Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T02:20:02.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Predictive capability

from Part IV - Model validation and prediction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2013

William L. Oberkampf  and
Christopher J. Roy
Christopher J. Roy
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Get access

Summary

This chapter will synthesize the key results from the previous chapters and incorporate them into modern predictive capability in scientific computing. This chapter, in contrast to all other chapters, does not stress the theme of assessment. Here we discuss the fundamental steps in conducting a nondeterministic analysis of a system of interest. With this discussion we show how verification and validation (V&V) can directly contribute to predictive capability.

The previously covered material and the new material are organized into six procedural steps to make a prediction:

  1. identify all relevant sources of uncertainty,

  2. characterize each source of uncertainty,

  3. estimate numerical solution error in the system response quantities of interest,

  4. estimate uncertainty in the system response quantities of interest,

  5. conduct model updating,

  6. conduct sensitivity analysis.

All of these steps, except step 3, are widely practiced in nondeterministic simulations and risk analysis. Step 3 is not commonly addressed for three reasons. First, in many simulations the numerical solution error is assumed to be small compared to other contributors to uncertainty. Sometimes this assumption is quantitatively justified, and sometimes it is simply posited with little or no evidence. Second, in some computationally intensive simulations, it is understood that the numerical solution error is important, and possibly even dominant, but it is argued that various modeling parameters can be adjusted to compensate for the numerical error. If the application of interest is sufficiently similar to the conditions for which experimental data are available, then it is claimed that the adjustable parameters can be used to match the existing data and thereby make reasonable predictions. Third, even if the numerical error is estimated, and it is not small relative to other uncertainties, there are no generally accepted procedures for including its effect on the system response quantities (SRQs) of interest.

Type
Chapter
Information
Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing , pp. 555 - 670
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Almond, R. G. (1995). Graphical Belief Modeling. 1st edn., London, Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ang, A. H.-S. and Tang, W. H. (2007). Probability Concepts in Engineering: Emphasis on Applications to Civil and Environmental Engineering. 2nd edn., New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
Angus, J. E. (1994). The probability integral transform and related results. SIAM Review. 36(4), 652–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aster, R., Borchers, B., and Thurber, C. (2005). Parameter Estimation and Inverse Problems, Burlington, MA, Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Aughenbaugh, J. M. and Paredis, C. J. J. (2006). The value of using imprecise probabilities in engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design. 128, 969–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayyub, B. M. (1994). The nature of uncertainty in structural engineering. In Uncertainty Modelling and Analysis: Theory and Applications. Ayyub, B. M. and Gupta, M. M. (eds.). New York, Elsevier: 195–210.Google Scholar
Ayyub, B. M. (2001). Elicitation of Expert Opinions for Uncertainty and Risks, Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayyub, B. M. and Klir, G. J. (2006). Uncertainty Modeling and Analysis in Engineering and the Sciences, Boca Raton, FL, Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bae, H.-R., Grandhi, R. V., and Canfield, R. A. (2006). Sensitivity analysis of structural response uncertainty propagation using evidence theory. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization. 31(4), 270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardossy, G. and Fodor, J. (2004). Evaluation of Uncertainties and Risks in Geology: New Mathematical Approaches for their Handling, Berlin, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baudrit, C. and Dubois, D. (2006). Practical representations of incomplete probabilistic knowledge. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. 51, 86–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, M. B. (1987). Water quality modeling: a review of the analysis of uncertainty. Water Resources Research. 23(8), 1393–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedford, T. and Cooke, R. (2001). Probabilistic Risk Analysis: Foundations and Methods, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beliakov, G., Pradera, A., and Calvo, T. (2007). Aggregation Functions: a Guide for Practitioners, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Berendsen, H. J. C. (2007). Simulating the Physical World; Hierarchical Modeling from Quantum Mechanics to Fluid Dynamics, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, A. and Tonon, F. (2010). Bounding Uncertainty in Civil Engineering, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernardo, J. M. and Smith, A. F. M. (1994). Bayesian Theory, New York, John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogen, K. T. and Spear, R. C. (1987). Integrating uncertainty and interindividual variability in environmental risk assessment. Risk Analysis. 7(4), 427–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouchon-Meunier, B., ed. (1998). Aggregation and Fusion of Imperfect Information. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. New York, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, G. E. P., Hunter, J. S., and Hunter, W. G. (2005). Statistics for Experimenters: Design, Innovation, and Discovery. 2nd edn., New York, John Wiley.Google Scholar
Bucalem, M. L. and Bathe, K. J. (2008). The Mechanics of Solids and Structures: Hierarchical Modeling, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Butcher, J. C. (2008). Numerical Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations. 2nd edn., Hoboken, NJ, Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casella, G. and Berger, R. L. (2002). Statistical Inference. 2nd edn., Pacific Grove, CA, Duxbury.Google Scholar
Cellier, F. E. and Kofman, E. (2006). Continuous System Simulation, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Choi, S.-K., Grandhi, R. V., and Canfield, R. A. (2007). Reliability-based Structural Design, London, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Coleman, H. W. and Stern, F. (1997). Uncertainties and CFD code validation. Journal of Fluids Engineering. 119, 795–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couso, I., Moral, S., and Walley, P. (2000). A survey of concepts of independence for imprecise probabilities. Risk Decision and Policy. 5, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, D. R. (2006). Principles of Statistical Inference, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cozman, F. G. and Walley, P. (2001). Graphoid properties of epistemic irrelevance and independence. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Imprecise Probability and Their Applications, Ithaca, NY, Shaker Publishing.
Crassidis, J. L. and Junkins, J. L. (2004). Optimal Estimation of Dynamics Systems, Boca Raton, FL, Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullen, A. C. and Frey, H. C. (1999). Probabilistic Techniques in Exposure Assessment: a Handbook for Dealing with Variability and Uncertainty in Models and Inputs, New York, Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Devore, J. L. (2007). Probability and Statistics for Engineers and the Sciences. 7th edn., Pacific Grove, CA, Duxbury.Google Scholar
Dimov, I. T. (2008). Monte Carlo Methods for Applied Scientists. 2nd edn., World Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
