Methods of Model Verification

  • David J. Murray-Smith
Part of the Simulation Foundations, Methods and Applications book series (SFMA)


“Verification” is the word used to describe the process that attempts to establish that a computer simulation model is consistent with the underlying conceptual or mathematical model upon which it is based. It involves trying to ensure that the computational model contains no errors in terms of logic and coding, including the choice of the numerical algorithms being used for integration and other operations that are important for simulation applications. The three most commonly-used approaches to the detection of run-time errors in simulation models are code reviews, static-analysis methods and dynamic testing for carefully chosen cases. A further aspect of the verification process involves demonstrating the accuracy of data used for the simulation and estimating errors in numerical solutions and this is usually approached through tests involving well-understood situations. The chapter also includes discussion of more specific issues concerning the verification of simulation models based on ordinary differential equations, models involving differential algebraic equations, models based on partial differential equations and models involving discrete-event or hybrid descriptions. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the role of formal methods in simulation model verification.


Model Verification Differential Algebraic Equation Federal Aviation Administration Code Review Distribute Parameter Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Oberkampf WL (2007) Predictive capabilities in computational science and engineering. Presented at OASCR applied mathematics PI meeting, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 22–24 May 2007. Accessed 9 June 2015
  2. 2.
    Murray-Smith DJ (1998) Methods for the external validation of continuous system simulation models: a review. Math Comput Model Dyn Syst 4(1):5–31CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kit E (1995) Software testing in the real world. Addison Wesley, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaner C, Falk J, Nguyen HQ (1999) Testing computer software, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heyhurst KL, Veerhusen DS, Chilenski JL, Rierson LK (2001) A practical tutorial on modified condition/decision coverage, NASA/TM-2001-210876. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center, HamptonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anonymous (2011) DO-331 Model-based development and verification supplement to DO-178C and DO-278A. RTCA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oberkampf WL, Blottner FG (1998) Issues in computational fluid dynamics code verification and validation. AIAA J 36(5):687–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Steinberg S, Roache PJ (1985) Symbolic manipulation and computational fluid dynamics. J Comp Phys 57:251–284MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roache PJ (1997) Quantification of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 29:123–160MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roache PJ (1998) Verification of codes and calculations. AIAA J 56(5):696–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuhn DR, Chandramouli R, Butler RW (2002) Cost effective use of formal methods in verification and validation. Invited paper, Presented at foundations ’02 workshop, US Department of Defense, Laurel, Maryland, 22–23 October 2002Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    PolySpace® tools by MathWorks™. Accessed 5 June 2015

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Murray-Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EngineeringUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations