Incorporating basic calibrations in existing machine-learned turbulence modeling

TL;DR

This paper investigates how incorporating basic calibrations into machine learning models for turbulence can improve or hinder their performance, with a focus on different ML frameworks and baseline RANS models.

Contribution

It provides a comparative analysis of various ML frameworks incorporating calibrations in turbulence modeling and evaluates their effectiveness and limitations.

Findings

TBNN augmentations are generally detrimental.

PIML augmentations benefit training data but harm outside data.

FIML augmentations are mostly neutral or beneficial, especially for complex models.

Abstract

This work aims to incorporate basic calibrations of Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) models as part of machine learning (ML) frameworks. The ML frameworks considered are tensor-basis neural network (TBNN), physics-informed machine learning (PIML), and field inversion & machine learning (FIML) in J. Fluid Mech., 2016, 807, 155-166, Phys. Rev. Fluids, 2017, 2(3), 034603 and J. Comp. Phys., 2016, 305, 758-774, and the baseline RANS models are the one-equation Spalart-Allmaras model, the two-equation $k$-$\omega$ model, and the seven-equation Reynolds stress transport models. ML frameworks are trained against plane channel flow and shear-layer flow data. We compare the ML frameworks and study whether the machine-learned augmentations are detrimental outside the training set. The findings are summarized as follows. The augmentations due to TBNN are detrimental. PIML leads to augmentations that are beneficial inside the training dataset but detrimental outside it. These results are not affected by the baseline RANS model. FIML's augmentations to the two eddy viscosity models, where an inner-layer treatment already exists, are largely neutral. Its augmentation to the seven-equation model, where an inner-layer treatment does not exist, improves the mean flow prediction in a channel. Furthermore, these FIML augmentations are mostly non-detrimental outside the training dataset. In addition to reporting these results, the paper offers physical explanations of the results. Last, we note that the conclusions drawn here are confined to the ML frameworks and the flows considered in this study. More detailed comparative studies and validation & verification studies are needed to account for developments in recent years.