ASME V V 10.1 illustrates, by detailed example, the most important aspects of verification and validation (V&V) described in the Committee\u2019s framework document \u201cGuide to Verification and Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics\u201d (V&V10-2006). The Guide intentionally omitted examples as its purpose was to provide \u201ca common language, a conceptual framework, and general guidance for implementing the process of computational model V&V\u201d, an already broad scope for a 25 page consensus document. The present document is the first in a series of more detailed and practical ones the Committee has planned to incrementally fill the gap between the Guide and a set of recommended practices. ASME\u2019s growing portfolio of V&V standards now become essential resources and references for anyone engaged with computational modeling. Intended for those engaged with medical devices, material science, defense applications, structural dynamics, automotive, aerospace, civil, mechanical, and nuclear engineering, solid mechanics, fluid and thermal dynamics, and many other industries worldwide.<\/p>\n
| PDF Pages<\/th>\n | PDF Title<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6<\/td>\n | FOREWORD <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 7<\/td>\n | COMMITTEE ROSTER <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 8<\/td>\n | CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE V&V COMMITTEE <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 9<\/td>\n | 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 INTRODUCTION <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 10<\/td>\n | 3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 4 BACKGROUND <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 11<\/td>\n | Figures \n Fig. 1 V&V Activities and Products <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 12<\/td>\n | Fig. 2 Validation Hierarchy Illustration for an Aircraft Wing <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 13<\/td>\n | 5 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION PLAN <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 14<\/td>\n | Fig. 3 Schematic of the Hollow Tapered Cantilever Beam <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 15<\/td>\n | Fig. 4 Estimating a Probability Density FunctionFrom an Uncertainty Estimate, \ufffd <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 16<\/td>\n | Fig. 5 Illustration of the Two Validation Approaches Fig. 6 Illustration of the Basis of the Area Metric <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 17<\/td>\n | 6 MODEL DEVELOPMENT <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 18<\/td>\n | 7 VERIFICATION <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 19<\/td>\n | Tables Table 1 Normalized Deflections <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 20<\/td>\n | Fig. 7 Errors in Normalized Deflections <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 21<\/td>\n | Table 2 Numerical Solutions for Tip Deflections <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 22<\/td>\n | 8 VALIDATION APPROACH 1 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 23<\/td>\n | 9 VALIDATION APPROACH 2 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 24<\/td>\n | Fig. 8 Area Between the Experimental and Computed CDF Fig. 9 Empirical CDF of the Validation Experiment Data Table 3 Measured Beam-Tip Deflections From the Validation Experiments <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 25<\/td>\n | Table 4 Test Measurements of the Modulus of Elasticity, E <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 26<\/td>\n | Fig. 10 Random Variability in Modulus, E, Used in the Computational Model Table 5 Test Estimates of the Support Flexibility <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 27<\/td>\n | Fig. 11 Random Variability in Support Flexibility, fr , Used in the Computational Model <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 28<\/td>\n | Fig. 12 Input Uncertainty Propagation Process Fig. 13 Computed CDF of Beam Tip Deflection <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 29<\/td>\n | 10 SUMMARY 11 CONCLUDING REMARKS Fig. 14 CDF of the Model-Predicted Tip Deflection, Empirical CDF of the Validation Experiment Tip Deflections,and Area Between Them (Shaded Region) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 30<\/td>\n | 12 REFERENCES <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ASME V V 10.1 – 2012(R2022) – An Illustration of the Concepts of Verification and Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics<\/b><\/p>\n |