Perspectives on machine learning-augmented Reynolds-averaged and large eddy simulation models of turbulence

This work presents a review and perspectives on recent developments in the use of machine learning (ML) to augment Reynolds-averaged Navier--Stokes (RANS) and Large Eddy Simulation (LES) models of turbulent flows. Different approaches of applying supervised learning to represent unclosed terms, model discrepancies and sub-filter scales are discussed in the context of RANS and LES modeling. Particular emphasis is placed on the impact of the training procedure on the consistency of ML augmentations with the underlying physical model. Techniques to promote model-consistent training, and to avoid the requirement of full fields of direct numerical simulation data are detailed. This is followed by a discussion of physics-informed and mathematical considerations on the choice of the feature space, and imposition of constraints on the ML model. With a view towards developing generalizable ML-augmented RANS and LES models, outstanding challenges are discussed, and perspectives are provided. While the promise of ML-augmented turbulence modeling is clear, and successes have been demonstrated in isolated scenarios, a general consensus of this paper is that truly generalizable models require model-consistent training with careful characterization of underlying assumptions and imposition of physically and mathematically informed priors and constraints to account for the inevitable shortage of data relevant to predictions of interest. This endeavor requires multi-disciplinary advances, and thus the target audience for this paper is the fluid mechanics community, as well as the computational science and machine learning communities.

[1]  Marco Davidovic,et al.  Using Physics-Informed Super-Resolution Generative Adversarial Networks for Subgrid Modeling in Turbulent Reactive Flows , 2019, ArXiv.

[2]  G. He,et al.  Subgrid-scale model for large-eddy simulation of isotropic turbulent flows using an artificial neural network , 2019, Computers & Fluids.

[3]  Yuji Hattori,et al.  Searching for turbulence models by artificial neural network , 2016, 1607.01042.

[4]  G. Iaccarino,et al.  Sensitivity of flow evolution on turbulence structure , 2016 .

[5]  Petros Koumoutsakos,et al.  Machine Learning for Fluid Mechanics , 2019, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics.

[6]  Julia Ling,et al.  Generalization of machine-learned turbulent heat flux models applied to film cooling flows , 2019, Journal of Turbomachinery.

[7]  Justin Sirignano,et al.  DPM: A deep learning PDE augmentation method (with application to large-eddy simulation) , 2019, J. Comput. Phys..

[8]  M. Giles,et al.  Algorithm Developments for Discrete Adjoint Methods , 2003 .

[9]  Modeling subgrid-scale stress by deconvolutional artificial neural networks in large eddy simulation of turbulence , 2020 .

[10]  T. Poinsot,et al.  Training convolutional neural networks to estimate turbulent sub-grid scale reaction rates , 2018, Combustion and Flame.

[11]  S. Girimaji,et al.  Turbulence closure modeling with data-driven techniques: physical compatibility and consistency considerations , 2020, 2004.03031.

[12]  Karthik Duraisamy,et al.  Machine Learning-augmented Predictive Modeling of Turbulent Separated Flows over Airfoils , 2016, ArXiv.

[13]  Karthik Duraisamy,et al.  Turbulence Modeling in the Age of Data , 2018, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics.

[14]  K. Duraisamy,et al.  Non-Markovian Closure Models for Large Eddy Simulations using the Mori-Zwanzig Formalism , 2016, 1611.03311.

[15]  S. Balachandar,et al.  Machine learning for physics-informed generation of dispersed multiphase flow using generative adversarial networks , 2020, Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics.

[16]  Qiqi Wang,et al.  Multiple shooting shadowing for sensitivity analysis of chaotic dynamical systems , 2017, J. Comput. Phys..

[17]  W. E,et al.  Modeling subgrid-scale forces by spatial artificial neural networks in large eddy simulation of turbulence , 2020 .

[18]  Julia Ling,et al.  Machine learning strategies for systems with invariance properties , 2016, J. Comput. Phys..

[19]  Gianluca Geraci,et al.  Optimal estimator and artificial neural network as efficient tools for the subgrid-scale scalar flux modeling , 2014 .

