple methodology for deriving a
finite difference method involves fitting polynomials through node point values
(e.g. a parabolic fit leads to standard second-order centered difference sten-
cils). Therefore, there is no reason why FEM approaches to error estimation
(either for solution adaptive grids or for quantification of uncertainty) cannot
be applied to FDM solutions.
All of this discussion is preamble to the most interesting aspect of residual
evaluation. Regardless of the approach (FEM, FDM, FVM), if a (differential)
residual is tobe evaluatedfor error evaluation, it must be baseduponafunctional
form distinct from that used in the discretization that produced the solution.
If not, the differential residual evaluation will be practically zero, except for
some algebraic garbage caused by incomplete iterative convergence or machine
round-off. Although arguments may be made about which functional form to
use for the (differential) residual evaluation, they all essentially work for error
estimation and, therefore, the process (a) is somewhat arbitrary, and (b) applies
to FDM and FVM as well as FEM.
Note that each conceptualization of the underlying (sub-cell) functional form
of the solution leads to a discretization, but the discretization is not necessarily
unique to the conceptualization. For example, the variable coefficient diffusion
problem can be conceptualized as having smooth property variation or piece-
wise constant property variation. (In groundwater flowand transport problems,
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
148 ROACHE
the first conceptualization typically is held by geophysicists and engineers, and
the second by geologists.) Nevertheless, for a single grid, both conceptualiza-
tions can lead to the identical discretization and therefore identical discrete solu-
tion. This suggests some tolerance in the construction of sub-cell solutions. To
put it another way, just because your point-wise solution agrees with experiment
does not necessarily prove the literalness of your underlying conceptualization.
Auxiliary PDE Solutions on the Same Grid
The procedure for error estimation in Category C (auxiliary PDE solutions
on the same grid) then involves selection of an alternate functional form for
the intercell (interelement) solution and evaluation of the (differential) residual.
Again, the derivatives may not exist at element boundaries. Whether one selects
a C
2
smooth function to begin with, or blends (interpolates) the differentials
obtained at element (or cell) centers to produce smooth functions over the
entire region, or puts off such questions to the quadrature rules, etc, is not very
significant. The residuals canthenbe usedas local error estimators (CategoryD)
or transported in an error equation (Category C), which is indeed a significant
distinction. The major point is that the residual evaluation must involve a
discretization rule different from that used in obtaining the solution. In this
way, these methods are after all not so distinct fromCategory Bmethods, which
use higher- (or lower-) order stencils to evaluate the error. In Category C, a
higher-order stencil is used to obtain a higher-order solution, but if the stencil
were used only locally to obtain a local residual, it would be like Category D.
The approach in which a rigorously iterated solution is replaced with a less
completely converged solution is intermediate, and the globalness of the error
estimate becomes dependent on the amount and type of iteration.
For examples of the error transport equation approach, see Ferziger (1993)
and Van Straalen et al (1995). In all cases, the error transport equation will be
some linearizedversionof the governingequations. It will be somewhat cheaper
to solve than the original fluid dynamics equations (e.g. full Navier-Stokes) but,
as expected, will be a less accurate error estimator near separations and so on.
This approach is truly global but not as reliable as Category A or B methods.
Auxiliary Algebraic Evaluations on the Same Grid;
Surrogate Estimators
Category D methods, involving algebraic evaluations on the same grid, are
cheap, need no additional grid generation, and use no significant dynamic
memory. However, the error evaluated usually has no direct relation to any
error measure of engineering or scientific interest. Rather, the error measure
is defined for mathematical convenience (as are the L
2
and L

norms) or by
physical intuition (as is kinetic energy conservation). These measures can be
used as a surrogate for measures of engineering and scientific interest if and
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 149
only if a correlation is established via numerical experimentation over a suite
of problems and range of problem parameters.
Nonconservation of Conservation Variables
Category D.1 (nonconservation of conservation variables) applies only to codes
that do not use fully conservative algorithms for conservation variables. For
example, mass is not identically conserved in most pre-1980 boundary-layer
codes, in many FEM codes, as well as other CFD codes. The error estimate
then involves numerical evaluation by quadrature for the erroneous loss or gain
of mass in the computational domain. If the coded algorithm is consistent,
this error will approach zero but only in the limit of → 0 for a nontrivial
problem. (Even for a nominally mass-conserving full Navier-Stokes code, the
satisfaction of mass conservation will usually depend on the degree of strict
iterative convergence achieved, but this gives no indication of the discretization
error of the solution, which is our interest here.) Momentum, vorticity, and
internal energy are other possibilities. Note that the evaluation of this error
depends on the accuracy of the quadrature, which probably should be consistent
with the algorithm for solving the PDEs (see also discussion of Category D.4
below), but this does not appear to be a strict requirement. Conservative codes
and algorithms are generally preferred, but nonconservative codes are seen to
offer a readilyevaluatedandunderstood(althoughstill surrogate) error measure.
Nonconservation of Higher Moments
Category D.2 involves evaluation of conservation errors for higher-order mo-
ments. In typical turbulent (Reynolds-Averaged) Navier-Stokes codes, fully
conservative discretization may be used for the primitive variables of mass,
momentum, and internal energy. However, turbulent kinetic energy is typically
not identically conserved. An evaluation of its global and local conservation by
quadrature, including carefully evaluated boundary inflowterms and dissipation
(Haworth et al 1993; Chang & Haworth 1995, 1996), then gives a surrogate
indication of general discretization errors. In Chang & Haworth (1995), it
is also used to reliably guide local grid refinement for solution-adaptive grid
generation.
In an earlier section, I noted that, if there is any suspicion that the grid reso-
lution is not in the asymptotic range, three grid solutions are necessary to verify
(or determine) the rate of convergence and thereby estimate the error, when the
exact solution is not known. The qualifier used, “when the exact solution is
not known,” may seem redundant when the context is a realistic problem, but
there is an important and useful distinction to be made in regard to Category
D.1 and D.2 methods that are based on conservation errors. Although the con-
servation imbalance may not be of direct engineering or scientific relevance, it
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
150 ROACHE
has the advantage that the exact solution of this quantity is known, namely zero.
Thus, in this surrogate error measure, one requires only a single grid solution
to calculate the error if p is known, and only two grid solutions to extract the
observed convergence rate p (see Chang & Haworth 1996).
Zhu-Zienkiewicz-Type Estimators
Category D.3 methods (the Zhu-Zienkiewicz-type estimators) were developed
and intended primarily to guide grid adaptation. See Zhu &Zienkiewicz (1990),
Zienkiewicz & Zhu (1987, 1992), and other FEM methods that have a similar
flavor, such as those of Strouboulis & Oden (1990), Oden et al (1993), Babuska
et al (1994), and Ewing et al (1990). These methods allow the global energy
norm to be well estimated and give good evaluation of local errors (and provide
local estimate of stress accuracy, certainly important for structures problems).
More relevant inthe present context of the quantificationof uncertainty, these es-
timators can be used as surrogate error estimators, and they are relatively cheap.
Although developed for FEM, the Zhu-Zienkiewicz approach is adaptable
to FDM and FVM (D Pelletier, personal communication), using the concepts
discussed above in the section “Residual Evaluation and Transport.”
The Zhu-Zienkiewicz-type methods share the shortcoming of all surrogate
estimators for fluid dynamics—other than guidance for grid adaptation, there is
little inherent engineering or scientific interest in the error measure as defined.
Therefore, unless the only interest is mathematics for its own sake, it is neces-
sary to establish a correlation of the Zhu-Zienkiewicz estimator with an error
measure of interest. This can be accomplished only by expensive numerical
experimentation for a given class of problems. For example, a correlation based
on numerical experiments for internal combustion engine modeling would be
unlikely to provide any guidance for external aerodynamics, nor even for a large
range of flow parameters for geometrically similar problems. However, when
one is involvedinextensive suites of calculations, one maybuildupsuchcorrela-
tions by experience and arrive at a practical andvery inexpensive error estimator.
This need for establishing a correlation in error measures is also true if one
direct error measure (e.g. obtained by a grid-convergence study) is to be used
as a surrogate for another. For example, in an airfoil calculation, does a 1%
error estimate on C
L
ensure a 1% (or 5%, and so on) error estimate for C
M
?
The correlation providing the (fuzzy) answer will be valid only for a restricted
range of angle of attack, Reynolds number, Mach number, and airfoil class.
Convergence of Higher-Order Quadratures
Category D.4 methods are the simplest, involving convergence of higher-order
quadratures (numerical integration of a known function). For example, quadra-
ture for pressure and shear force on the surface leads to evaluation of a drag
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 151
coefficient C
D
. For nontrivial problems (i.e. problems with significant solution
structure), second-order quadrature will give a different answer than fourth-
order accurate quadrature. As the discretization refines, these two quadratures
will converge to each other. For coarse grids, the difference may be used as a
surrogate error estimator. The same philosophy can be used point-wise. The
simplest approach ultimately reduces to comparing the calculated point-wise
value of some variable of interest with the value interpolated between the point’s
neighbors. Indeed, these values will converge as the solution converges and,
therefore, can be (and have been) used as surrogate error estimates. However,
the poverty of the concept is shown by the fact that the error estimate is obtained
from a single solution without recourse to the governing PDEs. It is difficult to
take seriously an error estimate for point-wise pressures froman incompressible
Navier-Stokes code when the same error estimate would result from the same
point-wise values in an M = 20 solution or in Darcy flow in a porous medium.
In fact, since the governing PDEs are not invoked, these error estimators would
be better named simply resolution indicators.
Time Accuracy Estimation
Estimation of the numerical error of the time discretization can be done in
the same manner as the spatial errors, but simpler methods may also be used.
In fact, it is relatively straightforward to estimate the temporal error as the
calculation evolves, and to build a code with a solution-adaptive time step to
control the temporal error to a predetermined level, even when only first-order
time differencing is used.
Consider the following inexpensive temporal error estimator (Oden et al
1993; Roache 1993c, d) for a fully implicit (backward) time differencing
method. We write the backward time method for a general equation system in
terms of an operator L (not necessarily linear) as
_
f
n+1
i, j
− f
n
i, j
__
t = L
n+1
. (29)
Generally, the solution will involve an expensive matrix solution for all f
n+1
.
The time-error estimator uses the difference between backward and forward
time integration, implemented as an extrapolation. The method is very cheap to
implement because it does not require another implicit matrix solution, nor even
another explicit stencil evaluation. It includes the effects of time-dependent
boundary conditions and source terms.
Inthe current time-step, Equation29is advancingthe solutionfor f fromtime
level n to time level (n +1) with increment t using fully implicit (backward)
time differencing, so that the operator L is being evaluated at (n + 1). In
the previous time-step, the solution was advanced from (n − 1) relative to the
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
152 ROACHE
current indexing to n with increment t
OLD
and the L evaluated at n. We could
explicitly evaluate L
n
and make a separate, parallel estimate of the values f
n+1
with an explicit step, as in
_
F
n+1
i, j
− f
n
i, j
__
t = L
n
(30)
where F
n+1
signifies the new value of f predicted by the explicit algorithm.
(Since the left-hand side involves values of f only at the location (i, j ) but not
at the neighboring locations (i ± 1, j ) and (i, j ± 1) the equation is explicit,
that is, it does not involve a matrix solution of f at all values of i and j
simultaneously.) The difference between the new value of f
n+1
predicted by
the implicit algorithm and F
n+1
predicted by the explicit algorithm, both of
which predictions are O(t ) accurate, is itself an error estimator of accuracy
O(t
2
) for the time discretization error for that time step. Explicit evaluation
of L
n
would not be expensive compared with the computer time necessary for
the implicit matrix solution, but it does involve coding storage penalties and
complexities (storage of old values of boundary conditions, source terms, and
so on). An economical and elegant approach is to recognize that the L from the
previous implicit step is identical to the L for the present explicit step. Thus,
the L for the present explicit step can be evaluated from the knowledge of the
previous change in f , requiring only the temporary storage of previous solution
arrays. The explicit solution for f at (n +1), F
n+1
, is then obtained by simple
linear extrapolation of previous solutions. For constant t ,
F
n+1
i, j
= 2 f
n
i, j
− f
n−1
i, j
. (31)
For the more general case of variable t ,
F
n+1
i, j
= f
n
i, j
+
t
t
OLD
_
f
n
i, j
− f
n−1
i, j
_
. (32)
The point-wise difference F
n+1
− f
n+1
is then a point-wise temporal error
estimator. Usually, a user would be interested in the maximum over the spatial
domain of the percentage error, so that one would evaluate the error estimator
E
ET
for the single time-step as
E
ET
= 100 · max
i, j
_
abs
_
F
n+1
i, j
− f
n+1
i, j
___
f
RANGE
. (33)
E
ET
is thus calculated as the percent maximum deviation (or L

norm) of the
absolute value of the difference between the new f values f
n+1
, predicted by
the fully implicit algorithm, and F
n+1
, predicted by the explicit algorithm, nor-
malized by f
RANGE
, which is the total range of f
n+1
. (In practice, ghost-point
evaluations with Dirichlet boundary conditions tend to exaggerate the error, so
error estimates and f
RANGE
should be calculated only over interior points.)
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 153
Note that the explicit calculation is used only as an error estimator within
a time step of an implicit method, not as the solution algorithm. That is, its
effects do not accumulate. Thus, stability limitations and/or conservation issues
of explicit time-stepping as a solution algorithm are irrelevant.
Although the extrapolation procedure is equivalent to explicit time-stepping,
the extrapolation cannot be started until there are two time levels. Also, in the
event that the initial conditions are set arbitrarily by the analyst (without setting
initial conditions as a steady-state solution), the initial conditions are likely
to be incompatible with the boundary conditions applied at the first time-step.
This means that the change in boundary values during the first time-step is
approximately fixed, that is, it does not depend much on the time resolution.
Consequently, the first time-step would not provide a meaningful estimate of
∂ f /∂t , and the error estimator would be invalid.
E
ET
can be used readily (internal to the code) as the basis for a solution-
adaptive time-stepping algorithm, adjusting t so that the error estimate E
ET
is acceptable, either by recalculating the previous time-step (preferred) or by
simply adjusting the next time-step.
Nonlinear Dynamics Solutions
Yee et al (1991) and Lafon &Yee (1992) have given a large number of examples
of nonlinear (chaotic) dynamics solutions in which spurious (grossly erroneous)
solutions for steady-state problems with strongly nonlinear source terms are
obtained for stable implicit algorithms applied beyond the linear stability limit.
Their point is the danger of being misled by such calculations, and the need
for further research to guarantee a priori accuracy. I believe the real lesson
of the examples is simply the need for a posteriori error estimation. In all
but one of the examples, the most cursory time-step convergence study would
quickly reveal the inadequacy of the temporal resolution, with no reasonable
chance of being misled into a nonphysical solution. The one remaining example
(involving a fourth-order Runge-Kutta integration) could be misleading with a
cursory study but would be revealed in a thorough systematic study. However, it
is worth noting and is perhaps nonintuitive that even steady-state solutions may
require time-step resolution (or equivalently, relaxation parameter resolution)
when significant nonlinearities are present.
Cafe Curves
Different fields of endeavor have different requirements for the variables and
functionals of interest. To generalize too much, engineering (mechanical,
aerospace, chemical) often requires functionals of the solution such as lift coef-
ficient, heat transfer rates, mixing rate, and so on. It is much less common that
practical interest is in accuracy of the entire field calculation; one example that
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
154 ROACHE
comes to mind is aero-optical propagation (Truman & Lee 1990). However,
meteorological and ocean modelers are usually interested in accuracy of all the
field variables. In these cases, it is meaningful to emphasize global accuracy of
the entire computational field, and difficulty arises in attempting to characterize
global accuracy with just one or a few numbers.
Often L
2
or L

error norms are used as global error indicators. However,
questions arise about whether these error norms are always reliable, and more
significantly howthey can be interpreted in any general sense. For example, in a
tidal convergence study (Luettich &Westerink 1995, Westerink et al 1994), L

norms are poor indicators of error because shifting amphidromes, associated
with very high gradient in response amplitude and phase, cause extremely high
localized errors that do not converge smoothly or at the same rate as an L
2
norm.
Furthermore, there is the general problem of interpreting how representative an
L
2
or L

