Design Space Exploration of Turbulent Multiphase Flows Using Machine Learning-Based Surrogate Model

This study focuses on establishing a surrogate model based on machine learning techniques to predict the time-averaged spatially distributed behaviors of vaporizing liquid jets in turbulent air crossflow for momentum flux ratios between 5 and 120. This surrogate model extends a previously developed Gaussian-process-based framework applicable to laminar flows to accommodate turbulent flows and demonstrates that in addition to detailed fields of primitive variables, second-order turbulence statistics can also be predicted using machine learning techniques. The framework proceeds in 3 steps—(1) design of experiment studies to identify training points and conducting high-fidelity calculations to build the training dataset; (2) Gaussian process regression (supervised training) for the range of operating conditions under consideration for gaseous and dispersed phase quantities; and (3) error quantification of the surrogate model by comparing the machine learning predictions with the truth model for test conditions (i.e., conditions not used for training). The framework was trained using data generated by high-fidelity large eddy simulation (LES)-based calculations (also referred to as the truth model), which solves the complete set of conservation equations for mass, momentum, energy, and species in an Eulerian reference frame, coupled with a Lagrangian solver that tracks the dispersed phase. Simulations were conducted for the range of momentum flux ratios between 5 and 120 for liquid water injected into crossflowing air at a pressure of 1 atm and temperature of 600 K. Results from the machine-learned surrogate model, also called emulations, were compared with the truth model under testing conditions identified by momentum flux ratios of 7 and 40. L1 errors for time-averaged field quantities, including velocity magnitudes, pressure, temperature, vapor fraction of the evaporated liquid, and turbulent kinetic energy in the gas phase, and spray penetration and Sauter mean diameters in the dispersed phase are reported. Speedup of 65 was achieved with this emulator when compared against LES simulation of the same test conditions with errors for all quantities below 14%, thus demonstrating the potential benefits of using machine learning techniques for design space exploration of devices that are based on turbulent multiphase fluid flows. This is the first effort of its kind in the literature that demonstrates the application of machine learning techniques on turbulent multiphase flows.

[1]  Jinkwan Song,et al.  Liquid Jets in Subsonic Air Crossflow at Elevated Pressure , 2014 .

[2]  Kenneth D. Kihm,et al.  ATOMIZATION OF CROSS-INJECTING SPRAYS INTO CONVECTIVE AIR STREAM , 1995 .

[3]  Z. Dai,et al.  PRIMARY BREAKUP OF NONTURBULENT ROUND LIQUID JETS IN GAS CROSSFLOWS , 1999 .

[4]  Domenic A. Santavicca,et al.  PENETRATION OF LIQUID JETS IN A CROSS-FLOW , 2006 .

[5]  J. Koseff,et al.  A dynamic mixed subgrid‐scale model and its application to turbulent recirculating flows , 1993 .

[6]  Ji-Seok Hong,et al.  A large eddy simulation of the breakup and atomization of a liquid jet into a cross turbulent flow at various spray conditions , 2017 .

[7]  Carl E. Rasmussen,et al.  Gaussian processes for machine learning , 2005, Adaptive computation and machine learning.

[8]  R. Reitz,et al.  Modeling the effects of drop drag and breakup on fuel sprays. Technical paper , 1993 .

[9]  Madjid Birouk,et al.  Liquid jet in a subsonic gaseous crossflow: Recent progress and remaining challenges , 2016 .

[10]  Yu Zhang,et al.  A Machine Learning-Genetic Algorithm (ML-GA) Approach for Rapid Optimization Using High-Performance Computing , 2018 .

[11]  Sourabh V. Apte,et al.  Large-Eddy Simulation of Realistic Gas Turbine Combustors , 2004 .

[12]  S. Brunton,et al.  Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  J. Kutz,et al.  Compressive Sensing Based Machine Learning Strategy For Characterizing The Flow Around A Cylinder With Limited Pressure Measurements , 2013 .

[14]  P. Moonen,et al.  Employing statistical model emulation as a surrogate for CFD , 2015, Environ. Model. Softw..