[20]  Roney L. Thompson,et al.  A methodology to evaluate statistical errors in DNS data of plane channel flows , 2016 .

[21]  Philippe R. Spalart,et al.  Philosophies and fallacies in turbulence modeling , 2015 .

[22]  Anand Pratap Singh,et al.  New Approaches in Turbulence and Transition Modeling Using Data-driven Techniques , 2015 .

[23]  Jinlong Wu,et al.  Physics-informed machine learning approach for augmenting turbulence models: A comprehensive framework , 2018, Physical Review Fluids.

[24]  Karthik Duraisamy,et al.  Modal Analysis of Fluid Flows: Applications and Outlook , 2019, AIAA Journal.

[25]  Ray W. Grout,et al.  Machine Learning of Combustion LES Models from Reacting Direct Numerical Simulation , 2020 .

[26]  G. Tryggvason,et al.  Using statistical learning to close two-fluid multiphase flow equations for a simple bubbly system , 2015 .

[27]  Christophe Eric Corre,et al.  Subgrid-scale scalar flux modelling based on optimal estimation theory and machine-learning procedures , 2017 .

[28]  Karthik Duraisamy,et al.  Towards Integrated Field Inversion and Machine Learning With Embedded Neural Networks for RANS Modeling , 2019, AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum.

[29]  Karthik Duraisamy,et al.  A paradigm for data-driven predictive modeling using field inversion and machine learning , 2016, J. Comput. Phys..

[30]  Prakash Vedula,et al.  A priori analysis on deep learning of subgrid-scale parameterizations for Kraichnan turbulence , 2019, Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics.

[31]  F. Sarghini,et al.  Neural networks based subgrid scale modeling in large eddy simulations , 2003 .

[33]  R. Sandberg,et al.  Large eddy simulations of wall jets with coflow for the study of turbulent Prandtl number variations and data-driven modeling , 2020, Physical Review Fluids.

[34]  Jinlong Wu,et al.  Physics-informed machine learning approach for reconstructing Reynolds stress modeling discrepancies based on DNS data , 2016, 1606.07987.

[35]  C. L. Teo,et al.  A neural net approach in analyzing photograph in PIV , 1991, Conference Proceedings 1991 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[36]  R. Fox,et al.  Sparse identification of multiphase turbulence closures for coupled fluid–particle flows , 2020, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[37]  Richard D. Sandberg,et al.  Turbulence Model Development using CFD-Driven Machine Learning , 2019 .

[38]  S. Beetham,et al.  Formulating turbulence closures using sparse regression with embedded form invariance , 2020 .

[39]  K. Duraisamy,et al.  Using field inversion to quantify functional errors in turbulence closures , 2016 .

[40]  Petros Koumoutsakos,et al.  Efficient collective swimming by harnessing vortices through deep reinforcement learning , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  Xia Hu,et al.  Techniques for interpretable machine learning , 2018, Commun. ACM.

[42]  J. Templeton,et al.  Reynolds averaged turbulence modelling using deep neural networks with embedded invariance , 2016, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[43]  Qiqi Wang,et al.  Sensitivity analysis on chaotic dynamical systems by Finite Difference Non-Intrusive Least Squares Shadowing (FD-NILSS) , 2017, J. Comput. Phys..

[44]  Karthik Duraisamy,et al.  Status, Emerging Ideas and Future Directions of Turbulence Modeling Research in Aeronautics , 2017 .

[45]  Omer San,et al.  A neural network approach for the blind deconvolution of turbulent flows , 2017, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[46]  Julia Ling,et al.  Turbulent scalar flux in inclined jets in crossflow: counter gradient transport and deep learning modelling , 2020, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[47]  Michele Milano,et al.  Neural network modeling for near wall turbulent flow , 2002 .

[48]  Paola Cinnella,et al.  Quantification of model uncertainty in RANS simulations: A review , 2018, Progress in Aerospace Sciences.

[49]  P. Durbin Some Recent Developments in Turbulence Closure Modeling , 2018 .