Dowding, K. J., Pilch, M., and Hills, R. G. (2008). Formulation of the thermal problem. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 197(29–32), 2385–2389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. (1998). Applied Regression Analysis. 3rd edn., New York, John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duggirala, R. K., Roy, C. J., Saeidi, S. M., Khodadadi, J. M., Cahela, D. R., and Tatarchuk, B. J. (2008). Pressure drop predictions in microfibrous materials using computational fluid dynamics. Journal of Fluids Engineering. 130(7), 071302–1,071302–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap, London, Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EPA (2009). Guidance on the Development, Evaluation, and Application of Environmental Models. EPA/100/K-09/003, Washington, DC, Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
Ferson, S. (1996). What Monte Carlo methods cannot do. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 2(4), 990–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferson, S. (2002). RAMAS Risk Calc 4.0 Software: Risk Assessment with Uncertain Numbers. Setauket, NY, Applied Biomathematics.
Ferson, S. and Ginzburg, L. R. (1996). Different methods are needed to propagate ignorance and variability. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 54, 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferson, S. and Hajagos, J. G. (2004). Arithmetic with uncertain numbers: rigorous and (often) best possible answers. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 85(1–3), 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferson, S. and Tucker, W. T. (2006). Sensitivity in Risk Analyses with Uncertain Numbers. SAND2006–2801, Albuquerque, NM, Sandia National Laboratories.
Ferson, S., Kreinovich, V., Ginzburg, L., Myers, D. S., and Sentz, K. (2003). Constructing Probability Boxes and Dempster-Shafer Structures. SAND2003–4015, Albuquerque, NM, Sandia National Laboratories.CrossRef
Ferson, S., Nelsen, R. B., Hajagos, J., Berleant, D. J., Zhang, J., Tucker, W. T., Ginzburg, L. R., and Oberkampf, W. L. (2004). Dependence in Probabilistic Modeling, Dempster-Shafer Theory, and Probability Bounds Analysis. SAND2004–3072, Albuquerque, NM, Sandia National Laboratories.
Ferson, S., Hajagos, J., Myers, D. S., and Tucker, W. T. (2005). CONSTRUCTOR: Synthesizing Information about Uncertain Variables. SAND2005–3769, Albuquerque, NM, Sandia National Laboratories.
Ferson, S., Oberkampf, W. L., and Ginzburg, L. (2008). Model validation and predictive capability for the thermal challenge problem. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 197, 2408–2430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetz, T., Oberguggenberger, M., and Pittschmann, S. (2000). Applications of possibility and evidence theory in civil engineering. International Journal of Uncertainty. 8(3), 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, M. V. (1999). Treatment of uncertainties in space nuclear risk assessment with examples from Cassini Mission applications. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 66, 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, H. C. and Rhodes, D. S. (1996). Characterizing, simulating, and analyzing variability and uncertainty: an illustration of methods using an air toxics emissions example. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 2(4), 762–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A. B., Carlin, J. S., Stern, H. S., and Rubin, D. B. (1995). Bayesian Data Analysis, London, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Ghanem, R. G. and Spanos, P. D. (2003). Stochastic Finite Elements: a Spectral Approach. Revised edn., Mineola, NY, Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Ghosh, J. K., Delampady, M., and Samanta, T. (2006). An Introduction to Bayesian Analysis: Theory and Methods, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Haimes, Y. Y. (2009). Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management. 3rd edn., New York, John Wiley.Google Scholar
Haldar, A. and Mahadevan, S. (2000a). Probability, Reliability, and Statistical Methods in Engineering Design, New York, John Wiley.Google Scholar
Haldar, A. and Mahadevan, S. (2000b). Reliability Assessment Using Stochastic Finite Element Analysis, New York, John Wiley.Google Scholar
Halpern, J. Y. (2003). Reasoning About Uncertainty, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Helton, J. C. (1994). Treatment of uncertainty in performance assessments for complex systems. Risk Analysis. 14(4), 483–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helton, J. C. (1997). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in the presence of stochastic and subjective uncertainty. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation. 57, 3–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helton, J. C. (2003). Mathematical and numerical approaches in performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal: dealing with uncertainty. In Modelling Radioactivity in the Environment. Scott, E. M. (ed.). New York, NY, Elsevier Science Ltd.: 353–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helton, J. C. and Davis, F. J. (2003). Latin Hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 81(1), 23–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helton, J. C. and Sallaberry, C. J. (2007). Illustration of Sampling-Based Approaches to the Calculation of Expected Dose in Performance Assessments for the Proposed High Level Radioactive Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. SAND2007–1353, Albuquerque, NM, Sandia National Laboratories.CrossRef
