Nonlinear Dynamics

, Volume 63, Issue 4, pp 667–679 | Cite as

The method of manufactured solutions applied to chaotic systems

  • Wan WuEmail author
  • Leigh S. McCue
  • Christopher J. Roy
Original Paper


In this paper, the method of manufactured solutions is applied to dynamical systems possessing chaotic behavior. This method is used in a non-traditional way to identify points with potential numerical errors and to improve computational efficiency. The numerical errors may be due to the selection of error tolerances in the integration of the ordinary differential equations, computer arithmetic precision, etc. Two classical chaotic models and two ship capsize models are examined. The current approach has similarities to entrainment methods in chaotic control theory, where entrainment refers to two dynamical systems having the same period, phase and amplitude. The convergent region from control theory is used to give a rough guide for identifying potentially catastrophic numerical errors for the classical chaotic models. The effectiveness of this method in improving computational efficiency is demonstrated for the ship capsize models.


MMS Chaotic control Convergent region Capsize 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    AIAA: Guide for the verification and validation of computational fluid dynamics simulations. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, January 1998. G-077-1998 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ASME Performance Test Code Committee 60: Guide for verification and validation in computational solid mechanics. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY (2006). ASME V&V 10-2006 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batra, R.C., Liang, X.Q.: Finite dynamic deformations of smart structures. Comput. Mech. 20, 427–438 (1997) zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Department of Defense: DoD modeling and simulation (M&S) verification, validation, and accreditation (VV&A), May 2003. Department of Defense Instruction 5000.61 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Department of the Navy: Verification, validation, and accreditation (VV&A) of models and simulations, April 1999. SECNAV Instruction 5200.40 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Falzarano, J.M.: Predicting complicated dynamics leading to vessel capsizing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1990) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hindmarsh, A.C.: Serial FORTRAN solvers for ODE initial value problems. (2006)
  8. 8.
    Hübler, A.W., Lüscher, E.: Resonant stimulation and control of non-linear oscillators. Naturwissenschaft 76, 67 (1989) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jackson, E.A.: Control of dynamic flow with attractors. Phys. Rev. A 44(8), 4839–4853 (1991) CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jackson, E.A.: On the control of complex dynamics systems. Physica D 50, 341–366 (1991) zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Knupp, P., Salari, K.: Verification of Computer Codes in Computational Science and Engineering. Chapman and Hall, London (2002) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, S., Junkins, J.L.: Construction of benchmark problems for solution of ordinary differential equations. Shock Vib. 1(5), 403–414 (1994) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oberkampf, W.L., Roy, C.J.: Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Radhakrishnan, K., Hindmarsh, A.C.: Description and use of LSODE, the Livermore solver for ordinary differential equations. Technical Report UCRL-ID-113855. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1993) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roache, P.J.: Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering. Hermosa Publishers, Socorro (1998) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roache, P.J.: Code verification by the method of manufactured solutions. J. Fluids Eng. 124, 4–10 (2002) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roy, C.J., Nelson, C.C., Smith, T.M., Ober, C.C.: Verification of Euler/Navier–Stokes codes using the method of manufactured solutions. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 44(6), 599–620 (2004) zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shih, T.M.: A procedure to debug computer programs. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 21, 1027–1037 (1985) zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spyrou, K.J., Cotton, B., Gurd, B.: Analytical expressions of capsize boundary for a ship with roll bias in beam waves. J. Ship Res. 46, 167–174 (2002) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steinberg, S., Roache, P.J.: Symbolic manipulation and computational fluid dynamics. AIAA J. 22, 1390–1394 (1985) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yee, H.C., Sweby, P.K.: Global asymptotic behavior of iterative implicit schemes. Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos 4(6), 1579–1611 (1994) zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yee, H.C., Sweby, P.K.: Nonlinear dynamics and numerical uncertainties in CFD. Technical Report. NASA Technical Memorandum 110398, NASA, April 1996 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yee, H.C., Sweby, P.K.: Dynamics of numerics and spurious behaviors in CFD computations. Technical Report RIACS 97.06, Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science NASA Ames Research Center, June 1997 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yee, H.C., Torczynski, J.R., Morton, S.A., Visbal, M.R., Sweby, P.K.: On spurious behavior of CFD simulations. In: 13th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Snowmass, CO (1997) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aerospace and Ocean EngineeringVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations