Uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis Table 4-7 summarizes a progression of criteria consistent with a given level of rigor, that mostly restates the requirements embedded in the V&V criteria describes above. Table . UQ and SA versus Levels of Rigor Level UQ/SA Activity Responsible party Review Decision informed 0 Approximate physical Analyst, using expert Little, Is approach physically uncertainties. judgment none. plausible and computationally Numerical feasible? uncertainties estimated to be in physically meaningful regime 1 Evaluate physical Analyst, using expert Peers and Has the approach uncertainties. judgment augmented achieved credible by numerical tests and accuracy for process, and Numerical UQ for validations selected by what would be needed (assumed) dominant judgment-ranked for that accuracy and its sensitivities bounded dominant sources of uncertainties to be fully to be in meaningful uncertainties. assessed? regime. 2 Physical uncertainties Analyst, using detailed Team. Has the capability fully assessed, all comprehensive matured sufficiently to significant sources of analysis, be used in an numerical with systematic engineering assessment uncertainties assessed investigation of UQ to of an upscaled model or verified to be all significant incorporating the bounded to less than parameters, and modeled process? physical uncertainty. detailed validation. SA for input materials Team, through review models identified and and assessment of estimated. model in continuum M&S. 3 Uncertainties Analyst. Indep. Can the modeling of the comprehensively Review process be refined Team, through review analyzed, with no sufficiently to meet and assessment of significant performance assessment model in continuum assumptions. requirement with desired M&S, with confidence? SA for input materials models assessed and SA. propagated as requirements to lower scale.
Uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis Table 4-7 summarizes a progression of criteria consistent with a given level of rigor, that mostly restates the requirements embedded in the V&V criteria describes above. Table . UQ and SA versus Levels of Rigor Level UQ/SA Activity Responsible party Review Decision informed 0 Approximate physical uncertainties. Numerical uncertainties estimated to be in physically meaningful regime Analyst, using expert judgment Little, none. Is approach physically plausible and computationally feasible? 1 Evaluate physical uncertainties. Numerical UQ for (assumed) dominant sensitivities bounded to be in meaningful regime. Analyst, using expert judgment augmented by numerical tests and validations selected by judgment-ranked dominant sources of uncertainties. Peers and Has the approach achieved credible accuracy for process, and what would be needed for that accuracy and its uncertainties to be fully assessed? 2 Physical uncertainties fully assessed, all significant sources of numerical uncertainties assessed or verified to be bounded to less than physical uncertainty. SA for input materials models identified and estimated. Analyst, using detailed comprehensive analysis, with systematic investigation of UQ to all significant parameters, and detailed validation. Team, through review and assessment of model in continuum M&S. Team. Has the capability matured sufficiently to be used in an engineering assessment of an upscaled model incorporating the modeled process? 3 Uncertainties comprehensively analyzed, with no significant assumptions. SA for input materials models assessed and propagated as requirements to lower scale. Analyst. Team, through review and assessment of model in continuum M&S, with SA. Indep. Review Can the modeling of the process be refined sufficiently to meet performance assessment requirement with desired confidence?
Subcontinuum-VandV-SAND.docx