Cited by 4,327Computational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational MathematicsDifferential Equations and Numerical Methods

Procedure for Estimation and Reporting of Uncertainty Due to Discretization in CFD Applications

Open access
·2008·Journal of Fluids Engineering

Abstract

Since 1990, the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME has pursued activities concerning the detection, estimation and control of numerical uncertainty and/or error in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) studies. The first quality-control measures in this area were issued in 1986 (1986, “Editorial Policy Statement on Control of Numerical Accuracy,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 108, p. 2) and revised in 1993 (1993, “Journal of Fluids Engineering Editorial Policy Statement on the Control of Numerical Accuracy,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 115, pp. 339–340). Given the continued increase in CFD related publications, and the many significant advancements in computational techniques and computer technology, it has become necessary to revisit the issue and formulate a more detailed policy to further improve the quality of publications in this area. This brief note provides specific guidelines for prospective authors for calculation and reporting of discretization error estimates in CFD simulations where experimental data may or may not be available for comparison. The underlying perspective is that CFD-related studies will eventually aim to predict the outcome of a physical event for which experimental data is not available. It should be emphasized that the requirements outlined in this note do not preclude those already published in the previous two policy statements. It is also important to keep in mind that the procedure recommended in this note cannot possibly encompass all possible scenarios or applications.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1115/1.2960953

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Venue
Journal of Fluids Engineering
Published
2008
Volume
130
Issue
7
Pages
078001
ISSN
0098-2202 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3136169931
Cited by
4,327
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 414 · 2025: 535 · 2024: 489 · 2023: 500 · 2022: 458 · 2021: 386 · 2020: 317 · 2019: 258 · 2018: 215 · 2017: 183 · 2016: 142 · 2015: 117 · 2014: 78 · 2013: 80 · 2012: 59
FWCI
31.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Fluids Engineering (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Computational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Advanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Numerical Analysis › Differential Equations and Numerical Methods
Keywords
discretization error, uncertainty estimation, computational fluid dynamics, numerical accuracy, uncertainty reporting, author guidelines, numerical uncertainty, comparison with experimental data

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review