[50]  K. Duraisamy,et al.  Augmentation of turbulence models using field inversion and machine learning , 2017 .

[51]  Paola Cinnella,et al.  Discovery of Algebraic Reynolds-Stress Models Using Sparse Symbolic Regression , 2019 .

[52]  Isabelle Guyon,et al.  An Introduction to Variable and Feature Selection , 2003, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[53]  Stefan P. Domino,et al.  A Framework for Characterizing Structural Uncertainty in Large-Eddy Simulation Closures , 2018 .

[54]  Nils Thürey,et al.  tempoGAN: A Temporally Coherent, Volumetric GAN for Super-resolution Fluid Flow , 2018, ACM Trans. Graph..

[55]  Todd A. Oliver,et al.  Bayesian uncertainty quantification applied to RANS turbulence models , 2011 .

[56]  K. Taira,et al.  Super-resolution reconstruction of turbulent flows with machine learning , 2018, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[57]  Steven L. Brunton,et al.  Data-Driven Identification of Parametric Partial Differential Equations , 2018, SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst..

[58]  Brendan D. Tracey,et al.  Application of supervised learning to quantify uncertainties in turbulence and combustion modeling , 2013 .

[59]  N. Adams,et al.  An approximate deconvolution procedure for large-eddy simulation , 1999 .

[60]  P. A. Durbin,et al.  Transition modeling using data driven approaches , 2014 .

[61]  Hyojin Kim,et al.  Unsupervised deep learning for super-resolution reconstruction of turbulence , 2020, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[62]  Jonathan R. Holland,et al.  Field Inversion and Machine Learning With Embedded Neural Networks: Physics-Consistent Neural Network Training , 2019, AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum.

[63]  Heng Xiao,et al.  Quantifying and reducing model-form uncertainties in Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes simulations: A data-driven, physics-informed Bayesian approach , 2015, J. Comput. Phys..

[64]  G. Tryggvason,et al.  Using statistical learning to close two-fluid multiphase flow equations for bubbly flows in vertical channels , 2016 .

[65]  K. Duraisamy,et al.  Informing turbulence closures with computational and experimental data , 2016 .

[66]  Chao Ma,et al.  Modeling subgrid-scale force and divergence of heat flux of compressible isotropic turbulence by artificial neural network , 2019, Physical Review Fluids.

[67]  Richard D. Sandberg,et al.  The development of algebraic stress models using a novel evolutionary algorithm , 2017 .

[68]  Michael Schäfer,et al.  Data-driven Augmentation of RANS Turbulence Models for Improved Prediction of Separation in Wall-bounded Flows , 2020 .

[69]  Andrew Pollard,et al.  Evaluation of Turbulence Models Using Direct Numerical and Large-Eddy Simulation Data , 2011 .

[70]  Richard Sandberg,et al.  A novel evolutionary algorithm applied to algebraic modifications of the RANS stress-strain relationship , 2016, J. Comput. Phys..

[71]  R. Moser,et al.  Optimal LES formulations for isotropic turbulence , 1999, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[72]  Joseph Mathew,et al.  A NEW APPROACH TO LES BASED ON EXPLICIT FILTERING , 2006, Proceeding of Fourth International Symposium on Turbulence and Shear Flow Phenomena.

[73]  Zhixiang Xiao,et al.  Improving the k–ω–γ–Ar transition model by the field inversion and machine learning framework , 2020 .

[74]  Brendan D. Tracey,et al.  A Machine Learning Strategy to Assist Turbulence Model Development , 2015 .

[75]  Kai Fukami,et al.  Machine-learning-based spatio-temporal super resolution reconstruction of turbulent flows , 2020, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[76]  Jian Fang,et al.  Iterative Framework of Machine-Learning Based Turbulence Modeling for Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Simulations , 2019 .

[77]  Qiqi Wang,et al.  Quantification of structural uncertainties in the k − ω turbulence model , 2010 .

[78]  T. Lund The use of explicit filters in large eddy simulation , 2003 .

[79]  Sravya Nimmagadda,et al.  Turbulence Enrichment using Generative Adversarial Networks , 2018 .