[15]  Joseph C. Oefelein,et al.  Modeling High-Pressure Mixing and Combustion Processes in Liquid Rocket Engines , 1998 .

[16]  Madjid Birouk,et al.  LIQUID JET BREAKUP IN QUIESCENT ATMOSPHERE: A REVIEW , 2009 .

[17]  Jeongseog Oh,et al.  Vaporization of a liquid hexanes jet in cross flow , 2013 .

[18]  Prashant Khare,et al.  Liquid Jet in Crossflow: Effect of Momentum Flux Ratio on Spray and Vaporization Characteristics , 2019, Volume 4B: Combustion, Fuels, and Emissions.

[19]  Felipe A. C. Viana,et al.  A Tutorial on Latin Hypercube Design of Experiments , 2016, Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int..

[20]  Steven L. Brunton,et al.  Data-Driven Methods in Fluid Dynamics: Sparse Classification from Experimental Data , 2017 .

[21]  Z. Dai,et al.  Liquid breakup at the surface of turbulent round liquid jets in still gases , 2002 .

[22]  Christoph Hassa,et al.  Modelling of the atomization of a plain liquid fuel jet in crossflow at gas turbine conditions , 2002 .

[23]  R. Madabhushi A MODEL FOR NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF BREAKUP OF A LIQUID JET IN CROSSFLOW , 2003 .

[24]  Michael D. Shields,et al.  The generalization of Latin hypercube sampling , 2015, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[25]  Peter J. O'Rourke,et al.  The TAB method for numerical calculation of spray droplet breakup , 1987 .

[26]  Xi Jiang,et al.  Physical modelling and advanced simulations of gas―liquid two-phase jet flows in atomization and sprays , 2010 .

[27]  Prashant Khare,et al.  Data-driven surrogate modeling of multiphase flows using machine learning techniques , 2020, Computers & Fluids.

[28]  A. Nejad,et al.  Breakup Processes of Liquid Jets in Subsonic Crossflows , 1996 .

[29]  C. Tropea,et al.  Droplet-wall collisions: Experimental studies of the deformation and breakup process , 1995 .

[30]  Nasser Ashgriz,et al.  Global Droplet Size in Liquid Jet in a High-Temperature and High-Pressure Crossflow , 2018, AIAA Journal.

[31]  Mark Ebden,et al.  Gaussian Processes: A Quick Introduction , 2015, 1505.02965.

[32]  Gerard M. Faeth,et al.  Primary Breakup of Turbulent Round Liquid Jets in Uniform Crossflows , 2007 .

[33]  Nasser M. Nasrabadi,et al.  A data-driven proxy to Stoke's flow in porous media , 2019, ArXiv.

[34]  M. Ledoux,et al.  Investigation of a Liquid Jet in a Subsonic Cross-Flow , 2023, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems.

[35]  Paris Perdikaris,et al.  Physics Informed Deep Learning (Part II): Data-driven Discovery of Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations , 2017, ArXiv.

[36]  P.-K. Wu,et al.  AERODYNAMIC EFFECTS ON PRIMARY BREAKUP OF TURBULENT LIQUIDS , 1993 .

[37]  R. Reitz Modeling atomization processes in high-pressure vaporizing sprays , 1987 .

[38]  Qian Wang,et al.  Non-intrusive reduced order modeling of unsteady flows using artificial neural networks with application to a combustion problem , 2019, J. Comput. Phys..

[39]  Bo Wang,et al.  How priors of initial hyperparameters affect Gaussian process regression models , 2016, Neurocomputing.

[40]  T. A. Zang,et al.  Toward the large-eddy simulation of compressible turbulent flows , 1990, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[41]  Vigor Yang,et al.  Modeling of finite-size droplets and particles in multiphase flows , 2015 .

[42]  Vigor Yang,et al.  A Large-Eddy-Simulation Study of Combustion Dynamics of Bluff-Body Stabilized Flames , 2016 .

[43]  Xingjian Wang,et al.  Common Proper Orthogonal Decomposition-Based Spatiotemporal Emulator for Design Exploration , 2018, AIAA Journal.