norm is to the response as a whole, or to aspects of the solution of
particular interest.
Luettich &Westerink (1995) introduced the concept of cumulative area frac-
tion error (CAFE) curves to present domain errors in a more complete and
meaningful way. These curves plot the fraction of the total domain that ex-
ceeds a particular error level (y-axis) against that error level (x-axis). Under-
and over-prediction are indicated separately. Assuming that under- and over-
prediction are distributed approximately evenly throughout the domain, median
under- and over-prediction errors correspond approximately to a cumulative
area fraction of 0.25. For an example of the cumulative-area-fraction error
curves, see the grid intercomparisons for tidal flow computations reported by
Westerink et al (1994); see also Westerink & Roache (1995).
The Myth of the Converged Solution
CFD practitioners, especially industrial engineers using general-purpose com-
mercial CFD codes, would like to be able to obtain, at least in principle, a con-
verged solution (converged both iteratively and in time-space discretization)
and then be able to confidently postprocess that solution for any engineering
measure of interest. Unfortunately, this is not possible in any general sense.
Again, the problem is the a priori unknown correlation between possible error
measures of valid engineering and scientific interest. Of course, expert judg-
ment (based on experience with a nearby class of problems) can be valid, but
the problem is not soluble in any general sense.
For example, in our experience with dynamic stall and oscillating airfoil
and wing calculations (Salari & Roache 1990, Salari et al 1994), lift was well
converged at the finest discretization achieved (141 × 55 × 55 in 3-D, and
461 × 71 in 2-D), drag was more problematical, and moment definitely was
not converged. If one had performed the grid-convergence study (or other
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 155
error-estimation exercise) examining only the lift, one could only infer from
engineering judgment (experience on related problems) whether or not reso-
lution was adequate for drag and moment. If a new error measure became of
interest, say position of transition, or location of trailing-edge separation, or
second harmonic component of the unsteady pressure coefficient (of interest
for helicopter dynamic stall analysis; McCroskey 1981), the convergence study
would have to be repeated for this error measure, strictly speaking. Calculations
of the branching between symmetric and nonsymmetric flow patterns require
special attention to grid resolution (see Sengupta et al 1995). Rosenfeld (1994)
used grid resolution studies of bluff-body wakes with resolution up to 513 ×513
points, and examined convergence in both the physical and Fourier domains; he
showed that phase velocities of vortices converge much slower than amplitudes,
so that coarser grids may be acceptable for prediction of force coefficients.
Certainly, it is always possible todevise some error measure that is exquisitely
sensitive to discretization error, for example, some high-order statistical corre-
lations in turbulent flowcalculations, so that this measure is far from converged
even when other, more benign measures are well converged. A practical exam-
ple is a boundary-layer stability calculation. For most engineering applications,
skin friction and wall-heat transfer are of principal interest, and these are sen-
sitive to the first normal derivative of velocity at the wall. However, it is known
from stability theory (Lin 1967) that laminar-boundary layer stability is de-
pendent on the diffusion of vorticity across the critical layer (the y-position at
which the mean flow speed equals the disturbance wave speed). The principal
component of boundary-layer vorticity magnitude is ∂u/∂y, which means that
the appropriate measure of accuracy is of the term ∂
3
u/∂y
3
, which may be
expected to be more difficult to converge than simply the velocity component
u. Conversely, accurate convergence of pressure may be unnecessary.
Thus, the concept of a converged solution, ascertained to be so independent
of the intended error measure, is a myth.
Error Estimation for Grid Adaptation versus Quantification
of Uncertainty
Local error estimators are used for solution-adaptive grid-generation algo-
rithms, and they are usually successful for this purpose (e.g. see Schonauer
et al 1981, Oden et al 1993). However, almost anything intuitive is successful
for adaptation purposes, e.g. minimizing solution curvature or adapting to so-
lution gradients (even though solution gradients per se cause no error in most
discretization schemes). In 1-D problems (e.g. Salari & Steinberg 1994) or
quasi-1-D problems (Dwyer et al 1980), the gains in computational efficiency
from solution adaptivity of the r-type (redistribution) in structured grids are
very impressive. In real multidimensional problems, gains are usually modest
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
156 ROACHE
(Roache et al 1984, Hall & Zingg 1995) but are somewhat more significant for
unstructured grid adaptation (e.g. see Morgan et al 1991, Lohner 1989, Hetu
& Pelletier 1992, Pelletier & Ignat 1995).
But this task of grid adaptation has little connection to the quantification of
uncertainty for a final calculation with a useful error measure. So the success
of these local error estimators in guiding grid adaptation must not be taken as
demonstration of their efficacy for the quantification of uncertainty. Estimates
of local errors usually are not what we want for verification of calculations;
we need global errors. By global I do not mean just a global summing up
of local values (as is often used in the FEM literature) but an evaluation that
includes nonlocal effects, that is, one taking into account the fact that errors
are advected, diffused, and so on. For error estimation of useful scientific or
engineering measures, local estimates are suspect, and their validity as surrogate
estimators for measures of interest must be established anew for each family of
nearby problems.
Internet Archive
An Internet archive of a bibliography for CFD Verification and Validation
is maintained by R Barron of the University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada,
and can be accessed at the following address: http://www.lpac.ac.uk/SEL-
HPC/Articles/ValCFD.html
Final Remarks
The various approaches to error estimation and quantification of uncertainty in
CFDhave their relative merits, involving algebraic simplicity of local estimators
vs the complexity of additional PDE formulations or higher-order accurate so-
lutions, single-grid vs multiple-grid generations, postprocessing vs CFD code
modifications, and so on. Systematic grid-convergence studies are the most
common, most straightforward and arguably constitute the most reliable tech-
nique for the quantification of numerical uncertainty. This approach requires no
code modifications nor algorithm developments but does require multiple grid
generations. Significantly, it is not necessary to “double the grid”; noninteger
grid refinement and grid coarsening are economical alternatives.
However, regardless of each approach’s relative merits and of the possibility
for future improvements, it is clear that methods are available now to convinc-
ingly assess the numerical uncertainty of CFD calculations. [It is certainly
not necessary, as claimed in a recent SIAM article by Johnson et al (1995), to
analytically and a priori solve the hydrodynamics stability problem in order
to estimate CFD numerical errors!] Journal editors and reviewers can insist
on reasonably thorough assessment without placing impractical demands on
authors, to the improvement of journal quality.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 157
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was partially supported by Sandia National Laboratories and the
United States Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC04-76DP00789,
Dr. M Fewell, Technical Monitor.
Visit the Annual Reviews home page at
http://www.annurev.org.
Literature Cited
Aeschliman DP, Oberkampf WL, Blottner FG.
1995. A proposed methodology for compu-
tational fluid dynamics code verification cal-
ibration and validation. Proc. Int. Congr. In-
strumentation Aerospace Simulation Facil-
ities. Dayton, Ohio: Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base
AIAA. 1994. Policy statement on numerical ac-
curacy and experimental uncertainty. AIAA J.
32(1):3 (editorial)
ASME Editorial Board. 1994. Journal of Heat
Transfer editorial policy statement on nu-
merical accuracy. ASME J. Heat Transfer
116(11):797–98
Babuska I, Strouboulis T, Upadhyay CS. 1994.
A model study of the quality of a posteriori
error estimators for linear elliptic problems.
Error estimation in the interior of patchwise
uniform grid of triangles. Comp. Meth. Appl.
Mech. Engineer. 114:307–78
Blottner FG. 1990. Accurate Navier-Stokes re-
sults for the hypersonic flow over a spher-
ical nosetip. AIAA J. Spacecraft Rockets
27(2):113–22
Boehm BW. 1981. Software Engineering Eco-
nomics. New York: Prentice-Hall
Celik I, Chen CJ, Roache PJ, Scheurer G, eds.
1993. Symposium on Quantification of Un-
certainty in Computational Fluid Dynamics.
FED-ASME, Vol. 158. New York: Am. Soc.
Mech. Eng.
Celik I, Freitas CJ, eds. 1990. Benchmark Test
Cases for Computational Fluid Dynamics.
FED-ASME, Vol. 93. New York: Am. Soc.
Mech. Eng.
Celik I, Zhang WM. 1995. Calculation of nu-
merical uncertainty using Richardson extrap-
olation: application to some simple turbulent
flow calculations. ASME J. Fluids Engineer.
117:439–45
Chang S, Haworth DC. 1995. Kinetic-energy-
balance based solution-adaptive mesh refine-
ment. See Johnson & Hughes 1995, pp. 7–12
Chang S, Haworth DC. 1996. Adaptive grid re-
finement using cell-level and global imbal-
ances. Int. J. Num. Meth. Fluids. In press
Claus RW, Vanka SP. 1992. Multigrid calcula-
tions of a jet incrossflow. J. PropulsionPower
8:185–93
Cosner RR. 1995. CFDValidation requirements
for technology. AIAA 26th Fluid Dynamics
Conf. San Diego, CA
de Vahl Davis G. 1983. Natural convection of air
in a square cavity: a bench mark numerical
solution. Int. J. Num. Meth. Fluids 3(3):249–
64
Dietrich DE, Roache PJ, Marietta MG. 1990.
Convergence studies with the Sandia Ocean
Modeling System. Int. J. Num. Meth. Fluids
11:127–50
Dwyer HA, Kee R, Sanders B. 1980. Adaptive
grid method for problems in fluid mechanics
and heat transfer. AIAA J. 18:1205–12
Ethier CR, Steinmen DA. 1994. Exact fully 3D
Navier-Stokes solutions for benchmarking.
Int. J. Num. Meth. Fluids 19:369–75
Ewing RE. 1990. A posteriori error estimation.
Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engineer. 82:59–
72
Ferziger JH. 1993. Estimation and reduction of
numerical error. See Celik et al 1993, p. 18
Freitas CJ. 1993a. Editorial policy statement on
the control of numerical accuracy. ASME J.
Fluids Engineer. 115(3):339–40
Freitas CJ, ed. 1993b. The CFD Triathlon:
Three Laminar Flow Simulations by Com-
mercial CFD Codes. FED-ASME, Vol. 160.
New York: Am. Soc. Mech. Eng.
Freitas CJ. 1994. Response: To the Comments
by Drs. W. Shyy and M. Sindir. ASME J. Flu-
ids Engineer. 116(2):198
Freitas CJ. 1995a. Perspective: Selected bench-
marks from commercial CFD codes. ASME
J. Fluids Engineer. 117(2):208–18
Freitas CJ. 1995b. The end of justification, the
beginning of implementation. ASME J. Flu-
ids Engineer. 117(1):9
Gresho PM, Taylor C. 1994. Int. J. Num. Meth.
Fluids 19:iii (editorial)
Hall DJ, Zingg DW. 1995. Viscous Airfoil Com-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
158 ROACHE
putations Using Adaptive Grid Redistribu-
tion. AIAA Journal 33 (7):1205-10
Haworth DC, El Tahry SH, Huebler MS.
1993. A global approach to error estimation
and physical diagnostics in multidimensional
computational fluid dynamics. Int. J. Num.
Meth. Fluids 17:75–97
Hetu JF, Pelletier DH. 1992. Adaptive remesh-
ing for viscous incompressible flows. AIAA
J. 30:1986–92
Horgan J. 1995. From complexity to perplexity.
Sci. Am. 272(6):104–9
Johnson C, Rannacher R, Boman M. 1995. Nu-
merics and hydrodynamic stability: toward
error control in computational fluid dynam-
ics. SIAM J. Num. Anal. 32:1058–79
Johnson RW, Hughes ED, eds. 1995. Quantifi-
cation of Uncertainty in Computational Flu-
ids Dynamics–1995. FED-ASME, Vol. 213.
New York: Am. Soc. Mech. Eng.
Karniadakis GE. 1995. Toward a numerical er-
ror bar in CFD. ASME J. Fluids Engineer.
117(1):7–9
Knupp P, Steinburg S. 1994. Fundamentals of
Grid Generation. Boca Raton: CRC
Konikow LF, Bredehoeft JD. 1992. Groundwa-
ter models cannot be validated. Adv. Water
Res. 15:75–83
Kuruvila G, Anderson J. 1985. A study of the
effects of numerical dissipation on the calcu-
lations of supersonic separated flows. AIAA
Paper 85-0301
Lafon A, Yee HC. 1992. On the numerical treat-
ment of nonlinear source terms in reaction-
convection equations. AIAA Paper 92-0419
Leijnse A, Hassanizadeh SM. 1994. Model def-
inition and model validation. Adv. Water Res.
17:197–200
Leonard BP. 1995. Comments on the policy
statement on numerical accuracy. ASME J.
Fluids Engineer. 117(1):5–6
Lin CC. 1967. The Theory of Hydrodynamic
Stability. London: Cambridge Univ. Press
Lohner R. 1989. Adaptive remeshing for tran-
sient problems. Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. En-
gineer. 61:323–38
Lotz RD, Thompson BE, Konings CA,
Davoudzadeh F. 1995. Numerical uncertain-
ties in transonic flow calculations for airfoils
with blunt trailing edges. Int. J. Num. Meth.
Fluids. In press
Luettich RA, Westerink JJ. 1995. Continen-
tal shelf scale convergence studies with a
barotropic tidal model. In Quantitative Skill
Assessment for Coastal Ocean Models, ed.
DR Lynch, AM Davies. Washington: Am.
Geophys. Union. In press
McCroskey WJ. 1981. The Phenomenon of Dy-
namic Stall. NASA TM-81264
Mehta U. 1989. Computational requirements
for hypersonic flight performance estimates.
AIAA Paper 89-1670
Mehta U. 1991. Some aspects of uncertainty in
computational fluid dynamics results. ASME
J. Fluids Engineer. 113:538–43
Mehta U. 1995. Guide to credible computa-
tional fluid dynamics simulations. AIAA Pa-
per 95-2225
Melnik RE, Siclari MJ, Marconi F, Barger T,
Verhoff A. 1995. An overview of a recent in-
dustry effort at CFD code certification. AIAA
Paper 95-2229
Morgan K, Peraire J, Peiro J, Hassan O, Probert
EJ. 1991. Unstructured Grid Methods for
Compressible Flows. In Computational Me-
chanics, ed. YK Cheung, JHW Lee, AYY
Leung, 2:1489–97. Rotterdam: Balkema
Nguyen TV, Maclaine-Cross IL. 1988. Incre-
mental pressure drop number in parallel-
plate heat exchangers. ASME J. Fluids Eng.
110:93–96
Oberkampf WL. 1994. A proposed framework
for computational fluid dynamics code cali-
bration/validation. AIAA Paper 94-2540
Oberkampf WL, Blottner FG, Aeschliman
DP. 1995. Methodology for Computa-
tional Fluid Dynamics Code Verifica-
tion/Validation. AIAA Paper 95-2226
Oden JT, Kennon SR, Tworzydlo WW, Bass
JM, Berry C. 1993. Progress on adaptive h-
p finite element methods for the incompress-
ible Navier-Stokes equations. Comput. Mech.
11:421–32
Oldenburg CM, Pruess K. 1995. Dispersive
transport dynamics in a strongly coupled
groundwater-brine flow system. Water Re-
sources Res. 31(2):289–302
Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz K. 1994.
Verification validation and confirmation of
numerical models in the earth sciences. Sci-
ence 263:641–46
Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. 1988. The International HY-
DROCOIN Project Groundwater Hydrology
Modelling Strategies for Performance As-
sessment of Nuclear Waste Disposal Level
1: Code Verification. OECD Report 71617.
Paris: OEDC
Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. 1990. PSACOIN Level 1A In-
tercomparison. Paris: OECD
Patankar SV. 1980. Numerical Heat Transfer
and Fluid Flow. New York: McGraw-Hill
Pelletier D, Ignat L. 1995. On the accuracy
of the grid convergence index and the Zhu-
Zienkiewicz error estimator. See Johnson &
Hughes 1995, pp. 31–36
Polya G. 1957. How to Solve It; A New As-
pect of Mathematical Method. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Univ. Press
Putre M. 1994. Verifying analytical models.
ASME Mech. Engineer. 116(11):70–74
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 159
Richardson LF. 1908. The approximate arith-
metical solution by finite differences of phys-
ical problems involvingdifferential equations
with an application to the stresses in a ma-
sonry dam. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A,
210:307–57
Richardson LF. 1927. The deferred approach
to the limit. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A
226:229–361
Roache PJ. 1972. Computational Fluid Dynam-
ics. Albuquerque, NM: Hermosa. Rev. 1976
Roache PJ. 1982. Semidirect/Marching Meth-
ods and Elliptic Grid Generation. In Proceed-
ings Symposium on the Num. Generation of
Curvilinear Coordinate Systems and Use in
the Numerical Solution of Partial Differen-
tial Equations, ed. JFThompson, pp. 727–37.
Amsterdam: North-Holland
Roache PJ. 1990. Need for control of numerical
accuracy. J. Spacecraft Rockets 27(2):98–102
Roache PJ. 1993a. A method for uniform re-
porting of grid refinement studies. See Celik
et al 1993, pp. 109–20
Roache PJ. 1993b. A method for uniform re-
porting of grid refinement studies. Proc. 11th
AIAAComput. Fluid Dynam. Conf., Orlando,
FL, 2:1057–58
Roache PJ. 1993c. The SECO code algorithms
for groundwater flow and transport. In Fi-
nite elements in fluids: new trends and ap-
plications. Proc. VIII Int. Conf. Finite Ele-
ments Fluids, ed. K Morgan, E Onate, J Pe-
riaux, J Peraire, OC Zienkiewicz, 2:939–48.
Barcelona, Spain: Univ. Politecnica Cataluna
Roache PJ. 1993d. The SECO suite of codes
for site performance assessment. In Proceed-
ings 1993 Intl. High-Level Radioactive Waste
Management Conf. Las Vegas, NV
Roache PJ. 1994a. Perspective: a method for
uniform reporting of grid refinement studies.
ASME J. Fluids Engineer. 116(3):405–13
Roache PJ. 1994b. Response: To the Comments
by Drs. W. Shyy and M. Sindir. ASME J. Flu-
ids Engineer. 116(2):198–99
Roache PJ. 1995. Verification of codes and cal-
culations. AIAA Paper 95-2224;AIAI J. In
press
Roache PJ, Knupp PM. 1993. Completed
Richardsonextrapolation. Comm. Appl. Num.
Methods 9:365–74
Roache PJ, Salari K. 1990. Weakly compress-
ible Navier-Stokes Solutions with an implicit
approximate factorization code. AIAA Paper
90-0235
Roache PJ, Ghia K, White F. 1986. Editorial
policy statement on the control of numerical
accuracy. ASME J. Fluids Engineer. 108(1):2
Roache PJ, Knupp PM, Steinberg S, Blaine RL.
1990. Experience with benchmark test cases
for groundwater flow. See Celik & Freitas
1990, pp. 49–56
Roache PJ, Steinberg S, Moeny WM. 1984. In-
teractive electric field calculations for lasers.
AIAA Paper 84-1655
Rosenfeld M. 1994. Grid refinement test of
time-periodic flows over bluff bodies. Comp.
Fluids 23(5):693–709
Salari K, Roache PJ. 1990. The influence of
sweep on dynamic stall produced by a rapidly
pitching wing. AIAA Paper 90-0581
Salari K, Steinberg S. 1994. Flux-corrected
transport in a moving grid. J. Comput.
Physics 111(1):24–32
Salari K, Blaine RL, Economy K, Roache PJ.
1995. Grid resolution studies of radionu-
clide transport in fractured porous media. See
Johnson & Hughes 1995, pp. 25–30
Salari K, Roache PJ, Wilcox DC. 1994. Numer-
ical Simulation of Dynamic Stall Using the
Two-Equation K-ω Turbulence Model, ed. K
Ghia, M Hafez. ASME-FED, 196:1–7. New
York: Am. Soc. Mech. Eng.
Schonauer W, Raith K, Glotz G. 1981. The prin-
ciple of difference of difference quotients as a
key to the self adaptive solution of nonlinear
partial differential equations. Comp. Meth.
Appl. Mech. Engineer. 28(3):327–59
Sengupta R, Orkwis PD, Davis SM. 1995. Un-
steady solutions transients and local grid res-
olution requirements for asymmetric vortex
formation. AIAA Paper 95-0364
Shih TM, Tan CH, Hwang BC. 1989. Effects of
grid staggering on numerical schemes. Third
Int. J. Num. Meth. Fluids 9(2):193–212
Shirazi SA, Truman CR. 1989. Evaluation of
algebraic turbulence models for PNS predic-
tions of supersonic flow past a sphere-cone.
AIAA J. 27(5):560–68
Shyy W, Sindir M. 1994. Comments on “Policy
statement on the control of numerical accu-
racy.” ASME J. Fluids Engineer. 116(2):196–
97
Steinberg S, Roache PJ. 1985. Symbolic manip-
ulation and computational fluid dynamics. J.
Comput. Physics 57(2):251–84
Stephens AB, Shubin GR. 1981. Multiple so-
lutions and bifurcation of finite difference
approximations to some steady problems in
fluid dynamics. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput.
2(4):404–15
Strouboulis T, Oden JT. 1990. Aposteriori error
estimation of finite element approximations
in fluid mechanics. Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech.
Engineer. 78:201–42
Sudicky EA, Frind EO. 1982. Contaminant
transport in fractured porous media: analyti-
cal solutions for a systemof parallel fractures.
Water Resources Res. 18(6):1634–42
Truman CR, Lee MJ. 1990. Effects of orga-
nized turbulence structures on the phase dis-
tortion in a coherent optical beam propagat-
ing through a turbulent shear flow. Physics
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

