Validation in Fluid Dynamics and Related Fields

  • Patrick J. RoacheEmail author
Part of the Simulation Foundations, Methods and Applications book series (SFMA)


A brief description of fluid dynamics is presented for a general audience. Within the context of fluid dynamics practice, the distinction is made between general (weak) models and specific (strong) models. Three historical options concerning a working definition of validation are briefly considered. Current validation practice in fluid dynamics is described based mostly on ASME V&V 20-2009, an ANSI Standard document. Model form uncertainty and other epistemic uncertainties, while sometimes important in model applications, are argued not to be important issues in validation. The weakest link in validation practice is claimed to be the reluctance, by both experimentalists and computationalists, to go beyond use of nominal set point data. This is clarified by the paradigm of experiments designed specifically for model validation. Coding features that facilitate model validation are described. Counter arguments are given to claims, based on extrapolation of the philosophy of falsificationism, that validation is impossible even in principle.


Validation Verification Model Epistemic uncertainty Falsificationism 



I gratefully acknowledge help from C. Beisbart, L. Eça, and N. Saam.


  1. Aeschliman, D. P., & Oberkampf, W. L. (1997). Experimental methodology for computational fluid dynamics code validation, SAND95-1189 (p. 1997). Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASME. (2009). ASME V&V 20-2009. Standard for verification and validation in computational fluid dynamics and heat transfer, 2009.Google Scholar
  3. Blackwell, B. F. & Dowding, K. J. (2006). Sensitivity analysis and uncertainty propagation of computational models. In W. J. Minkowycz, E. M. Sparrow & J. Y. Murthy (Eds.), Handbook of numerical heat transfer (2nd ed., pp. 443–469). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Coleman, H. W. & Stern, F. (1997). Uncertainties in CFD code validation. ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, 119, 795–803.Google Scholar
  5. Chaisson, E., & McMillan, St. (2008). Astronomy today (6th ed.). San Francisco: Pearson Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  6. Eça, L., & Hoekstra, M. (2009). On the numerical accuracy of the prediction of resistance coefficients in ship stern flow calculations. Journal of Maritime Science and Technology. Scholar
  7. Eça, L., Hoekstra, M., Roache, P. J. & Coleman, H. (2009). Code verification, solution verification and validation: An overview of the 3rd Lisbon (Workshop, AIAA Paper No. 2009-3647). 19th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics, San Antonio, Texas, June 2009.Google Scholar
  8. Eça. L. (2018). Personal communication 5/25/2018.Google Scholar
  9. Glanzberg, M. (2006). Truth. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. (June 13, 2006).
  10. Hazelrigg, G. A. (2003). Thoughts on model validation for engineering design, DETC2003/DTM-48632. In Proceedings of ASME 2003 Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conferences, Chicago, IL, U.S.A., 2–6 Sept 2003.Google Scholar
  11. Hansson, S. O. (2006). Falsificationism falsified. In Foundations of science (Vol. 11, pp. 275–286). Springer. Scholar
  12. ITTC. (2002). CFD general uncertainty analysis in CFD verification and validation methodology and procedures. In Quality Manual, International Towing Tank Conference, Effective Date 2002, Revision 01.Google Scholar
  13. Jatale, A., Smith, P. J., Thornock, J. N., Smith, S. T., Spinti, J. P., & Hradisky, M. (2017). Multiscale validation and uncertainty quantification for problems with sparse data. Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty, 2(1), Paper No: VVUQ-16-1022; Scholar
  14. Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (2nd ed., enlarged, 1970; 3rd ed., 1996). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  15. Konikow, L. F., & Bredehoeft, J. D. (1992). Groundwater models cannot be validated. Advances in Water Resources, 15(1992), 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. NSF. (2006). Simulation-based engineering science: revolutionizing engineering science through simulation. Report of the NSF Blue Ribbon Panel on Simulation-Based Engineering Science.Google Scholar
  17. Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K., & Belitz, K. (1994). Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science, 263(4), 641–646.Google Scholar
  18. Oberkampf, W. L. & Trucano, T. G. (2002). Verification and validation in computational fluid dynamics. AIAA Progress in Aerospace Sciences.Google Scholar
  19. Oberkampf, W. L., & Roy, C. J. (2010). Verification and validation in scientific computing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oden, T., Moser, R., & Ghattas, O. (2010). Computer predictions with quantified uncertainty, Part I. In SIAM News (Vol. 43, Number 9, November 2010). (Part II Number 10, December 2010).Google Scholar
  21. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery, (translation of Logik der Forschung, first publication 1934), Hutchinson, London, UK. (last copyright 1980. Routledge version 2006).Google Scholar
  22. Roache, P. J. (1998a). Verification and validation in computational science and engineering, Appendix C. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Hermosa Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Roache, P. J. (1998b). Fundamentals of computational fluid dynamics. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Hermosa Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Roache, P. J. (2004). Building PDE Codes to be verifiable and validatable. In Computing in science and engineering (pp. 30–38). (Special Issue on Verification and Validation, September/October 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roache, P. J. (2008). Perspective: Validation-What does it Mean? ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, 131(3), CID 034503. (Also, ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering March 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roache, P. J. (2009). Fundamentals of verification and validation, Hermosa Publishers, Albuquerque, New Mexico. (Chapter 3 and Appendix C).Google Scholar
  27. Roache, P. J. (2012). A defense of computational physics. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Hermosa Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Roache, P. J. (2016). Verification and validation in fluids engineering: some current issues. ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, FE-16-1206. Scholar
  29. Roache, P. J. (2017, June). Interpretation of validation results following ASME V&V 20-2009. ASME Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty, 2, 024501-1–4.Google Scholar
  30. Stern, F., Wilson, R. V., Coleman, H. W., & Paterson, E. G. (2001). Comprehensive approach to verification and validation of CFD simulations-Part 1: methodology and procedures. ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, 123, 793–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stern, F. (2007). Quantitative V&V of CFD solutions and certification of CFD Codes with examples for ship hydrodynamics. In Symposium on Computational Uncertainty, AVT-147, December 2007, Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
  32. Tsang, C.-F. (1991). The modeling process and model validation. Ground Water, 29(6), 825–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilcox, D. C. (2006). Turbulence modeling for CFD. La Canada, California: DCW Industries.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ConsultantSocorroUSA

Personalised recommendations