Helton, J. C., Anderson, D. R., Basabilvazo, G., Jow, H.-N., and Marietta, M. G. (2000). Conceptual structure of the 1996 performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 69(1–3), 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helton, J. C., Johnson, J. D., and Oberkampf, W. L. (2004). An exploration of alternative approaches to the representation of uncertainty in model predictions. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 85(1–3), 39–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helton, J. C., Davis, F. J., and Johnson, J. D. (2005b). A comparison of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis results obtained with random and Latin Hypercube sampling. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 89(3), 305–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helton, J. C., Oberkampf, W. L., and Johnson, J. D. (2005a). Competing failure risk analysis using evidence theory. Risk Analysis. 25(4), 973–995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Helton, J. C., Johnson, J. D., Sallaberry, C. J., and Storlie, C. B. (2006). Survey of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 91(10–11), 1175–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higdon, D., Nakhleh, C., Battiker, J., and Williams, B. (2009). A Bayesian calibration approach to the thermal problem. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 197(29–32), 2431–2441.
Hills, R. G., Pilch, M., Dowding, K. J., Red-Horse, J., Paez, T. L., Babuska, I., and Tempone, R. (2008). Validation Challenge Workshop. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 197(29–32), 2375–2380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, F. O. and Hammonds, J. S. (1994). Propagation of uncertainty in risk assessments: the need to distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variability. Risk Analysis. 14(5), 707–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hora, S. C. (1996). Aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in probability elicitation with an example from hazardous waste management. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 54, 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleb, B. and Johnston, C. O. (2008). Uncertainty analysis of air radiation for lunar return shock layers. AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, AIAA 2008–6388, Honolulu, HI, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.CrossRef
Klir, G. J. and Wierman, M. J. (1998). Uncertainty-Based Information: Elements of Generalized Information Theory, Heidelberg, Physica-Verlag.Google Scholar
Kohlas, J. and Monney, P.-A. (1995). A Mathematical Theory of Hints – an Approach to the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, P. and Clark, D. (1993). Representing Uncertain Knowledge: an Artificial Intelligence Approach, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreinovich, V., Beck, J., Ferregut, C., Sanchez, A., Keller, G. R., Averill, M., and Starks, S. A. (2007). Monte-Carlo-type techniques for processing interval uncertainty, and their potential engineering applications. Reliable Computing. 13, 25–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriegler, E. and Held, H. (2005). Utilizing belief functions for the estimation of future climate change. International Journal for Approximate Reasoning. 39, 185–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumamoto, H. (2007). Satisfying Safety Goals by Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Kyburg, H. E. and Teng, C. M. (2001). Uncertain Inference, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, T. and Hsu, J. S. J. (1999). Bayesian Methods: an Analysis for Statisticians and Interdisciplinary Researchers, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liu, F., Bayarri, M. J., Berger, J. O., Paulo, R., and Sacks, J. (2009). A Bayesian analysis of the thermal challenge problem. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 197(29–32), 2457–2466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melchers, R. E. (1999). Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction. 2nd edn., New York, John Wiley.Google Scholar
Meyer, M. A. and Booker, J. M. (2001). Eliciting and Analyzing Expert Judgment: a Practical Guide, New York, Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modarres, M., Kaminskiy, M., and Krivtsov, V. (1999). Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis; a Practical Guide, Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press.Google Scholar
Montgomery, D. C. (2000). Design and Analysis of Experiments. 5th edn., Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. G. and Henrion, M. (1990). Uncertainty: a Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. 1st edn., Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukhopadhyay, N. (2000). Probability and Statistical Inference, Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press.Google Scholar
NASA (2002). Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide for NASA Managers and Practitioners. Washington, DC, NASA.
Nikolaidis, E., Ghiocel, D. M., and Singhal, S., eds. (2005). Engineering Design Reliability Handbook. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press.Google Scholar
NRC (2009). Guidance on the Treatment of Uncertainties Assoicated with PRAs in Risk-Informed Decision Making. Washington, DC, Nuclear Regulator Commission.
Oberkampf, W. L. and Ferson, S. (2007). Model validation under both aleatory and epistemic uncertainty. NATO/RTO Symposium on Computational Uncertainty in Military Vehicle Design, AVT-147/RSY-022, Athens, Greece, NATO.
Oberkampf, W. L. and Helton, J. C. (2005). Evidence theory for engineering applications. In Engineering Design Reliability Handbook. Nikolaidis, E., Ghiocel, D. M., and Singhal, S. (eds.). New York, NY, CRC Press: 29.Google Scholar