November 28, 1996 12:21 Annual Reviews ROACHE AR23-05
160 ROACHE
Fluids A 2(5):851–57
Vanka P. 1994. Response: To the Comments by
Drs. W. Shyy and M. Sindir. ASME J. Fluids
Engineer. 116(2):197–98
Vanka P. 1995. Comment on “Toward a numer-
ical error bar in CFD.” ASME J. Fluids Engi-
neer. 117(1):9–10
Van Straalen BP, Simpson RB, Stubley GD.
1995. A posteriori error estimation for finite
volume simulations of fluid flowtransport. In
Proc. Third Annu. Conf. CFD Soc. Canada,
Vol. 1, ed. PAThibault, DMBergeron. Banff,
Alberta
Westerink JJ, Luettich RA, Muccino JC. 1994.
Modeling tides in the western North At-
lantic using unstructured graded grids. Tellus
46A:187–99
Westerink JJ, Roache PJ. 1995. Issues in con-
vergence studies in geophysical flow compu-
tations. Soc. Industr. Appl. Math. In press
Wilcox DC. 1993. Turbulence Modeling for
CFD. La Ca˜ nada, CA: DCW Industries
WIPP PA Dept. 1992. Annual Performance As-
sessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Dec. 1992 Vol. 1 Preliminary Comparison
with 40 CFR 191 Subpart B Vol. 2: Tech-
nical Basis. Albuquerque, NM: Performance
Assess. Dept., Sandia Natl. Lab.
Yee HC, SwebyPK, Griffiths DF. 1991. Dynam-
ical approach study of spurious steady-state
numerical solutions of nonlinear differential
equations. I. The dynamics of time discretiza-
tion and its implications for algorithm devel-
opment in computational fluid dynamics. J.
Comput. Physics 97:249–310
Zhu JZ, Zienkiewicz OC. 1990. Superconver-
gence recovery technique and a posteriori er-
ror estimates. Int. J. Num. Meth. Engineer.
30:1321–39
Zienkiewicz OC, Zhu JZ. 1987. A simple error
estimator and adaptive procedure for practi-
cal engineering analysis. Int. J. Num. Meth.
Engineer. 24:337–57
Zienkiewicz OC, Zhu JZ. 1992. The supercon-
vergent patch recovery and a posteriori error
estimates. I: The recovery technique. Int. J.
Num. Meth. Engineer. 33:1331–64
Zingg DW. 1993. Grid studies for thin-layer
Navier-Stokes computations of airfoil flow-
field. AIAA J. 30(10):2561–64
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Volume 29, 1997
CONTENTS
G. I. TAYLOR IN HIS LATER YEARS, J. S. Turner 1
ELECTROHYDRODYNAMICS: The Taylor-Melcher Leaky Dielectric
Model, D. A. Saville 27
CORE-ANNULAR FLOWS, D. D. Joseph, R. Bai, K. P. Chen, Y. Y.
Renardy 65
CONVECTION IN MUSHY LAYERS, M. Grae Worster 91
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN COMPUTATIONAL
FLUID DYNAMICS, P. J. Roache 123
COMPUTING AERODYNAMICALLY GENERATED NOISE, Valana
L. Wells, Rosemary A. Renaut 161
NONLINEAR BUBBLE DYNAMICS, Z. C. Feng, L. G. Leal 201
PARABOLIZED STABILITY EQUATIONS, Thorwald Herbert 245
QUANTITATIVE FLOW VISUALIZATION IN UNSEEDED FLOWS,
Richard B. Miles and, Walter R. Lempert 285
CONVECTION INTO DOMAINS WITH OPEN BOUNDARIES, T.
Maxworthy 327
FLUID MECHANICS OF SPIN CASTING OF METALS, Paul H.
Steen, Christian Karcher 373
BLOOD FLOW IN ARTERIES, David N. Ku 399
THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF SMALL-SCALE TURBULENCE, K. R.
Sreenivasan, R. A. Antonia 435
UNSTRUCTURED GRID TECHNIQUES, D. J. Mavriplis 473
MODERN HELICOPTER AERODYNAMICS, A. T. Conlisk 515
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

F
l
u
i
d

M
e
c
h
.

1
9
9
7
.
2
9
:
1
2
3
-
1
6
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

a
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
r
o
w
n

L
a
w

L
i
b
.

o
n

0
8
/
1
6
/
0
6
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

124

ROACHE

here only a posteriori error estimation, being of the opinion that useful a priori estimation is not possible for nontrivial fluid mechanics problems.

Policy Statements on Numerical Uncertainty
In 1986, the editors of the ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering (JFE) saw fit to publish a brief policy statement (Roache et al 1986) requiring at least minimal attention to the quantification1 of numerical accuracy. Although the statement seemed innocuous and seemed to address an obvious need, it still met significant resistance. (Experience with the implementation of the policy is given in Roache 1990.) Since then, other journals have adopted similar explicit policies (ASME Editorial Board 1994, AIAA 1994, Gresho & Taylor 1994). The JFE has expanded its original policy, including a prohibition of methods with first-order spatial accuracy (Freitas 1993a, 1995b; see discussion in Shyy & Shindir 1994, Vanka 1994, Roache 1994b, Freitas 1994; Leonard 1995). An associate editor of the AIAA Journal (W Oberkampf 1995, personal communication) estimates that he needs to cite the journal policy in approximately three quarters of his communications with manuscript authors. The topic has also been the subject of several American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) symposia and resulting series of special publications (Celik & Freitas 1990, Celik et al 1993, Johnson & Hughes 1995), from which the present article takes its title. Also see the related ASME publications on the “CFD Triathlons” (Freitas 1993b, 1995a) and other benchmark comparison exercises, for example, the international HYDROCOIN and PSACOIN projects (OECD 1988, 1990). These exercises give a fair cross-section of present CFD practices in regard to numerical accuracy and generally are far from edifying. Oldenburg & Pruess (1995) give an example of qualitatively different flow revealed by even a cursory grid resolution study that was not discovered by any participants in the HYDROCOIN code intercomparison exercise.

Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1997.29:123-160. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. on 08/16/06. For personal use only.

Verification and Validation: Numerical versus Conceptual Modeling
It is useful at the onset to make the important semantic distinction between verification and validation. Following Boehm (1981) and Blottner (1990), I adopt the succinct description of verification as “solving the equations right,” and of validation as “solving the right equations.” The code author defines precisely what partial differential equations (PDEs) are being solved and demonstrates convincingly that they are solved correctly—that is, usually with some
1 Other aspects of confidence building in CFD, including broader issues of code qualityassurance, confirmation, calibration, tuning, and certification, are found in Mehta (1989, 1991, 1995), Roache et al (1990), Aeschliman et al (1995), Oberkampf (1994), Oberkampf et al (1995), Cosner (1995), Melnik et al (1995), and Roache (1995).

QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD

125

order of accuracy and always consistently, so that as some measure of discretization (e.g. the mesh increments) approaches zero, the code produces a solution to the continuum PDEs; this is verification. Whether or not those equations and that solution bear any relation to a physical problem of interest to the code user is the subject of validation. In a meaningful sense, a code cannot be validated; only a calculation (or range of calculations with a code) can be validated. In my experience, dealing with other than algorithm developers, this is a difficult concept and requires frequent reiteration. Another way to make the distinction (i.e. to get to the idea behind the words, beyond “mere” semantics) is to speak of numerical errors versus conceptual modeling errors. An example of conceptual modeling versus numerical modeling is the assumption of incompressibility. This is clearly a conceptual modeling assumption. Is it the code builder’s fault, or any criticism of the code itself, if the user incorrectly applies it? For example, dynamic stall involves compressibility at a surprisingly low free-stream Mach number. Results from an incompressible code may not agree with experiment very well, but we cannot say that the code fails verification because it was applied to a compressible flow problem, although we may have some sympathy for the user who is fooled by dynamic stall. But no one would have sympathy for a user who applied an incompressible flow code to a reentry vehicle at Mach 20. In such a case, the lack of agreement with experiment is not a code problem but a modeling problem. The same is true of many practical aspects of applying a CFD code. The model includes more than the code. “Model” includes conceptual modeling assumptions (e.g. incompressibility, symmetry, etc). It also includes data input to the code—e.g. geometry data, which often are not so easy to determine accurately as one might expect, and boundary conditions and initial conditions. Incorrect determination of any of these items can lead to failure of validation of a model, with possibly no criticism of the code. The question of solution uniqueness always arises with nonlinear equations, and its position in the verification-validation distinction is important. If, as stated above, we take verification to mean simply that a solution to the continuum PDEs is obtained, then the problem of PDE nonuniqueness is avoided. This is probably being too easy on the code developer in some cases. Physically inadmissable solutions should be eliminated by the code—for example, a shock-tube simulator should be required to eliminate expansion shock solutions; but nature abounds with physically nonunique solutions in fluid dynamics—for example, hysteresis of airfoil stall and recovery, and bi-stable fluid amplifiers. If nature cannot decide which solution to produce, we cannot expect more of a code. Note that obtaining “a solution to the continuum PDEs” may involve sorting through multiple numerical solutions for nonlinear problems; for example, see later discussion of Yee et al (1991) and Lafon & Yee (1992). See also

Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1997.29:123-160. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. on 08/16/06. For personal use only.

For personal use only. Fluid Mech.) In a common English thesaurus. but also “whether we can in fact prove a hypothesis false. They make much of supposed intrinsic meaning in the words verify and validate and. . and generally in code quality-assurance (QA). and confirm are all synonyms. we can neither validate nor invalidate Newton’s Law of Gravity. but each term’s technical meaning is defined independent of common use and in a specific technical context.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib.” They are talking about physical laws—not just codes but any physical law. (What shall we do? No hazardous waste Annu. but the words are used herein. They come to the remarkable conclusion that it is impossible to verify or validate a numerical model of a natural system. quoting with approval (in their footnote 36) various modern philosophers who question not only whether we can prove any hypothesis true. Downloaded from arjournals. validate. the equally common situation is artificial stability. validation is very difficult. or of common sense. on 08/16/06. it is asking too much of a code to exactly mimic stability boundaries except in the limit of → 0. Although people usually think of artificial (i. or of range of applicability. actually think Newton’s law of gravity was proven wrong by Einstein. rather than that Einstein defined the limits of applicability of Newton. an unstable solution is still a valid solution. whose study of Euler solutions indicates that the multiple numerical solutions converge to the same solution as the grid is refined. My impression is that they. agonize over truth. Now most of their concern is with groundwater flow codes. and indeed. In a widely quoted paper that has been recently described as brilliant in an otherwise excellent Scientific American article (Horgan 1995). The choice of using verification or validation was originally arbitrary and is now recommended solely because of common developing use. A related question is the stability of a solution. But Oreskes et al (1994) go much further. But they extend this to all physical sciences. In my opinion.e.29:123-160. They clearly have no intuitive concept of error tolerance. for example. as technical terms with more context-specific meaning. 1997. Oreskes et al (1994) think that we can find the real meaning of a technical term by inquiring about its common meaning. like most lay readers. numerical artifact) instability as a code difficulty. Such technical terms are preferably related to common use. a first-order time-dependent code whose artificial viscosity damps out disturbances so that accurate calculations of physical fluid instability would require impractically high resolution. it is not a failure of verification for a full Navier-Stokes code to produce steady shear-layer solutions at Reynolds numbers known to be unstable.126 ROACHE especially Stephens & Shubin (1981). Rev. as in a Greek morality play.annualreviews. For example. (I have published articles using the opposite definition. This is not a universally accepted attitude toward semantics. the terms verify. Specifically. in geophysics problems.

Numerical errors at boundaries can be ordered in [e. where l is the distance from the region of interest (e. Since the intention in (Karniadakis 1995) is to provide a quantitative breakdown in the sources of numerical error in an error band.29:123-160. that outflow boundary errors may prove to be ordered not in but in 1/l. . Fluid Mech. no . For personal use only. Indeed. but they do not add new terms. so-called grid-generation errors (Ferziger 1993) are not separate from discretization errors. Likewise for Karniadakis’s (1995) proposed numerical error bar (see also Vanka 1995).QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 127 disposals. on 08/16/06. or that a really bad grid cannot magnify errors. however. bad grids add to discretization error size.annualreviews. If the grid-convergence test is performed. dogs” is not an adequate biological taxonomy. One does not need to separately estimate or band the grid-generation errors. fauna.g. the boundary-layer-like ∂ p/∂n = 0. 1997. and the errors are shown to reduce as O( 2 ).g. as are dogs. computational domain size. For the verification of a code or a calculation. But we see this kind of false taxonomy often in CFD. Several taxonomies of errors given in the literature are inadequate and misleading. Note. but in practical definitions. or the downstream (outflow) boundary location (Roache 1972)]. temporal errors. the various approaches for wall vorticity (Roache 1972)] or possibly nonordered in [e. we are not interested in such worthless semantics and effete philosophizing. For example. applied in the context of engineering and science accuracy.g. but only that these so-called grid-generation errors do not need to be considered separately from other discretization errors in a grid-convergence test. . so that a boundary error from wall vorticity evaluation need not be considered separately from spatial errors. there are no such things as grid-generation errors [nor are there “errors associated with coordinate transformations” (Ferziger 1993)]. That taxonomy (Karniadakis 1995) already includes temporal errors and spatial errors and computational domain size errors. no bridges. Inadequate Error Taxonomies Annu. in my opinion. the list “flora. For example. mammals. an airfoil) . and spatial errors. This does not mean that one grid is as good as another. no airplanes. .org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. which consists of separately estimated numerical errors from boundary conditions. Clearly. for example. so that both ordered and nonordered boundary errors are already counted elsewhere in the taxonomy.) See also Konikow & Bredehoeft (1992) and a rebuttal discussion by Leijnse & Hassanizadeh (1994). then all discretization errors are verified. Rev. the proposed taxonomy is not only confused but misleading. Not all lists are taxonomies. Mammals are not separate from fauna but are part of it. Ordered errors will tend to zero as the discretization improves. This is clearly a false taxonomy. Downloaded from arjournals.

We have “solved the right equations” only in an intermediate sense of demonstrating that the PNS equations adequately represent the full NS equations.annualreviews. Certainly the equations used are clear. as above. that is. then the distinction is not so clear.” Unfortunately.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. Yet to claim validation would be over-reaching. Downloaded from arjournals. a simple vortex condition for Euler equations).g. Annu. since we have not demonstrated the adequacy of the turbulence model by comparison with experiment. This agreement is not included in the term verification. on 08/16/06. I refer to any measure of discretization (e. [See Zingg’s (1993) data. 1997. number of discrete vortices). that is.g. such “mere semantics” may become of vital interest to code QA when dealing with regulatory agencies such as the EPA or with legal definitions in a NASA contract. including angle of attack). Rev. since the verification of the PNS code has already been completed prior to the NS benchmarking. number of Fourier modes in a spectral solution. Another example of the same semantic failure arises when we consider benchmarking a turbulent boundary-layer code or parabolized Navier-Stokes (PNS) code against a Reynolds-stress-averaged full Navier-Stokes (NS) code. The following taxonomy of sources of this additional information provides a framework for the discussion. Fluid Mech. That is. and the code may “solve the equations right” (i. But if the code has some sophisticated outflow condition (e. verification). Presume that both codes are convincingly verified. of “solving the right physical equations. shown in Roache (1994a) to be first-order in 1/l.] The subject of outflow boundary conditions does produce some fuzziness in categorization of Verification vs. .128 ROACHE to the outflow boundary. The error can be ordered. and therefore can be part of verification. Cartesian grid. For personal use only. they correctly solve their respective equations. it is clear that we require some additional information in order to quantitatively estimate the uncertainty or numerical accuracy.g. Then we could say that the agreement has demonstrated that the PNS code is “solving the right equations” in one sense. it justifies the use of parabolic marching equations. but not in the ultimate sense of validation.e. By the word grid. Suppose that the PNS code results agree well with the NS code results for some range of parameters (e. in my opinion. it is up to the user (who is doing the conceptual modeling) to estimate or band the error caused by the position of the outflow boundary. yet there exists another benchmark solely from the mathematics (the case with infinite boundary distance) which could be used to justify the outflow condition without recourse to physical experiment (which would be associated with validation). Validation. Taxonomy for Additional Information for Error Estimates Once we have produced a CFD solution of the governing partial differential equations. nonorthogonal grid.29:123-160.

g. Fluid Mech.2 Grid Coarsening A. most straightforward and arguably constitute the most reliable technique for the quantification . is just what you want to guide solution adaptation.QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 129 Sources of Additional Information for Error Estimation. no additional grid generation is required. Given a CFD Solution of the Governing PDEs on a Grid A. However.e.1 Higher-order Accuracy Solution(s) B.3 Other Unrelated Grid(s) B.29:123-160. Category D. some of which will be justified and amplified in later discussion: Categories A and B involve the direct.2 Lower-order Accuracy Solution(s) C.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. needs no additional grid generation. on 08/16/06. Grid Refinement and Coarsening Systematic grid-convergence studies are the most common. Downloaded from arjournals. diffused). no additional CFD code development or modifications are required. Auxiliary PDE Solutions on the Same Grid D. without advection. the different needs of error estimation for solution adaptation versus quantification of uncertainty for a final calculation. Additional Solution(s) of the Governing Equations on Other Grids A.1 D.2 D. the error evaluated usually has no direct relation to any error measure of engineering or scientific interest. Auxiliary Algebraic Evaluations on the Same Grid. 1997. hence. Rev. advected. is cheap.3 D. Surrogate Estimators D. For Category B. Van Straalen et al 1995) does not simply involve a local evaluation of something. However. Additional Solution(s) of the Governing Equations on the Same Grid B. For personal use only. The approach of Category C (e.1 Grid Refinement A.4 Nonconservation of Conservation Variables Nonconservation of Higher Moments Zhu-Zienkiewicz-type Estimators Convergence of Higher-order Quadratures Annu. a simple local evaluation of something. unambiguous evaluation of any error measure of engineering or scientific interest. The following are brief remarks on this taxonomy. For Category A. The key aspect here is that errors are transported (i.annualreviews. involving algebraic evaluations on the same grid. and uses no significant dynamic memory.

g.29:123-160. Rev.3) poses an interesting challenge. For noninteger grid refinement (coarsening). see Zingg 1993).org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. that is. Whether one refines or coarsens just depends on which grid was calculated first. 1994a). Error estimation using other unrelated grids (Category A. grid refinement and coarsening are identical. so the coarse grid solution could be used to estimate the error. For now. The same methods can be converted to verify a code. as well as the usual L 2 and L ∞ norms. A disadvantage of Category A methods is that multiple-grid generation is required. If completely solved solutions are obtained on two grids. Cartesian grids obviously pose no problem.1 (grid refinement). By unrelated grids I mean two or more grids that are overlapping but not simply obtained one from the other. It would seem that the two solutions on unrelated grids would provide the additional information necessary to estimate the uncertainty in either. A Method for Uniform Reporting of Grid-Convergence Studies: The Grid-Convergence Index This section presents a summary of the main results of Roache (1993a. that we are using a rigorously verified code and are now concerned with quantification of the uncertainty of a particular calculation using two grid solutions. In order to quantify the uncertainty with systematically refined (coarsened) grids. say grid A is finer than grid B in some regions but coarser in others. to verify (or determine) p. that is. The grid-convergence index (GCI) presents a simple method for uniform reporting of grid-convergence studies without any restriction to integer refinement . See Roache (1993a.130 ROACHE of numerical uncertainty. 1994) for further discussion. Downloaded from arjournals. Unlike the other methods available. the same generating equations and parameters should be used.annualreviews. presumably the finer grid solution would be used. Fluid Mech. such as might be obtained in two steps of an r -type (redistribution) solution-adaptive grid.g. this approach can be used to dependably consider the convergence of any quantity of interest.2 (grid coarsening) usually would make more sense. but to my knowledge a method for doing so has not been invented. we are assuming that p is known. For personal use only. we need the convergence rate p to estimate the error. including nonstructured grid refinement (see also Pelletier & Ignat 1995) and structured refinement of nonstructured grids. Annu. For example. but Category A. Code verification is discussed in a later section. So for completely solved solutions. using whatever method is preferred (e. the simplest method for grid doubling (halving) is to generate the finest grid first.b. By grid-convergence studies people usually mean Category A. see Knupp & Steinberg 1994) and then obtain the coarser grids by removing every other point (e. 1997. For boundary-fitted structured grids. on 08/16/06.

: f [exact] ∼ f 1 + ( f 1 − f 2 )/(r 2 − 1). = (4) It is often stated that Equation 4 is fourth-order accurate if f 1 and f 2 are second-order accurate. which he achieved by assuming the exclusive use of second-order centered differences. Richardson Extrapolation Richardson Extrapolation.O. g2 . was first used by Richardson in 1910 and later embellished in 1927.29:123-160. If uncentered differences are used (e. Using the grid refinement ratio r = h 2 / h 1 . Then the idea is to combine two separate discrete solutions.g. The result is the original statement (Richardson 1927) for h 2 extrapolation: f = f [exact] + h 2 f 1 − h 2 f 2 2 1 h 2 − h 2 + H. and so on. Actually. It is only necessary that Equation 1 be a valid definition for the order of the discretization.O. and iterated extrapolation.g. Thus. 2 1 (2) where H. The GCI is based on generalized Richardson Extrapolation involving comparison of discrete solutions at two different grid spacings.T. grid doubling). For personal use only. Rev. as known by Richardson. or halving. that is. The discrete solutions f are assumed to have a series representation. Downloaded from arjournals. For infinitely differentiable solutions.) With r = 2. of f = f [exact] + g1 h + g2 h 2 + g3 h 3 + · · · (1) Annu. and obtain a more accurate estimate of f [exact]. nor is the infinite series indicated in Equation 1. this result can be conveniently expressed in terms of a correction to the fine-grid solution f 1 .T. and so on are defined in the continuum and do not depend on any discretization.QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 131 (e. the extrapolation may be valid for finite element solutions. dropping H. these functions are related to all orders to the solution derivatives through the elementary Taylor series expansions. . g1 = 0. these are identical. Fluid Mech. For a second-order method. we just have a coarse grid and a fine grid.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. f 1 and f 2 . also known as h 2 extrapolation. = (3) The most common use of this method is with a grid doubling.O. on 08/16/06. in the grid spacing h. to solve for g2 at the grid points in Equation 1. so as to eliminate the leading-order error terms in the assumed error expansion. Equation 3 becomes f [exact] ∼ 4/3 f 1 − 1/3 f 2 . 1997. are higher-order terms. this statement is true only if odd powers are absent in the expansion (Equation 1). on two different grids with (uniform) discrete spacings of h 1 (fine grid) and h 2 (coarse grid).annualreviews. that is. The functions g1 . upstream weighting of advection terms). but this is not a necessary assumption for Richardson Extrapolation. (As noted earlier. the deferred approach to the limit. substitute this value into Equation 1.T.

to get an estimate of π with three-figure accuracy. 1927) also considered sixth-order extrapolation (using three grid solutions to eliminate g2 and g4 ). on 08/16/06. Richardson (1927) showed the power of the method in an elegant example of extrapolating two very crude approximations to a circle. but of the extrapolated correction from Equation 4. the extrapolation magnifies machine round-off errors and incomplete iteration errors (Roache 1972). that is. Downloaded from arjournals. singularities.annualreviews. the method is extremely convenient to use compared to forming and solving direct fourth-order discretizations. For example. for the 1-D advectiondiffusion equation with Dirichlet boundary conditions. Fluid Mech. and in his 1927 paper had a specific approach worked out. .g. therefore. as well as the assumption (often verified) that the local error order is indicative of the global error order. Rev. Richardson (1910. Fourier coefficients. integer grid refinement ratios r (grid doubling. which would seem to require commonality of the discrete solutions and. which involve more complicated stencils. even in his 1910 paper. Rc < 3 is required (Roache & Knupp 1993). In spite of these caveats. not of the solution values f 2 . staggered grids (then called interpenetrating lattices). In order to use Equation 3. Richardson looked forward to defining a continuum f 2 by higherorder interpolation. Annu. Richardson Extrapolation is commonly applied only to obtaining a higher-order estimate on the coarse grid with h 2 = 2h 1 . Similarly. the h 2 extrapolation is third-order accurate. Also. This assumption may not be valid for coarse grids.29:123-160. Ferziger (1993) alludes to this approach with less detail but more generality. However.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. 1997. and other noncalculus problems. not fourth. Although Richardson Extrapolation is most commonly applied to grid doubling and is often stated to be applicable only to integer grid refinement (e. this is not required. The extrapolation must be used with considerable caution. wider bandwidth matrices. tripling. rapid oscillations and the 2h wavelength limit. Conte & DeBoor 1965). As a practical limitation. even extrapolations based on centered differences do not display the anticipated fourth-order accuracy until the cell Reynolds number Rc is reduced. statistical problems. since it involves the additional assumption of monotone truncation-error convergence in the mesh spacing h. The usual assumptions of smoothness apply. by second-order interpolation of 1/3( f 1 − f 2 ). parabolic and elliptic equations. special considerations for near-boundary points and non-Dirichlet boundary conditions. but Roache & Knupp (1993) show how to obtain fourth-order accuracy on all fine-grid points by simple second-order interpolation. a priori error estimates. For personal use only. integral equations. it is necessary to have values of f 1 and f 2 at the same points. and so on). namely an inscribed square and an inscribed hexagon.132 ROACHE even if these are second-order accurate (3-point upstream). The use of simple second-order interpolation avoids complexities with nonuniform grids and near-boundary points.

If Richardson Extrapolation is applied to produce (say) fourth-order accurate grid values. one could in principle calculate a fourth-order accurate functional like C L from the grid values. Fluid Mech. that the two approaches yield different answers. this is a major attraction of Richardson Extrapolation compared to using fourth-order accurate stencils solved either directly or by deferred corrections. (Note. experimental agreement was better with coarse-grid calculations than with fine! Also.g. although both are fourth-order accurate if done properly. Zingg’s work demonstrates the necessity of grid-convergence testing even when experimental data are available. Rev. but it would require careful implementation of fourth-order accurate quadratures. lift coefficient C L for an aerodynamics problem or integrated discharge for a groundwater flow problem). with an experimental determination rather than an assumption of the local order of convergence. In four of seven cases. The method is in fact oblivious to the equations being discretized and to the dimensionality of the problem and can easily be applied as a postprocessor (Roache 1982) to solutions on two grids with no reference to the codes. however. as long as the original solutions are indeed second-order accurate. Such an application was given by the present author in Roache (1982). second. .annualreviews. 1997. with the error being first order in the inverse of distance to the boundary (Roache 1994a). his data indicate that Richardson Extrapolation can be applied to the estimation of far-field boundary errors.QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 133 additional stability analyses. provided that consistent or higher-order methods are used in the evaluations (e. Blottner (1990) has used the same procedure to estimate effects of artificial dissipation terms in hypersonic flow calculations.or higher-order quadratures for lift) as well as the basic assumption that the order of the method applies globally as well as locally. obviously being an error estimator (although it does not provide a true bound on the error except possibly for certain trivial problems). An important aspect of Richardson Extrapolation is that it applies not only to point-by-point solution values but also to solution functionals (e. or governing equations that produced the solutions. Zingg (1993) applied the Richardson error estimator to airfoil lift and drag calculations in body-fitted grids. See Nguyen & Maclaine-Cross (1988) for application to heat exchanger pressure drop coefficients. requiring only second-order quadratures. algorithms. Indeed. Downloaded from arjournals. especially in nonorthogonal coordinates that generate cross-derivative terms and generally complicated equations. It was used very carefully.) The difference between the second-order solution and the extrapolated fourth-order solution is itself a useful diagnostic tool. For personal use only.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib.29:123-160.) Annu. I mean a solution obtained with a second-order accurate method applied in its asymptotic range. by de Vahl Davis (1983) in his classic benchmark study of a model free-convection problem. on 08/16/06.g. and so on. It is much simpler to apply the extrapolation directly to the C L s obtained in each grid. (By this somewhat abusive but common terminology.

although low level. and p = formal order of accuracy of the algorithm. The extrapolation can introduce noise to the solution.g. the GCI based on the generalized theory of Richardson Extrapolation should be used to uniformly report grid-convergence tests. since that decision involves these considerations and possibly others. Downloaded from arjournals. f 1 . (6) E 2 se = 1−rp where ε = f2 − f1. and is defined as ε f ine E1 = . Rev. 256) pointed out the more fundamental problem that the extrapolated solution is “no longer internally consistent. regardless of whether Richardson Extrapolation is used to improve the solution. (5) 1−rp while a coarse-grid Richardson error estimator approximates the error in a coarse-grid solution. lack of conservation property) source terms into the radionuclide transport equation. it is not advocated (Roache 1993a. For example. 1994a) that Richardson Extrapolation necessarily be used to improve the reported solution. the values of all the variables do not satisfy a system of finite difference approximations. Fluid Mech. may decrease the accuracy of the solution higher derivatives. which.” It is also noteworthy that Richardson (1927) pointed out that the accuracy of the extrapolation does not apply to arbitrarily high derivatives of the solution. f 1 = a fine-grid numerical solution obtained with grid spacing h 1 . f 2 = a coarse-grid numerical solution obtained with grid spacing h 2 . if it were used on the groundwater flow simulations for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP PA Dept. and is defined as r pε coar . f 1 . A fine-grid Richardson error estimator approximates the error in a fine-grid solution. 1997.e. by comparing this solution to that of a coarse grid. .annualreviews. it would be more accurate in some norm but would introduce additional nonconservative (i.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. (7) Annu. f 2 . on 08/16/06. Thus. de Vahl Davis (1983. by comparing the solution to that of a fine grid. p.134 ROACHE A significant yet overlooked disadvantage of Richardson Extrapolation is that the extrapolated solution generally is not conservative in the sense of maintaining conservation properties (e. r = refinement factor between the coarse and fine grid (r = h 2 / h 1 > 1). For personal use only.b. What is advocated is that.29:123-160. This shortcoming could well dictate that Richardson Extrapolation not be used. Roache 1972). 1992). f 2 .

annualreviews. that a grid adequate for a NACA 0012 airfoil could be assumed to be adequate for a NACA 0015 airfoil. (In fact. we would be expected to use the fine-grid solution. where l = 1 generally or l = 2 if centered differences have been used. if we have a fine-grid and a coarse-grid solution. stall characteristics can be quite sensitive to thickness ratio. For example. E 1 is an ordered estimator and is a good approximation when E 1 As noted above. For personal use only. expecting. Thus. Consider a parametric study in which hundreds of variations are to be run. but most engineers would be satisfied with one or a few good grid-refinement tests. 1997. p = 2). This requirement implies that the leading-order truncation error term in the error series truly dominates the error. a safety factor is incorporated into these estimators and the GCI is defined for fine and coarse grids as GCI1 f ine = Fs |E 1 | (9) (10) GCI coar se = Fs |E 2 | 2 Fs > 1 can be interpreted as a safety factor. I recommended (Roache 1993a. this is often not justified by experience. 3 rotor-tip designs.29:123-160. However. This value also has the advantage of relating any grid-convergence study (any r and p) to one with a grid doubling and a second-order method (r = 2. Downloaded from arjournals. 6 airfoilthickness ratios. the error band reduces to the best estimate of the error. To account for the uncertainty in these generalized Richardson-based error estimates due to various factors and to put all grid-convergence studies on the same basis as grid doubling with a second-order method. for example. 1994a) as 2 A1 = E 1 + O h p+l . I emphasize that the GCIs are not error estimators but are three (or Fs ) times the error estimators. since Fs = 1 gives GCI = |E|. . E 1 . it is neither necessary nor often desirable to use r = 2. Rev. Ostensibly.) So for the bulk of the stack of calculations. i. Accurate application of these generalized Richardsonbased grid-error estimators requires that the observed convergence rate equals the formal convergence rate. analogous to a 50% error band of experimental data. b. 6 Reynolds numbers.e.QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 135 The actual error A1 of the fine-grid solution may be expressed (Roache 1993a. for a total of 648 combinations. (8) Annu.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. with perhaps 3 Mach numbers. and 2 turbulence models. representing error bands in a loose statistical sense. a practical scenario occurs for which the contrary situation applies. That is.) A scrupulous approach would require a grid-refinement study for each case. Fluid Mech. 1994a) a more conservative value of Fs = 3. 1. we use the coarse-grid solution. or grid doubling (halving). on 08/16/06. consider a 3-D time-dependent study of dynamic stall. so reporting of the above fine-grid evaluation of GCI would apply. (For example.

Physically realistic solutions will be more convincing to the mathematically naive (and therefore have value in the real world of regulatory agencies. then performance of grid-convergence studies or other error-estimation techniques will not faithfully produce quantification of the uncertainty. However. by monitoring grid convergence toward a nontrivial exact solution.25 appears to be adequately conservative.136 ROACHE Annu.g. Significantly. Fluid Mech. A recent application of the GCI to airfoil calculations is given by Lotz et al (1995). For personal use only. Pelletier & Ignat (1995) have shown that the GCI is applicable. a modest and more palatable value of Fs = 1. but a mistake). at least in a rough sense. If a code has an error (not an ordered error. the same techniques can be used to verify the code separately. Code Verification So far. That is. it is now clear that Fs = 3 is overly conservative for scrupulously performed grid convergence studies using three or more grid solutions to experimentally determine the observed order of convergence p (e. My originally recommended value (Roache 1993a. 1994a) of Fs = 3 is conservative and relates the grid convergence study to one with a grid doubling with a second-order method. Downloaded from arjournals.b. It has been assumed throughout that the code itself has been verified independently. this article has been concerned with error estimation. or verification of a calculation. and we want a GCI for this solution.29:123-160. we derive a GCI from Equation 5. 1997. Rev.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. but as the correction to the coarse-grid solution f 2 . For many reasons (see below) this is not unduly conservative when only two grids are used in the study. For such high-quality studies. and so on). It is always possible to obtain a nontrivial exact solution for this procedure.annualreviews. In this case. at the insistence of journal editors) I still recommend the value Fs = 3 for the sake of uniform reporting and adequate conservatism. Ethier & Steinmen 1994. that is. . we would be using the coarse-grid solution. on 08/16/06. The motivation for using Fs > 1 is that Fs = 1 is analogous to a 50% error band on experimental data. the error estimate changes and must be less optimistic. by specifying the exact solution and adding the appropriate forcing function to the governing PDEs (Steinberg & Roache 1985. to unstructured grid refinement. The necessary condition is that the solution be nontrivial. which demonstrates the power of the method without the need for integer grid refinement and its application with solution-adaptive grids. if necessary. Shih et al 1989. that it have significant solution structure to exercise higher-derivative calculations. it is not at all necessary that the solution be realistic in any sense. see the papers in Johnson & Hughes 1995). Westerink & Roache 1995). However. contract management. However. not as the correction to the fine-grid solution f 1 . including its order of convergence. for the more common two-grid study (often performed reluctantly. but the code verification is just as well accomplished by nonphysical solutions. which is not adequate.

one must average velocity profiles from grid . and has proven remarkably sensitive in revealing small and subtle coding errors and usage inconsistencies. and doubling the number of cells requires the location of the single cell representing the source to shift by /2. (For the alternative philosophy.QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 137 Annu. B. the cell faces align with the boundaries of the computational domain. retardation. use of a plausible single-grid-block representation for a point source as the grid is refined introduces error in a finite volume (or block-centered finite difference) formulation. Airfoil codes can exhibit the expected second-order convergence rates for lift and drag but less for moment. Salari et al 1995): A. on 08/16/06.) Additional realistic solutions (such as Sudicky & Frind 1982. 1997. In verification tests of a commercial groundwater flow code. I claim that this method of code verification via systematic grid-convergence testing (whether or not the GCI is used) is both general and rigorous. first-order extrapolation for ghost cell values of only one quantity (aquifer thickness) along one boundary caused the observed convergence to be first-order accurate (Roache 1993c.annualreviews. possibly because of approximations involved in applying quasi-periodicity across cut-planes of a C-grid (K Salari 1995.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib.). When a 2-D compressible driven cavity problem is solved with an even number of vertical grid lines. It is to be expected that the solution accuracy in the neighborhood of the source would be affected. and Aeschliman et al 1995.d). For personal use only. In contaminant transport calculations (advection-diffusion + decay. In verification tests of our SECO FLOW 2D variable density groundwater flow code. But surprisingly. The observed convergence rate of ostensibly second-order-accurate turbulent-boundary-layer codes (Wilcox 1993) can be degraded. the accuracy of time-integrated discharge across boundaries far from the source was also degraded to first-order accuracy (Salari et al 1995). Rev. see Oberkampf 1994. as indicated by the following examples (Westerink & Roache 1995. Fluid Mech. personal communication). Oberkampf et al 1995. a first-order error in a single corner cell in a strongly elliptic problem caused the observed convergence to be first-order accurate (Roache et al 1990). In this cell configuration.29:123-160. D. E. apparently by conditional statements limiting eddy viscosity and defining the boundarylayer edge (DC Wilcox 1995. C. personal communication. corrected) can be used in additional confirmation exercises (Roache 1995). F. Downloaded from arjournals. and matrix diffusion).

Annu. the situation may be even more difficult than this. it is not enough to perform a calculation of a new problem with a verified code. it is still necessary to perform grid-convergence tests in order to band the numerical error. Note that in Examples C and F apparently first-order behavior was obtained with second-order verified codes.” that is. code verification must be done before the verification of a (real) calculation can proceed. this distinction works both ways. If the . the more difficult and vexing problems come from option combinations and conditional differencing. Fluid Mech. Even though the real problem solution may be converging at the same rate (say second-order) as the code verification problem. that is. but it is not universally so. Downloaded from arjournals. the problem in Example C was a subtle conceptual modeling error and in Example F was a not-so-subtle postprocessing error.annualreviews. of the size of the error (as opposed to the order of the error). This unrealistic hope is sometimes encouraged by advertising. Especially in the commercial CFD arena. on 08/16/06.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. independent of the semantics. but I am at a loss for a clarifying term. The difficult aspects of the codes are not algebraic complexity [in Steinberg & Roache (1985) we convincingly verified 1800 lines of dense Fortran]. the codes had no coding errors and were applied in the asymptotic range. user expectations are often that the purchase and use of a “really good code” will remove from the user the obligation of “doing his homework. I distinguish between verification of codes and verification of individual calculations. this fact provides no estimate of accuracy or confidence interval. TVD. hybrid or type-dependent differencing. A code may be rigorously verified to be (say) second-order accurate. is that use of a verified code is not enough.) The very important point. 1997. In both cases. Unfortunately. but when applied to a new problem. For personal use only. Clearly. Esoteric Errors in Code Verification General CFD or computational physics codes [more general than the simple Poisson equation in nonorthogonal coordinates of Steinberg & Roache (1985)] would be difficult to include in a theorem because of esoteric errors. in that a new calculation may not even exhibit the verified order of convergence. Code Verification versus Verification of Calculations In this review.138 ROACHE lines on each side of the centerline rather than use only one. This point is probably well recognized by present readers.29:123-160. the straightforward but tedious work of verification of calculations via systematic grid-convergence studies. However. Esoteric errors can arise because of nonlinear flux limiters like FCT. and so on (Steinberg & Roache 1985). otherwise. Rev. the convergence will be first-order (Roache & Salari 1990). (It would be preferable to have different words for these two verification activities.

g. due to competition of truncation error terms for a particular problem (Westerink & Roache 1995). but local values of observed p near the singularity are required (de Vahl Davis 1983). . This situation typically arises when higher grid resolution reveals higher modes of the solution. the observed convergence rate p may differ from the actual asymptotic convergence rate due to failure to achieve the asymptotic range of grid resolution. which often occurs in atmospheric and ocean modeling (Westerink & Roache 1995. Fluid Mech. However. to observe superconvergence. there is a distinction to be made between the formal order of convergence (as indicated by analyses of the discretization). an actual asymptotic convergence rate higher than a formal rate. For these reasons. a method was presented for completing classical Richardson Extrapolation.29:123-160. Then the actual asymptotic rate of convergence may differ from a formal rate. Dietrich et al 1990) and could be expected in high Reynolds number DNS (Direct Numerical Simulation) calculations. Further analysis by PM Knupp then showed that. the order of convergence (e. the higher-order terms in the error expansion include the Reynolds number parameter Re. even though the formal rate was fourth order. and that the asymptotic range for fourth-order accuracy occurs only for Re x 3. and not altogether unusual. Note that there may be more than one formal analysis. 1997. due to cancellation (or partial cancellation) of space and time truncation errors. It is also possible. and the observed (or apparent) order of convergence. because of truncation error competition particular to the steady Burgers solution. so that formal order of convergence is not necessarily unique.g. that is. in which case the method of grid refinement still can be used to estimate uncertainty. The completed algorithm was devised to produce a fourth-order solution on the entire fine grid. The classical method combines two second-order solutions on a coarse grid and a doubled fine grid to produce a fourth-order accurate solution. For example. This observation is evident in the classical situation of (what are generally) first. on 08/16/06. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews. a tanh Annu. Rev. it appears to be preferable to verify a code with a nonrealistic problem that has nontrivial but regular solution behavior (e. especially for nonlinear problems. but only on the coarse grid. The cause of the discrepancy between an observed convergence rate and the actual asymptotic convergence rate may or may not be revealed by formal analysis. Finally.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib.QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 139 code verification problem(s) are in some sense close to the real problem of interest. second-order) from the code verification exercise may be assumed to hold for the real problem. in Roache & Knupp (1993).or second-order methods for constant velocity advection problems producing the exact answers for unity Courant number (Roache 1972). However. initial grid-convergence studies indicated only a third-order convergence rate for the steady-state Burgers equation. For personal use only. the actual asymptotic order of convergence. This is especially obvious if solution singularities are present.

Without an exact solution for the actual problem. This procedure requires evaluation of the error itself. If the finest grid solution is taken to be the reference value (unfortunately.140 ROACHE function) rather than to use a realistic problem that displays the confusing truncation error competition. f2 − f1 (11) Annu. For personal use only. then the observed order will be accurate only for those grids far from the finest. p. three grid solutions are necessary to verify (or determine) the observed rate of convergence and thereby allow estimation of the error. following de Vahl Davis (1983. Thus. Blottner (1990) improves on this by estimating the exact value by Richardson Extrapolation (see also Shirazi & Truman 1989). it is necessary to have at least two grid solutions and an a priori knowledge of the convergence rate p. not restricted to constant r . for example. If an exact solution is known or constructed (see above). With subscript 1 indicating the finest grid in the present notation. this serves to verify a code. Extraction of Convergence Rate from Grid-Convergence Tests When using grid-convergence studies to estimate the size of the discretization error. it is also desirable to verify the order p for an actual problem. which is of course generally not known. For constant r . which it obviously is not). it is necessary to have at least three grid solutions to extract p.) One . then the order can be extracted directly from three grid solutions. but this procedure is somewhat ambiguous since the order is already needed in order to perform the Richardson Extrapolation. b. Rev. However. plotting the error on log paper and extracting the order from the slope. and the observed order may differ from the formal (theoretical) order. A generalization of this procedure. but constant). Blottner (1990) and others use graphical means.annualreviews. Downloaded from arjournals. if there is any suspicion that the grid resolution is not in the asymptotic range. to have verified that the code is secondorder accurate ( p = 2). 1994a). Equation 19 (typo corrected) of Roache (1994a) may be used to verify an assumed order p. on 08/16/06. for a variety of reasons (see discussion above and a more complete discussion in Westerink & Roache 1995). p = ln f3 − f2 / ln(r ). since the observed order of convergence depends on achieving the asymptotic range. often called the exact value. and the calculated order approaching the finest grid will be indeterminate. which is problem dependent.29:123-160. 1997. without a need for estimating the exact solution. 254).org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. (It is not necessary to use the GCI itself. If the grid refinement is performed with constant r (not necessarily r = 2. or from the order verified for a test case. is possible using the generalized theory of Richardson Extrapolation (Roache 1993a. it is straightforward to extract the order of convergence p from results of a systematic grid-convergence test using at least two grid solutions. Fluid Mech.

but one should allow for observed p < 1. depends only on the assumed definition of order of the discretization error. and it cannot be used to calculate p directly since p is implicitly present in the GCIs.5 works well. simple substitution iteration with a relaxation factor ω ∼ 0. For personal use only. of course. Rev. Also. f ine (12) Annu. one may predict the next level of grid refinement r ∗ necessary to achieve a target accuracy.g. With ρ = previous iterate for p. Downloaded from arjournals. Equation 12 also requires r to be constant over the three grid set. expressed as a target error estimate E 1 or a target GC I1 called GC I ∗ . behavior far away from asymptotic convergence can be nonmonotone). . For well-behaved synthetic cases. 1997. on 08/16/06.) If r is not constant during the grid refinement.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. the iteration equation is ln(β) (15a) p = ωρ + (1 − ω) ln(r12 ) β= r12 − 1 ε23 . and r 2 is probably not of much interest. With GC I23 being the value from Equation 2 for the previous two grids. and in some cases the observed p < 0 (unfortunately. If α ≈ r . only on c = error/ p and not on the GCI theory itself. then p is the observed order. This is simple for r constant (not necessarily 2 or integer). giving p = ln(ε23 /ε12 )/ ln r. r ∼ 2 will be easier to solve than r ∼ 1 + δ. r∗ = p GCI∗ /GCI23 . Equation 13 is transcendental in p. ρ r23 − 1 ε12 ρ (15b) Note this form of the iteration gives the exact answer in one step for the case of r = 2 and ω = 0. that is. This result can happen even for simple problems at least locally (de Vahl Davis 1983). Fluid Mech.annualreviews.29:123-160. Predicting the Required Grid Resolution Once p is known with some confidence. Newton-Raphson) can apply. However. Usual solution techniques (e. (14) (Note that Equation 14 differs slightly from Equation 11 but is equivalent to the order of the approximation involved. The more general procedure (Roache 1995a) is to solve the equation ε12 ε23 p = r12 (13) p p r23 − 1 r12 − 1 for p.QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 141 calculates α = GC I12 p f ine GC I23 . (16) This result.