Parry, G. W. (1996). The characterization of uncertainty in probabilistic risk assessments of complex systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 54, 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paté-Cornell, M. E. (1996). Uncertainties in risk analysis: six levels of treatment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 54, 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilch, M. (2008). Preface: Sandia National Laboratories Validation Challenge Workshop. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 197(29–32), 2373–2374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinovich, S. G. (2005). Measurement Errors and Uncertainties: Theory and Practice. 3rd edn., New York, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Rai, S. N., Krewski, D., and Bartlett, S. (1996). A general framework for the analysis of uncertainty and variability in risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 2(4), 972–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raol, J. R., Girija, G., and Singh, J. (2004). Modelling and Parameter Estimation of Dynamic Systems, London, UK, Institution of Engineering and Technology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roache, P. J. (1998). Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering, Albuquerque, NM, Hermosa Publishers.Google Scholar
Ross, S. M. (2006). Simulation. 4th edn., Burlington, MA, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rowe, W. D. (1994). Understanding uncertainty. Risk Analysis. 14(5), 743–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, R. Y. and Kroese, D. P. (2008). Simulation and the Monte Carlo Method. 2nd edn., Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley.Google Scholar
Rutherford, B. M. (2008). Computational modeling issues and methods for the “Regulatory Problem” in engineering – solution to the thermal problem. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 197(29–32), 2480–2489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sallaberry, C. J., Helton, J. C., and Hora, S. C. (2008). Extension of Latin Hypercube samples with correlated variables. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 93, 1047–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Saisana, M., and Tarantola, S. (2008). Global Sensitivity Analysis: the Primer, Hoboken, NJ, Wiley.Google Scholar
Sentz, K. and Ferson, S. (2002). Combination of Evidence in Dempster-Shafer Theory. SAND2002–0835, Albuquerque, NM, Sandia National Laboratories.CrossRef
Singh, V. P., Jain, S. K., and Tyagi, A. (2007). Risk and Reliability Analysis: a Handbook for Civil and Environmental Engineers, New York, American Society of Civil Engineers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singpurwalla, N. D. (2006). Reliability and Risk: a Bayesian Perspective, New York, NY, Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sivia, D. and Skilling, J. (2006). Data Analysis: a Bayesian Tutorial. 2nd edn., Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steinhauser, M. O. (2008). Computational Multiscale Modeling of Fluids and Solids: Theory and Applications, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Stern, F., Wilson, R. V., Coleman, H. W., and Paterson, E. G. (2001). Comprehensive approach to verification and validation of CFD simulations – Part 1: Methodology and procedures. Journal of Fluids Engineering. 123(4), 793–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storlie, C. B. and Helton, J. C. (2008a). Multiple predictor smoothing methods for sensitivity analysis: description of techniques. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 93(1), 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storlie, C. B. and Helton, J. C. (2008b). Multiple predictor smoothing methods for sensitivity analysis: example results. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 93(1), 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suter, G. W. (2007). Ecological Risk Assessment. 2nd edn., Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press.Google Scholar
Torra, V. and Narukawa, Y. (2007). Modeling Decision: Information Fusion and Aggregation Operators, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Trucano, T. G., Pilch, M., and Oberkampf, W. L. (2002). General Concepts for Experimental Validation of ASCI Code Applications. SAND2002–0341, Albuquerque, NM, Sandia National Laboratories.CrossRef
van den Bos, A (2007). Parameter Estimation for Scientists and Engineers, Hoboken, NJ, Wiley-Interscience.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinnem, J. E. (2007). Offshore Risk Assessment: Principles, Modelling and Applications of QRA Studies, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Vose, D. (2008). Risk Analysis: a Quantitative Guide. 3rd edn., New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
Wasserman, L. A. (2004). All of Statistics: a Concise Course in Statistical Inference, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. V., Stern, F., Coleman, H. W., and Paterson, E. G. (2001). Comprehensive approach to verification and validation of CFD simulations – Part 2: Application for RANS simulation of a cargo/container ship. Journal of Fluids Engineering. 123(4), 803–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yager, R. R., Kacprzyk, J., and Fedrizzi, M., eds. (1994). Advances in the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence. New York, John Wiley.Google Scholar
Young, G. A. and Smith, R. L. (2005). Essentials of Statistical Inference, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zienkiewicz, O. C. and Zhu, J. Z. (1992). The superconvergent patch recovery and a posteriori error estimates. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 33, 1365–1382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×