Annu. the wall functions should be viewed as an elaborate nonlinear boundary condition.annualreviews. for large eddy simulations (LES). Claus & Vanka (1992) found that 2. ENO. Rev.29:123-160. For example.4 million nodes (256 × 96 × 96) did not demonstrate grid independence of the computed velocity and turbulence fields of crossflow jets. Virtually any grid is in the asymptotic range for a simple Laplace equation. such as length determinations for the Baldwin-Lomax turbulence model (Wilcox 1993) can easily corrupt second-order convergence rates. See Kuruvila & Anderson (1985) for discussion of difficulties and pitfalls of doing convergence studies with artificial dissipation .) This includes both explicit artificial dissipation (in which an identifiable additional term is added to the governing PDEs. For turbulence modeling without wall functions (Wilcox 1993.142 ROACHE Special Considerations for Turbulence Modeling Special considerations are required for turbulence modeling and for other fields with multiple scales. whether treated explicitly or implicitly in the solution algorithm) and implicit dissipation introduced locally via nonlinear flux limiters (FCT. The other important but troublesome numerical methods are those that treat shock-like problems with any kind of artificial dissipation that depends on the grid size. Finally. (Shock-like problems means either true shocks or simply regions of unresolvable large solution structure involving solution gradients. and so on). on 08/16/06. it is clear that the initial (coarse) grid must get some points into the boundary layer. once from the full NavierStokes terms and once modeled from the LES terms. the grid convergence must not go to zero. curvatures. 1997. It is necessary to get the grid resolution into the asymptotic range in order to do grid-convergence testing. and various combinations. For turbulence modeling with wall functions. For any boundary-layer calculation. just as laminar boundary layers are much more demanding than inviscid flows. the grid should not get into the wall layer (Celik & Zhang 1995). If not addressed. PPM. Fluid Mech. In my interpretation. or else the Reynolds stresses will be counted twice. these terms corrupt the convergence behavior. For personal use only. Special Considerations for Artificial Dissipation Special considerations are required for any numerical treatment that effectively changes the governing PDEs as the grid is refined. Also. as used in aerodynamic turbulence research and in atmospheric and ocean modeling with sub-grid turbulence modeling. Shirazi & Truman 1989) the grid must get some points into the wall layer. Downloaded from arjournals. Here. the grid-resolution requirements are much more demanding for turbulent boundary layers. and the grid-convergence exercise should be done from the edge of the wall layer out. Sub-grid turbulence modeling was mentioned earlier.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. Similarly. the code theoretical performance can be verified (within a tolerance) for a range of parameters but could fail in another range. TVD. the presence of any switching functions.

typically when Rc < 2. Over the practical range of resolution of interest. on 08/16/06. The development costs of the additional code capability may be minimized by noting several points.) Richardson (1908) again scooped modern errorestimation papers by inventing Category B.QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 143 Annu.annualreviews. Downloaded from arjournals. Fluid Mech. error estimation from higher-order solutions on the same grid. lift. The same ill-defined behavior is observed for the class of Allen-Southwell methods (Roache 1972). depending on the local cell Reynolds number Rc. Rev. such as full iterative convergence.” (Again. The explicit dissipation approach can be treated correctly and rigorously. For personal use only. Error Estimation from Higher-Order Solutions on the Same Grid Category B. wherein the emphasis is often on code robustness at the sacrifice of accuracy. these Category B methods do not require additional grid generation. However. drag). strict conservation. For the technique of error estimation from higher-order solutions on the same grid. The higher-order accuracy solution might be obtained via a new solution of higher-order discretizations using FDM (finite difference methods).org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. much the same advantages and limitations apply as with the gridconvergence technique. note the somewhat abusive but common terminology. By adaptively changing the weighting given to first-order and second-order stencils. as in Blottner (1990) and Shirazi & Truman (1989). However. see Celik & Zhang 1995). Unfortunately. as expected. FVM (finite volume methods). It applies to all point values and functionals (e. unlike grid-convergence tests (Category A). and the error estimate includes nonlinear coupling. hybrid methods in their various forms cause more problems.g. and so on. but only when the resolution is so fine that the hybrid algorithm itself is inoperative. and so on. many restrictions and requirements could apply. and so on). terms in the equations. On the other hand. FEM (finite element methods). or by deferred corrections. If we were intending to use the higher-order solution itself.1. The artificial viscosity of first-order upstream differencing (Roache 1972) requires no special consideration other than its slow convergence. but the empirically observed order is. if our only use of the . hybrid methods are commonly used in commercial codes. compact differences (again direct or deferred corrections. somewhere vaguely between 1 and 2 (e. x and t errors may be estimated independently or coupled.29:123-160. These methods are not commonly used because they require additional code capability.g. the order is ill-defined.1 methods estimate the accuracy of a base solution by comparison with “higher-order accuracy solution(s). 1997. these methods by definition are ultimately second-order accurate. noting that the difference between a second-order accurate solution and a fourth-order accurate solution is itself an ordered error estimator.

directional splitting works. Let f 4x denote the solution obtained with fourth-order . if we define the error of the fourth-order solution E 4 to be E4 = f − f4 and substituting for f from Equation 18. in two dimensions. The point is that error estimation of. we obtain E 4 = f 2 − f 4 + 0( 2 (21) ) (22) for a second-order error estimator for the fourth-order solution. (20) This is the basic (Richardson 1908) result that the difference between the second. Then. these considerations are not so important. Rev. a second-order solution using fourth order methods is less demanding numerically than obtaining a fourth-order solution for direct use. and so on.and fourth-order solutions on the same grid is itself a fourth-order error estimate for the second-order solution (a result so obvious that it hardly deserves to be named a theorem).144 ROACHE Annu.annualreviews. For personal use only.) We use a notation similar to that above for multiple grid solutions: f denotes the exact solution. f 2 the second-order accurate solution. Fluid Mech. C2x are the coefficients of the Taylor’s theorem expansion for the second-order solution in the x-direction. Downloaded from arjournals. f = f 2 + C2x x 2 + R2x + C2y y 2 + R2y and f = f 4 + C4x x 4 + R4x + C4y y 4 + R4y . higher-order solution is to estimate the error of the base solution. and so on.29:123-160. on 08/16/06. which can be much easier to implement than a fully directional higher-order solution. and f 4 the fourth-order accurate solution. (The following development has not been completed for cross-derivative terms. we obtain E 2 = f 4 − f 2 + 0( 4 (17) (18) (19) ). which in any case may require some careful formulation for higher-order stencils and should be verified rigorously. though not generally recognized. Likewise obvious. and R2x are the remaining terms in the complete second-order expansion in x. 1997. The somewhat less obvious result is for the directional splitting of the higherorder solutions. Also. for example. Defining the error of the second-order solution E 2 to be E2 = f − f2 and substituting for f from Equation 18.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib.

using Equations 23 and 17. (28) Thus the estimate for the second-order solution can be obtained to fourth order by directionally split fourth-order solutions. With the definition given in Equation 19. and f 4y denote the solution obtained with fourth-order discretization in y and second-order in x. The C2x coefficients are unchanged from the previous definitions. . For personal use only. (27) (26) In comparison with Equation 17. without approximation. in the same way that grid coarsening can be used rather than grid refinement. 1997. (23) f = f 4y + C4y y 4 + R4y + C2x x 2 + R2x .org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. we would prove the resulting estimator to be second-order accurate. Fluid Mech. (25) Similarly. Then f = f 4x + C4x x 4 + R4x + C2y y 2 + R2y and Annu.annualreviews. we estimate the difference between f 4y and f 2 using Equations 24 and 17. Error Estimation from Lower-Order Solutions on the Same Grid Certainly a lower-order solution on the same grid could be used to estimate the uncertainty of the higher-order solution (Category B. (That is.) The last four terms on the right-hand side of Equation 27 are O( 4 ). respectively: f 4y − f 2 = f − C4y y 4 − R4y − C2x x 2 − R2x − { f − C2x x 2 − R2x − C2y y 2 − R2y } = C2y y 2 + R2y − C4y y 4 − R4y . we have the error of the second-order solution E 2 to be estimated as E 2 = f 4x + f 4y − 2 f 2 + O( 4 ). the first four terms on the right-hand side of Equation 27 are identically equal to f − f 2 . we show that the estimator is fourth-order accurate) f 4x − f 2 = f − C4x x 4 − R4x − C2y y 2 − R2y − { f − C2x x 2 − R2x − C2y y 2 − R2y } = C2x x 2 + R2x − C4x x 4 − R4x .29:123-160.2). (24) We now estimate the difference between f 4x and f 2 . respectively (if we dropped the higher-order remainder terms at this point. but by retaining these terms presently.QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 145 discretization in x and second-order in y. but I know of no such applications. Downloaded from arjournals. the remainder terms R2x and R2y are included. Adding Equations 25 and 26 gives f 4x + f 4y − 2 f 2 = C2x x 2 + R2x + C2y y 2 + R2y −C4x x 4 − R4x − C4y y 4 − R4y . on 08/16/06. Rev.

since the domain of the PDEs requires more than point-wise values. (In fact. which involves real-number system arithmetic. since the selection and construction of the inter-element basis functions is an essential part of the FEM methodology. because somewhere in the development. on 08/16/06. The philosophy of FEM. They invariably conceptualize the numerical solution as more than point-wise. they conceptualize their numerical solution as a continuum solution and. discrete values of the flow variables (as well as related solution functionals. In the Category C methods. That is. Thus. the term residual ordinarily refers to the algebraic residual. the numerical solution consists of point-wise.29:123-160. 1997. by evaluating the (algebraic) residual. it makes no sense to FDM or FVM people to speak about estimating the discretization error of a PDE solution. I believe that this difference in attitude and semantics can be traced to the historical accident that FDM practice grew up with iterative solvers. Fluid Mech. the cruder the discretization. obtained by numerical quadratures of the discrete values. When an FEM author talks about residuals. additional approximations are required. In the various flavors of this approach. To most FDM and FVM practitioners. which may be made arbitrarily small no matter how crude and inaccurate the discretization may be. such as drag coefficients and so on. (Incidentally.” There is less than meets the eye in this distinction. the leftovers from the numerical solutions of the discrete algebraic equations. are led to consider the (differential) residual resulting from passing this solution function through the PDE operator.) FEM practitioners have a different viewpoint. thence. but Annu. Rev. . and so on. residuals of the solution are evaluated. is usually distinct from FVM and FDM in this regard. or the underlying conceptual model of FEM practitioners. there can be no exact evaluation of the error of the discrete point-wise solution by passing it through the continuum operator(s) of the governing PDEs. he or she refers to what I distinguish here as differential residuals. these residuals are used as a source term to a linearized error equation that mimics the governing equations. much is made of the distinction between “exact error residual equations” and “approximate error residual equations. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews. diffused. that will result from incomplete iterative solution or from accumulated round-off errors in a direct matrix solver.) To FDM and FVM people. the errors are advected.) Note the major distinction between these approaches: The second (differential) residual would be nonzero even if the computer used true real-number arithmetic. Indeed. whereas FEM practice grew up with direct solvers. the easier it is to reduce this algebraic residual. often leading to disconnects in communications. For personal use only. Therefore.146 ROACHE Residual Evaluation and Transport In one type of Category C method (auxiliary PDE solutions on the same grid) and in Category D methods as well.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib.

Rev. when these FEM solutions are graphed for presentation of results. it must be based upon a functional form distinct from that used in the discretization that produced the solution. on 08/16/06. First of all. even though the conservation form (Roache 1972) of the equations was used. and often when they are postprocessed for evaluation of solution functionals such as drag coefficients.annualreviews. . on the FDM/FVM side. Once this useful semantic distinction is made. Downloaded from arjournals. This limitation can be sidestepped by using the weak or integral form of the governing equations. we can examine the differences in the approach. Indeed. 1997. The quadratures can use the same algorithms used for FDM solutions or for any point-wise data. Note that each conceptualization of the underlying (sub-cell) functional form of the solution leads to a discretization. FVM). the variable coefficient diffusion problem can be conceptualized as having smooth property variation or piecewise constant property variation. a parabolic fit leads to standard second-order centered difference stencils). the solution may not be truly (locally and globally) conservative. Therefore. Annu. For example. Note. and/or energy. that conceptualizing the solution as a continuum function engenders some problems. except for some algebraic garbage caused by incomplete iterative convergence or machine round-off.QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 147 the first (algebraic) residual actually can be driven to machine zero in many (not necessarily all) algorithms/codes. although they produce functions. FDM. however. but the difference is not as essential as one might be led to think.29:123-160. that is. Also.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. they all essentially work for error estimation and. conserving of mass. the differential residual evaluation will be practically zero. cannot be passed through the PDE operator everywhere because they are not smooth at element boundaries.g. If not. it is not necessary to conceptualize the solution as consisting of only the discrete (node or volume) points. the basis functions are not used. the process (a) is somewhat arbitrary. (In groundwater flow and transport problems. there is no reason why FEM approaches to error estimation (either for solution adaptive grids or for quantification of uncertainty) cannot be applied to FDM solutions. Fluid Mech. therefore. All of this discussion is preamble to the most interesting aspect of residual evaluation. a simple methodology for deriving a finite difference method involves fitting polynomials through node point values (e. Although arguments may be made about which functional form to use for the (differential) residual evaluation. For example. and (b) applies to FDM and FVM as well as FEM. if a (differential) residual is to be evaluated for error evaluation. For personal use only. but the discretization is not necessarily unique to the conceptualization. Regardless of the approach (FEM. momentum. Conversely. we note that most (moderate-order) FEM solutions. The practices are indeed different.

(or lower-) order stencils to evaluate the error. Again. the error evaluated usually has no direct relation to any error measure of engineering or scientific interest. or blends (interpolates) the differentials obtained at element (or cell) centers to produce smooth functions over the entire region. For examples of the error transport equation approach. need no additional grid generation. Whether one selects a C2 smooth function to begin with. The major point is that the residual evaluation must involve a discretization rule different from that used in obtaining the solution. To put it another way. and the globalness of the error estimate becomes dependent on the amount and type of iteration. Annu.148 ROACHE the first conceptualization typically is held by geophysicists and engineers. This suggests some tolerance in the construction of sub-cell solutions. In this way. 1997. However. Rev. or puts off such questions to the quadrature rules. it would be like Category D. and the second by geologists. a higher-order stencil is used to obtain a higher-order solution. Downloaded from arjournals. Auxiliary Algebraic Evaluations on the Same Grid. Fluid Mech. Auxiliary PDE Solutions on the Same Grid The procedure for error estimation in Category C (auxiliary PDE solutions on the same grid) then involves selection of an alternate functional form for the intercell (interelement) solution and evaluation of the (differential) residual. Rather. see Ferziger (1993) and Van Straalen et al (1995). the derivatives may not exist at element boundaries. as expected. which is indeed a significant distinction.) Nevertheless. This approach is truly global but not as reliable as Category A or B methods. In Category C.29:123-160. The approach in which a rigorously iterated solution is replaced with a less completely converged solution is intermediate. In all cases. For personal use only. etc. are cheap. full Navier-Stokes) but. involving algebraic evaluations on the same grid. will be a less accurate error estimator near separations and so on. just because your point-wise solution agrees with experiment does not necessarily prove the literalness of your underlying conceptualization. both conceptualizations can lead to the identical discretization and therefore identical discrete solution. on 08/16/06. Surrogate Estimators Category D methods. for a single grid. these methods are after all not so distinct from Category B methods. The residuals can then be used as local error estimators (Category D) or transported in an error equation (Category C). the error transport equation will be some linearized version of the governing equations. These measures can be used as a surrogate for measures of engineering and scientific interest if and . which use higher. is not very significant. and use no significant dynamic memory. It will be somewhat cheaper to solve than the original fluid dynamics equations (e. the error measure is defined for mathematical convenience (as are the L 2 and L ∞ norms) or by physical intuition (as is kinetic energy conservation). but if the stencil were used only locally to obtain a local residual.g.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib.annualreviews.

Rev. which probably should be consistent with the algorithm for solving the PDEs (see also discussion of Category D. For personal use only. but this does not appear to be a strict requirement. Annu. Nonconservation of Conservation Variables Category D. but there is an important and useful distinction to be made in regard to Category D. Although the conservation imbalance may not be of direct engineering or scientific relevance. when the exact solution is not known. as well as other CFD codes. The error estimate then involves numerical evaluation by quadrature for the erroneous loss or gain of mass in the computational domain.29:123-160. In an earlier section. including carefully evaluated boundary inflow terms and dissipation (Haworth et al 1993. In Chang & Haworth (1995).annualreviews. if there is any suspicion that the grid resolution is not in the asymptotic range. For example. momentum.1 and D. Chang & Haworth 1995. three grid solutions are necessary to verify (or determine) the rate of convergence and thereby estimate the error. it is also used to reliably guide local grid refinement for solution-adaptive grid generation. the satisfaction of mass conservation will usually depend on the degree of strict iterative convergence achieved. I noted that. it . An evaluation of its global and local conservation by quadrature.2 involves evaluation of conservation errors for higher-order moments. fully conservative discretization may be used for the primitive variables of mass. “when the exact solution is not known. Fluid Mech. on 08/16/06. Note that the evaluation of this error depends on the accuracy of the quadrature. 1996). Conservative codes and algorithms are generally preferred.2 methods that are based on conservation errors. 1997.QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 149 only if a correlation is established via numerical experimentation over a suite of problems and range of problem parameters.” may seem redundant when the context is a realistic problem. which is our interest here. vorticity. Downloaded from arjournals.4 below).1 (nonconservation of conservation variables) applies only to codes that do not use fully conservative algorithms for conservation variables. Nonconservation of Higher Moments Category D. but this gives no indication of the discretization error of the solution.) Momentum. and internal energy are other possibilities. then gives a surrogate indication of general discretization errors. in many FEM codes. this error will approach zero but only in the limit of → 0 for a nontrivial problem. mass is not identically conserved in most pre-1980 boundary-layer codes. However. The qualifier used. If the coded algorithm is consistent. turbulent kinetic energy is typically not identically conserved. (Even for a nominally mass-conserving full Navier-Stokes code. but nonconservative codes are seen to offer a readily evaluated and understood (although still surrogate) error measure. In typical turbulent (Reynolds-Averaged) Navier-Stokes codes. and internal energy.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib.

Thus. certainly important for structures problems). Although developed for FEM.3 methods (the Zhu-Zienkiewicz-type estimators) were developed and intended primarily to guide grid adaptation. and Ewing et al (1990). See Zhu & Zienkiewicz (1990). For example.150 ROACHE has the advantage that the exact solution of this quantity is known. These methods allow the global energy norm to be well estimated and give good evaluation of local errors (and provide local estimate of stress accuracy. Oden et al (1993). namely zero. one may build up such correlations by experience and arrive at a practical and very inexpensive error estimator. quadrature for pressure and shear force on the surface leads to evaluation of a drag . personal communication).” The Zhu-Zienkiewicz-type methods share the shortcoming of all surrogate estimators for fluid dynamics—other than guidance for grid adaptation. on 08/16/06. Zienkiewicz & Zhu (1987. using the concepts discussed above in the section “Residual Evaluation and Transport. This need for establishing a correlation in error measures is also true if one direct error measure (e. there is little inherent engineering or scientific interest in the error measure as defined. Babuska et al (1994). Therefore. the Zhu-Zienkiewicz approach is adaptable to FDM and FVM (D Pelletier. when one is involved in extensive suites of calculations. does a 1% error estimate on C L ensure a 1% (or 5%. and so on) error estimate for C M ? The correlation providing the (fuzzy) answer will be valid only for a restricted range of angle of attack. and other FEM methods that have a similar flavor. Rev. 1997. and they are relatively cheap. one requires only a single grid solution to calculate the error if p is known. Convergence of Higher-Order Quadratures Category D. in an airfoil calculation. Mach number. such as those of Strouboulis & Oden (1990). Reynolds number. Zhu-Zienkiewicz-Type Estimators Category D. For example. involving convergence of higher-order quadratures (numerical integration of a known function).org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. it is necessary to establish a correlation of the Zhu-Zienkiewicz estimator with an error measure of interest.annualreviews. nor even for a large range of flow parameters for geometrically similar problems.g. in this surrogate error measure. unless the only interest is mathematics for its own sake. these estimators can be used as surrogate error estimators. Fluid Mech. 1992). Downloaded from arjournals.4 methods are the simplest. However. For example. More relevant in the present context of the quantification of uncertainty. and only two grid solutions to extract the observed convergence rate p (see Chang & Haworth 1996). Annu.29:123-160. This can be accomplished only by expensive numerical experimentation for a given class of problems. a correlation based on numerical experiments for internal combustion engine modeling would be unlikely to provide any guidance for external aerodynamics. obtained by a grid-convergence study) is to be used as a surrogate for another. and airfoil class. For personal use only.

29:123-160. these error estimators would be better named simply resolution indicators.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. therefore. the difference may be used as a surrogate error estimator. In the current time-step. For coarse grids. second-order quadrature will give a different answer than fourthorder accurate quadrature. these values will converge as the solution converges and. We write the backward time method for a general equation system in terms of an operator L (not necessarily linear) as n+1 n f i. the solution was advanced from (n − 1) relative to the .e. The method is very cheap to implement because it does not require another implicit matrix solution. Downloaded from arjournals. It is difficult to take seriously an error estimate for point-wise pressures from an incompressible Navier-Stokes code when the same error estimate would result from the same point-wise values in an M = 20 solution or in Darcy flow in a porous medium. Fluid Mech. In fact. problems with significant solution structure). The same philosophy can be used point-wise. Time Accuracy Estimation Estimation of the numerical error of the time discretization can be done in the same manner as the spatial errors. it is relatively straightforward to estimate the temporal error as the calculation evolves. the poverty of the concept is shown by the fact that the error estimate is obtained from a single solution without recourse to the governing PDEs. coefficient C D .QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 151 Annu. (29) Generally. the solution will involve an expensive matrix solution for all f n+1 . The time-error estimator uses the difference between backward and forward time integration. can be (and have been) used as surrogate error estimates. Rev. implemented as an extrapolation. 1997. In the previous time-step. For nontrivial problems (i. these two quadratures will converge to each other. Indeed. j t = L n+1 . on 08/16/06.annualreviews. For personal use only. since the governing PDEs are not invoked. d) for a fully implicit (backward) time differencing method. Consider the following inexpensive temporal error estimator (Oden et al 1993. However. It includes the effects of time-dependent boundary conditions and source terms. Roache 1993c. j − f i. In fact. so that the operator L is being evaluated at (n + 1). As the discretization refines. but simpler methods may also be used. nor even another explicit stencil evaluation. and to build a code with a solution-adaptive time step to control the temporal error to a predetermined level. The simplest approach ultimately reduces to comparing the calculated point-wise value of some variable of interest with the value interpolated between the point’s neighbors. even when only first-order time differencing is used. Equation 29 is advancing the solution for f from time level n to time level (n + 1) with increment t using fully implicit (backward) time differencing.

j The point-wise difference F n+1 − f n+1 is then a point-wise temporal error estimator. and F n+1 . so that one would evaluate the error estimator E ET for the single time-step as n+1 n+1 E E T = 100 · max abs Fi.) The difference between the new value of f n+1 predicted by the implicit algorithm and F n+1 predicted by the explicit algorithm. Thus. as in n+1 n Fi. and so on). j f RANGE . predicted by the explicit algorithm. (31) t. source terms. so error estimates and f RANGE should be calculated only over interior points. both of which predictions are O( t) accurate. 1997. is then obtained by simple linear extrapolation of previous solutions. it does not involve a matrix solution of f at all values of i and j simultaneously. j − f i. For constant t. j − f i. but it does involve coding storage penalties and complexities (storage of old values of boundary conditions. j = 2 f i. is itself an error estimator of accuracy O( t 2 ) for the time discretization error for that time step. Downloaded from arjournals. j = f i. The explicit solution for f at (n + 1).org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. the L for the present explicit step can be evaluated from the knowledge of the previous change in f . (Since the left-hand side involves values of f only at the location (i. j ± 1) the equation is explicit. j i. j) and (i. Fluid Mech. parallel estimate of the values f n+1 with an explicit step. normalized by f RANGE . Explicit evaluation of L n would not be expensive compared with the computer time necessary for the implicit matrix solution. j . j t = Ln (30) Annu. which is the total range of f n+1 . on 08/16/06.152 ROACHE current indexing to n with increment tOLD and the L evaluated at n. An economical and elegant approach is to recognize that the L from the previous implicit step is identical to the L for the present explicit step. (32) For the more general case of variable n+1 n Fi.29:123-160. a user would be interested in the maximum over the spatial domain of the percentage error. Usually. requiring only the temporary storage of previous solution arrays. For personal use only. F n+1 . where F n+1 signifies the new value of f predicted by the explicit algorithm. predicted by the fully implicit algorithm.annualreviews. tOLD i. (In practice.) . j − f i. j) but not at the neighboring locations (i ± 1. We could explicitly evaluate L n and make a separate. n+1 n−1 n Fi. (33) E E T is thus calculated as the percent maximum deviation (or L ∞ norm) of the absolute value of the difference between the new f values f n+1 . Rev. j . ghost-point evaluations with Dirichlet boundary conditions tend to exaggerate the error. j + t n−1 f n − f i. that is.

not as the solution algorithm. Although the extrapolation procedure is equivalent to explicit time-stepping. stability limitations and/or conservation issues of explicit time-stepping as a solution algorithm are irrelevant. and so on. that is. In all but one of the examples. and the error estimator would be invalid.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. the most cursory time-step convergence study would quickly reveal the inadequacy of the temporal resolution.29:123-160. I believe the real lesson of the examples is simply the need for a posteriori error estimation. This means that the change in boundary values during the first time-step is approximately fixed. the initial conditions are likely to be incompatible with the boundary conditions applied at the first time-step. That is. and the need for further research to guarantee a priori accuracy. either by recalculating the previous time-step (preferred) or by simply adjusting the next time-step. the first time-step would not provide a meaningful estimate of ∂ f /∂t. However.annualreviews. Rev. on 08/16/06. Cafe Curves Different fields of endeavor have different requirements for the variables and functionals of interest. its effects do not accumulate. Note that the explicit calculation is used only as an error estimator within a time step of an implicit method. engineering (mechanical. it is worth noting and is perhaps nonintuitive that even steady-state solutions may require time-step resolution (or equivalently. with no reasonable chance of being misled into a nonphysical solution. chemical) often requires functionals of the solution such as lift coefficient. it does not depend much on the time resolution. heat transfer rates. Thus. Downloaded from arjournals. Nonlinear Dynamics Solutions Yee et al (1991) and Lafon & Yee (1992) have given a large number of examples of nonlinear (chaotic) dynamics solutions in which spurious (grossly erroneous) solutions for steady-state problems with strongly nonlinear source terms are obtained for stable implicit algorithms applied beyond the linear stability limit. 1997. The one remaining example (involving a fourth-order Runge-Kutta integration) could be misleading with a cursory study but would be revealed in a thorough systematic study. adjusting t so that the error estimate E E T is acceptable. mixing rate.QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 153 Annu. aerospace. E E T can be used readily (internal to the code) as the basis for a solutionadaptive time-stepping algorithm. It is much less common that practical interest is in accuracy of the entire field calculation. relaxation parameter resolution) when significant nonlinearities are present. Also. the extrapolation cannot be started until there are two time levels. To generalize too much. Consequently. one example that . Fluid Mech. For personal use only. in the event that the initial conditions are set arbitrarily by the analyst (without setting initial conditions as a steady-state solution). Their point is the danger of being misled by such calculations.

In these cases. meteorological and ocean modelers are usually interested in accuracy of all the field variables. see also Westerink & Roache (1995). lift was well converged at the finest discretization achieved (141 × 55 × 55 in 3-D. and more significantly how they can be interpreted in any general sense. Furthermore.29:123-160. Westerink et al 1994). comes to mind is aero-optical propagation (Truman & Lee 1990). or to aspects of the solution of particular interest. Luettich & Westerink (1995) introduced the concept of cumulative area fraction error (CAFE) curves to present domain errors in a more complete and meaningful way. Salari et al 1994). especially industrial engineers using general-purpose commercial CFD codes. in a tidal convergence study (Luettich & Westerink 1995. drag was more problematical. would like to be able to obtain. Downloaded from arjournals. there is the general problem of interpreting how representative an L 2 or L ∞ norm is to the response as a whole. Underand over-prediction are indicated separately. For example. in our experience with dynamic stall and oscillating airfoil and wing calculations (Salari & Roache 1990. but the problem is not soluble in any general sense. Often L 2 or L ∞ error norms are used as global error indicators.annualreviews. and moment definitely was not converged. median under.and overprediction are distributed approximately evenly throughout the domain. expert judgment (based on experience with a nearby class of problems) can be valid. The Myth of the Converged Solution CFD practitioners. it is meaningful to emphasize global accuracy of the entire computational field. Unfortunately. For an example of the cumulative-area-fraction error curves.and over-prediction errors correspond approximately to a cumulative area fraction of 0. and 461 × 71 in 2-D). Rev. If one had performed the grid-convergence study (or other . on 08/16/06. associated with very high gradient in response amplitude and phase. see the grid intercomparisons for tidal flow computations reported by Westerink et al (1994). the problem is the a priori unknown correlation between possible error measures of valid engineering and scientific interest. cause extremely high localized errors that do not converge smoothly or at the same rate as an L 2 norm. Again. For example. Of course. this is not possible in any general sense. These curves plot the fraction of the total domain that exceeds a particular error level (y-axis) against that error level (x-axis). For personal use only. Fluid Mech. However. 1997. and difficulty arises in attempting to characterize global accuracy with just one or a few numbers. questions arise about whether these error norms are always reliable. L ∞ norms are poor indicators of error because shifting amphidromes.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib.154 ROACHE Annu. at least in principle. Assuming that under. However.25. a converged solution (converged both iteratively and in time-space discretization) and then be able to confidently postprocess that solution for any engineering measure of interest.

say position of transition. However. so that coarser grids may be acceptable for prediction of force coefficients. and they are usually successful for this purpose (e. In real multidimensional problems. it is always possible to devise some error measure that is exquisitely sensitive to discretization error. accurate convergence of pressure may be unnecessary.annualreviews. gains are usually modest . or location of trailing-edge separation. skin friction and wall-heat transfer are of principal interest.g. the concept of a converged solution. which means that the appropriate measure of accuracy is of the term ∂ 3 u/∂ y 3 .g. Error Estimation for Grid Adaptation versus Quantification of Uncertainty Local error estimators are used for solution-adaptive grid-generation algorithms. Salari & Steinberg 1994) or quasi-1-D problems (Dwyer et al 1980). Calculations of the branching between symmetric and nonsymmetric flow patterns require special attention to grid resolution (see Sengupta et al 1995). For personal use only. and examined convergence in both the physical and Fourier domains. is a myth. Fluid Mech. some high-order statistical correlations in turbulent flow calculations. McCroskey 1981). Rosenfeld (1994) used grid resolution studies of bluff-body wakes with resolution up to 513 × 513 points. Rev. the convergence study would have to be repeated for this error measure. for example. 1997. it is known from stability theory (Lin 1967) that laminar-boundary layer stability is dependent on the diffusion of vorticity across the critical layer (the y-position at which the mean flow speed equals the disturbance wave speed). minimizing solution curvature or adapting to solution gradients (even though solution gradients per se cause no error in most discretization schemes). The principal component of boundary-layer vorticity magnitude is ∂u/∂ y. the gains in computational efficiency from solution adaptivity of the r -type (redistribution) in structured grids are very impressive. Conversely. A practical example is a boundary-layer stability calculation. Oden et al 1993). However. so that this measure is far from converged even when other. see Schonauer et al 1981. more benign measures are well converged. strictly speaking.g. If a new error measure became of interest. on 08/16/06. which may be expected to be more difficult to converge than simply the velocity component u. almost anything intuitive is successful for adaptation purposes. Downloaded from arjournals. he showed that phase velocities of vortices converge much slower than amplitudes.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib.29:123-160. Certainly. Thus. error-estimation exercise) examining only the lift.QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 155 Annu. e. and these are sensitive to the first normal derivative of velocity at the wall. or second harmonic component of the unsteady pressure coefficient (of interest for helicopter dynamic stall analysis. ascertained to be so independent of the intended error measure. In 1-D problems (e. For most engineering applications. one could only infer from engineering judgment (experience on related problems) whether or not resolution was adequate for drag and moment.

html Final Remarks The various approaches to error estimation and quantification of uncertainty in CFD have their relative merits. it is clear that methods are available now to convincingly assess the numerical uncertainty of CFD calculations. as claimed in a recent SIAM article by Johnson et al (1995). Internet Archive An Internet archive of a bibliography for CFD Verification and Validation is maintained by R Barron of the University of Windsor. Significantly. (Roache et al 1984. postprocessing vs CFD code modifications. and can be accessed at the following address: http://www. Fluid Mech. on 08/16/06. However. Rev. local estimates are suspect. and their validity as surrogate estimators for measures of interest must be established anew for each family of nearby problems. to analytically and a priori solve the hydrodynamics stability problem in order to estimate CFD numerical errors!] Journal editors and reviewers can insist on reasonably thorough assessment without placing impractical demands on authors.uk/SELHPC/Articles/ValCFD. single-grid vs multiple-grid generations. Lohner 1989. it is not necessary to “double the grid”.ac. diffused. we need global errors.29:123-160. Canada. Pelletier & Ignat 1995). Downloaded from arjournals.g. see Morgan et al 1991. So the success of these local error estimators in guiding grid adaptation must not be taken as demonstration of their efficacy for the quantification of uncertainty. involving algebraic simplicity of local estimators vs the complexity of additional PDE formulations or higher-order accurate solutions. and so on.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib.156 ROACHE Annu. . most straightforward and arguably constitute the most reliable technique for the quantification of numerical uncertainty. Systematic grid-convergence studies are the most common. one taking into account the fact that errors are advected. For personal use only. 1997. Estimates of local errors usually are not what we want for verification of calculations.lpac. [It is certainly not necessary.annualreviews. Hall & Zingg 1995) but are somewhat more significant for unstructured grid adaptation (e. By global I do not mean just a global summing up of local values (as is often used in the FEM literature) but an evaluation that includes nonlocal effects. and so on. that is. to the improvement of journal quality. Hetu & Pelletier 1992. This approach requires no code modifications nor algorithm developments but does require multiple grid generations. Ontario. But this task of grid adaptation has little connection to the quantification of uncertainty for a final calculation with a useful error measure. regardless of each approach’s relative merits and of the possibility for future improvements. For error estimation of useful scientific or engineering measures. noninteger grid refinement and grid coarsening are economical alternatives.

93. Meth. Fluids Engineer. 1981. Vol. Int. Congr. 1993b. ASME J. Convergence studies with the Sandia Ocean Modeling System. Blottner FG. Mech.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. Engineer.annualreviews. AIAA J. Meth. Fluids Engineer. Editorial policy statement on the control of numerical accuracy. For personal use only. Natural convection of air in a square cavity: a bench mark numerical solution. 160. Estimation and reduction of numerical error. Rev. The CFD Triathlon: Three Laminar Flow Simulations by Commercial CFD Codes. Haworth DC. 1995a. J. 1994. 1997. 1994. 115(3):339–40 Freitas CJ. J. See Johnson & Hughes 1995. A proposed methodology for computational fluid dynamics code verification calibration and validation. W. ASME J. Comp. Int. Marietta MG. Upadhyay CS. ed. eds. Fluids 19:iii (editorial) Hall DJ. AIAA J.annurev. 1995. Fluids Engineer. Fluids. 114:307–78 Blottner FG. Fluids 3(3):249– 64 Dietrich DE. 18:1205–12 Ethier CR. Spacecraft Rockets 27(2):113–22 Boehm BW. 1994. 158. Celik I. Symposium on Quantification of Uncertainty in Computational Fluid Dynamics. Oberkampf WL. 1995. Scheurer G. p. Soc. 7–12 Chang S. San Diego. AIAA 26th Fluid Dynamics Conf. Meth. Viscous Airfoil Com- . Shyy and M. 1996. FED-ASME. 1990. Strouboulis T. Mech. 1995b. Mech. ASME J. Software Engineering Economics. 117(2):208–18 Freitas CJ. Chen CJ. Num. 1990. A posteriori error estimation. 1980. J. Vol. Annu. CFD Validation requirements for technology. Zhang WM. Roache PJ. Num. FED-ASME. 117:439–45 Chang S. Literature Cited Aeschliman DP. Ohio: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base AIAA. the beginning of implementation. Accurate Navier-Stokes results for the hypersonic flow over a spherical nosetip. Meth. 1990. Heat Transfer 116(11):797–98 Babuska I. Multigrid calculations of a jet in crossflow. Int. Freitas CJ. Int. 1995. 1994. Policy statement on numerical accuracy and experimental uncertainty. 1994. Soc. Fluids Engineer. New York: Am. Celik I.29:123-160. M Fewell. Exact fully 3D Navier-Stokes solutions for benchmarking. Sanders B. A model study of the quality of a posteriori error estimators for linear elliptic problems. Instrumentation Aerospace Simulation Facilities. Proc. Vol. Freitas CJ. Appl. 1995. Fluids Engineer. Vanka SP. Zingg DW. Adaptive grid refinement using cell-level and global imbalances. Num. New York: Am. Meth.org. Error estimation in the interior of patchwise uniform grid of triangles. 1994. Appl. 1993. 1993. Num. AIAA J. Soc. Downloaded from arjournals. Perspective: Selected benchmarks from commercial CFD codes. Meth. ASME J. 117(1):9 Gresho PM. Eng. J. Technical Monitor. 1995. See Celik et al 1993. Kee R. Fluids 11:127–50 Dwyer HA. Eng. pp. Meth. ASME J. Comp. Benchmark Test Cases for Computational Fluid Dynamics. Fluid Mech. Calculation of numerical uncertainty using Richardson extrapolation: application to some simple turbulent flow calculations. Adaptive grid method for problems in fluid mechanics and heat transfer. New York: Prentice-Hall Celik I. Dayton. 18 Freitas CJ. Sindir. J. Visit the Annual Reviews home page at http://www. Fluids 19:369–75 Ewing RE. New York: Am. Kinetic-energybalance based solution-adaptive mesh refinement. 32(1):3 (editorial) ASME Editorial Board. Haworth DC. on 08/16/06. FED-ASME. 1990. J. Roache PJ. 116(2):198 Freitas CJ. 1983. In press Claus RW. Dr. Engineer. 82:59– 72 Ferziger JH. The end of justification. Mech. eds. Int. Int. Taylor C. Response: To the Comments by Drs. ASME J. Num. Propulsion Power 8:185–93 Cosner RR. Steinmen DA. Mech. Eng. Journal of Heat Transfer editorial policy statement on numerical accuracy. 1993a. 1992.QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD 157 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was partially supported by Sandia National Laboratories and the United States Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC04-76DP00789. CA de Vahl Davis G.

Science 263:641–46 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Computational requirements for hypersonic flight performance estimates. Num. AIAA Paper 85-0301 Lafon A. 1993. AIAA Paper 94-2540 Oberkampf WL. 1994. ed. AYY Leung. On the numerical treatment of nonlinear source terms in reactionconvection equations. Eng. Continental shelf scale convergence studies with a barotropic tidal model. 1981. Water Resources Res. OECD Report 71617. Aeschliman DP. Steinburg S. Water Res. 1992. 113:538–43 Mehta U. DR Lynch. Berry C. Vol. Hassan O. Progress on adaptive hp finite element methods for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. Fluid Mech. AIAA Paper 95-2225 Melnik RE. Am. The Theory of Hydrodynamic Stability. Union. Water Res. Mech. Westerink JJ. 1992. Fluids Engineer. Boca Raton: CRC Konikow LF. Some aspects of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics results. New York: Am. 2:1489–97. Anderson J. Methodology for Computational Fluid Dynamics Code Verification/Validation. Adv. Comments on the policy statement on numerical accuracy. ASME J. Press Putre M. Barger T. On the accuracy of the grid convergence index and the ZhuZienkiewicz error estimator. Engineer. Rotterdam: Balkema Nguyen TV. Int. 1995. AIAA Paper 92-0419 Leijnse A. 1991. Num. Comp. Blottner FG. Int. 30:1986–92 Horgan J. SIAM J. 31–36 Polya G. Pruess K. In press McCroskey WJ. 17:197–200 Leonard BP.annualreviews. From complexity to perplexity. Annu. Rannacher R. AIAA Journal 33 (7):1205-10 Haworth DC. A global approach to error estimation and physical diagnostics in multidimensional computational fluid dynamics. Maclaine-Cross IL. Downloaded from arjournals. JHW Lee. 1995. Meth. Adaptive remeshing for transient problems. Incremental pressure drop number in parallelplate heat exchangers. 31(2):289–302 Oreskes N. J. NJ: Princeton Univ. Toward a numerical error bar in CFD. Verhoff A. Konings CA. Paris: OECD Patankar SV. Appl. Hughes ED. Boman M. Bass JM. FED-ASME. AIAA Paper 95-2229 Morgan K. pp. 1989. Karniadakis GE. El Tahry SH. Geophys. Adv. 213. Rev. Shrader-Frechette K. ASME J. The Phenomenon of Dynamic Stall. Press Lohner R. 1985. 1995. Verification validation and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. 1967. Peiro J. Anal. Yee HC. Washington: Am. Quantification of Uncertainty in Computational Fluids Dynamics–1995. 32:1058–79 Johnson RW. 1990. 1995. London: Cambridge Univ. For personal use only. 116(11):70–74 putations Using Adaptive Grid Redistribution. AIAA Paper 95-2226 Oden JT. . PSACOIN Level 1A Intercomparison. Princeton. Probert EJ. Davoudzadeh F. Marconi F. Mech. Numerics and hydrodynamic stability: toward error control in computational fluid dynamics. 1995. See Johnson & Hughes 1995. NASA TM-81264 Mehta U. Soc. on 08/16/06. Adaptive remeshing for viscous incompressible flows. An overview of a recent industry effort at CFD code certification. Fluids Engineer. A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. 110:93–96 Oberkampf WL. 117(1):7–9 Knupp P. Pelletier DH. 1991. Numerical uncertainties in transonic flow calculations for airfoils with blunt trailing edges. Kennon SR. In Computational Mechanics. Paris: OEDC Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 117(1):5–6 Lin CC. Huebler MS. Thompson BE. 1980. Bredehoeft JD. Siclari MJ. 1988.29:123-160. 1994. The International HYDROCOIN Project Groundwater Hydrology Modelling Strategies for Performance Assessment of Nuclear Waste Disposal Level 1: Code Verification. Fundamentals of Grid Generation. Verifying analytical models. 1957. Dispersive transport dynamics in a strongly coupled groundwater-brine flow system. A proposed framework for computational fluid dynamics code calibration/validation. Model definition and model validation. ASME Mech. In Quantitative Skill Assessment for Coastal Ocean Models. ASME J. 1994. AM Davies. AIAA J. Fluids 17:75–97 Hetu JF. 1995. 1995. New York: McGraw-Hill Pelletier D. ed. Meth. 1994. 1992. 1995. Engineer.158 ROACHE AIAA Paper 89-1670 Mehta U. 1994. 1993. 272(6):104–9 Johnson C. J. In press Luettich RA. eds. Num. Hassanizadeh SM. Peraire J. Comput. Mech. Fluids Eng. Unstructured Grid Methods for Compressible Flows. 1995. Belitz K. 1988. 15:75–83 Kuruvila G. Groundwater models cannot be validated. 1997. Tworzydlo WW. Ignat L. Fluids. How to Solve It. Meth. ASME J. Guide to credible computational fluid dynamics simulations. Sci. YK Cheung. 61:323–38 Lotz RD. 1989. 1995. 1995. 11:421–32 Oldenburg CM. 1995. A study of the effects of numerical dissipation on the calculations of supersonic separated flows. Fluids Engineer. Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow.

Glotz G. See Johnson & Hughes 1995. Num. Fluids 23(5):693–709 Salari K. Comp. Comput. 1984. Shyy and M. Fluid Mech.. Albuquerque. The deferred approach to the limit. AIAA Paper 95-0364 Shih TM. Stat. VIII Int. The principle of difference of difference quotients as a key to the self adaptive solution of nonlinear partial differential equations. 1990. Knupp PM. 1989. Steinberg S. Proc. 27(5):560–68 Shyy W. The SECO code algorithms for groundwater flow and transport. Grid refinement test of time-periodic flows over bluff bodies. White F. 1986. Comput. 116(2):198–99 Roache PJ. Soc. K Ghia. 1990. ASME-FED. J. Blaine RL. Computational Fluid Dynamics. AIAA Paper 90-0235 Roache PJ. Fluids Engineer.QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CFD Richardson LF. Roache PJ. E Onate. Engineer. Comp. Perspective: a method for uniform reporting of grid refinement studies. A method for uniform reporting of grid refinement studies. ed. Physics Annu. Response: To the Comments by Drs. 116(2):196– 97 Steinberg S. The approximate arithmetical solution by finite differences of physical problems involving differential equations with an application to the stresses in a masonry dam. Knupp PM. Trans. Unsteady solutions transients and local grid resolution requirements for asymmetric vortex formation. 109–20 Roache PJ. Ghia K. 1997. Finite Elements Fluids. Meth. Roache PJ. 1981. Need for control of numerical accuracy. 1990. Fluids Engineer. Meth. R. Generation of Curvilinear Coordinate Systems and Use in the Numerical Solution of Partial Differential Equations. 1995. Flux-corrected transport in a moving grid. 196:1–7. London Ser. Soc. on 08/16/06. Contaminant transport in fractured porous media: analytical solutions for a system of parallel fractures. 1993c. 1908. Sci. Comm. Evaluation of algebraic turbulence models for PNS predictions of supersonic flow past a sphere-cone. Effects of organized turbulence structures on the phase distortion in a coherent optical beam propagating through a turbulent shear flow. Weakly compressible Navier-Stokes Solutions with an implicit approximate factorization code. Spacecraft Rockets 27(2):98–102 Roache PJ. Third Int. ed. Mech. Blaine RL. AIAA Paper 90-0581 Salari K. Steinberg S. Mech. Fluids Engineer. ASME J. High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conf. Comput. A 226:229–361 Roache PJ. Appl. Proc. Orlando. Editorial policy statement on the control of numerical accuracy. Spain: Univ. M Hafez. OC Zienkiewicz. In Finite elements in fluids: new trends and applications. Downloaded from arjournals. AIAA Paper 84-1655 Rosenfeld M. Sindir M. Politecnica Cataluna Roache PJ. 28(3):327–59 Sengupta R. 727–37. Davis SM. ASME J. Eng. 2:939–48. NV Roache PJ. Tan CH. J. Steinberg S. R. K Morgan. 18(6):1634–42 Truman CR. See Celik et al 1993. 1994. Roache PJ. Schonauer W. 1990. 2:1057–58 Roache PJ. A method for uniform reporting of grid refinement studies. 1927. 1982.29:123-160. London Ser. Fluids Engineer.annualreviews. J Peraire. Verification of codes and calculations. Soc. pp. 1993. 11th AIAA Comput. Raith K. A posteriori error estimation of finite element approximations in fluid mechanics. Completed Richardson extrapolation. Economy K. Numerical Simulation of Dynamic Stall Using the Two-Equation K-ω Turbulence Model. . 108(1):2 Roache PJ. Oden JT.AIAI J. AIAA J. J Periaux. 1993a. pp. FL. New York: Am. Amsterdam: North-Holland Roache PJ. In Proceedings Symposium on the Num. Roache PJ. Comments on “Policy statement on the control of numerical accuracy. 1985. Experience with benchmark test cases for groundwater flow. 25–30 Salari K. ed. 1994. 1994b. Moeny WM. Barcelona. 1995. 1994. Trans. Orkwis PD.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. 2(4):404–15 Strouboulis T. W. Meth. Comp. Lee MJ. Conf. Grid resolution studies of radionuclide transport in fractured porous media. The influence of sweep on dynamic stall produced by a rapidly pitching wing. Conf. Effects of grid staggering on numerical schemes. For personal use only. 1995. Mech. Interactive electric field calculations for lasers. 1976 Roache PJ. Rev. 1990. Num. See Celik & Freitas 1990. 1994. The SECO suite of codes for site performance assessment. Salari K. Appl. J. Engineer. pp. Appl. 1989. 116(3):405–13 Roache PJ. Fluids 9(2):193–212 Shirazi SA. pp. 1981. NM: Hermosa. Frind EO. Las Vegas. 1994a. Shubin GR. Multiple solutions and bifurcation of finite difference approximations to some steady problems in fluid dynamics. 49–56 159 Roache PJ. 1993d. Hwang BC. 1990. Wilcox DC. In Proceedings 1993 Intl. 1982. 210:307–57 Richardson LF. Physics 57(2):251–84 Stephens AB. Fluid Dynam. Water Resources Res. Semidirect/Marching Methods and Elliptic Grid Generation. 1972. 1993b. Sindir. ASME J. Methods 9:365–74 Roache PJ. SIAM J. Rev. Physics 111(1):24–32 Salari K. In press Roache PJ. J. AIAA Paper 95-2224.” ASME J. A. Symbolic manipulation and computational fluid dynamics. Truman CR. JF Thompson. 78:201–42 Sudicky EA.

” ASME J. I: The recovery technique. Physics 97:249–310 Zhu JZ. Response: To the Comments by Drs. Turbulence Modeling for CFD. Num. Grid studies for thin-layer Navier-Stokes computations of airfoil flowfield. J. 1991. The dynamics of time discretization and its implications for algorithm development in computational fluid dynamics. DM Bergeron. 1992. Dept. Fluid Mech. Annual Performance Assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Dec. Albuquerque. 1997. Int. Soc. 1987. J. ASME J. 116(2):197–98 Vanka P. 1995. Appl. Vol. 1992. La Ca˜ ada. Modeling tides in the western North Atlantic using unstructured graded grids. 1994. Fluids Engineer. Zienkiewicz OC. Alberta Westerink JJ. Griffiths DF. Rev. Sweby PK. Stubley GD. 1993. Comment on “Toward a numerical error bar in CFD. A posteriori error estimation for finite volume simulations of fluid flow transport. 30:1321–39 Zienkiewicz OC.160 ROACHE with 40 CFR 191 Subpart B Vol. 1993. 1 Preliminary Comparison . Meth. CA: DCW Industries n WIPP PA Dept. Fluids Engineer. Industr.. PA Thibault. W. Superconvergence recovery technique and a posteriori error estimates. 1990. Math. Dynamical approach study of spurious steady-state numerical solutions of nonlinear differential equations. Comput. Luettich RA. 1995. AIAA J. ed. Yee HC. J. For personal use only. 30(10):2561–64 Annu. The superconvergent patch recovery and a posteriori error estimates. Int. Zhu JZ. Sandia Natl. 1992 Vol.annualreviews. Fluids A 2(5):851–57 Vanka P. Zhu JZ. 24:337–57 Zienkiewicz OC. Downloaded from arjournals. on 08/16/06. 1995. Canada. Muccino JC. A simple error estimator and adaptive procedure for practical engineering analysis.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. NM: Performance Assess. Meth. Banff. Engineer. 1994. I.29:123-160. Simpson RB. Roache PJ. Engineer. Int. Meth. Conf. Third Annu. Num. In Proc. Num. Shyy and M. Tellus 46A:187–99 Westerink JJ. 33:1331–64 Zingg DW. 117(1):9–10 Van Straalen BP. CFD Soc. Issues in convergence studies in geophysical flow computations. Sindir. 2: Technical Basis. Engineer. J. In press Wilcox DC. Lab. 1.

Mavriplis MODERN HELICOPTER AERODYNAMICS. Wells. Grae Worster QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS. Renardy CONVECTION IN MUSHY LAYERS. Miles and. D. Conlisk 285 327 373 399 435 473 515 . K. Antonia UNSTRUCTURED GRID TECHNIQUES. J. J. J.29:123-160. S. on 08/16/06. L. K. 1997. C. Y. R. Y.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics Volume 29. D. Z. M. Saville CORE-ANNULAR FLOWS.annualreviews. A. Fluid Mech. I. Rosemary A. A. Thorwald Herbert QUANTITATIVE FLOW VISUALIZATION IN UNSEEDED FLOWS. Valana L. Feng. P. Walter R. Downloaded from arjournals. G. Leal PARABOLIZED STABILITY EQUATIONS. D. R. Steen. 1 27 65 91 123 161 201 245 COMPUTING AERODYNAMICALLY GENERATED NOISE. 1997 CONTENTS G. Richard B. Ku THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF SMALL-SCALE TURBULENCE. P. Rev. T. Maxworthy FLUID MECHANICS OF SPIN CASTING OF METALS. Lempert CONVECTION INTO DOMAINS WITH OPEN BOUNDARIES. A. TAYLOR IN HIS LATER YEARS. Bai. Paul H. Roache Annu. Joseph. Turner ELECTROHYDRODYNAMICS: The Taylor-Melcher Leaky Dielectric Model. T. Chen. R. For personal use only. David N. Sreenivasan. Christian Karcher BLOOD FLOW IN ARTERIES.org by Stanford University Robert Crown Law Lib. D. Renaut NONLINEAR BUBBLE DYNAMICS.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful