Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-8p85h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-11T10:29:33.537Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using machine learning to detect the turbulent region in flow past a circular cylinder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2020

Binglin Li Open the ORCID record for Binglin Li [Opens in a new window] ,
Zixuan Yang Open the ORCID record for Zixuan Yang [Opens in a new window] ,
Xing Zhang Open the ORCID record for Xing Zhang [Opens in a new window] ,
Guowei He Open the ORCID record for Guowei He [Opens in a new window] ,
Bing-Qing Deng Open the ORCID record for Bing-Qing Deng [Opens in a new window]  and
Lian Shen Open the ORCID record for Lian Shen [Opens in a new window]
Binglin Li
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Nonlinear Mechanics, Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China School of Engineering Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, PR China
Zixuan Yang*
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Nonlinear Mechanics, Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China School of Engineering Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, PR China
Xing Zhang
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Nonlinear Mechanics, Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China School of Engineering Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, PR China
Guowei He
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Nonlinear Mechanics, Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China School of Engineering Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, PR China
Bing-Qing Deng
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering & St. Anthony Fall Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
Lian Shen
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering & St. Anthony Fall Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: yangzx@imech.ac.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Detecting the turbulent/non-turbulent interface is a challenging topic in turbulence research. In the present study, machine learning methods are used to train detectors for identifying turbulent regions in the flow past a circular cylinder. To ensure that the turbulent/non-turbulent interface is independent of the reference frame of coordinates and is physics-informed, we propose to use invariants of tensors appearing in the transport equations of velocity fluctuations, strain-rate tensor and vortical tensor as the input features to identify the flow state. The training samples are chosen from numerical simulation data at two Reynolds numbers, $Re=100$ and 3900. Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) is utilized to train the detector, and after training, the detector is applied to identify the flow state at each point of the flow field. The trained detector is found robust in various tests, including the applications to the entire fields at successive snapshots and at a higher Reynolds number $Re=5000$. The objectivity of the detector is verified by changing the input features and the flow region for choosing the turbulent training samples. Compared with the conventional methods, the proposed method based on machine learning shows its novelty in two aspects. First, no threshold value needs to be specified explicitly by the users. Second, machine learning can treat multiple input variables, which reflect different properties of turbulent flows, including the unsteadiness, vortex stretching and three-dimensionality. Owing to these advantages, XGBoost generates a detector that is more robust than those obtained from conventional methods.

JFM classification

Wakes/Jets: Wakes Turbulent Flows: Turbulent transition

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 905 , 25 December 2020 , A10
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Alsalman, M., Colvert, B. & Kanso, E. 2019 Training bioinspired sensors to classify flows. Bioinspir. Biomim. 14, 016009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anand, R. K., Boersma, B. J. & Agrawal, A. 2009 Detection of turbulent/non-turbulent interface for an axisymmetric turbulent jet: evaluation of known criteria and proposal of a new criterion. Exp. Fluids 47, 995–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisset, D. K., Hunt, J. C. R. & Rogers, M. M. 2002 The turbulent/non-turbulent interface bounding a far wake. J. Fluid Mech. 451, 383–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrell, G. & Jimémez, J. 2016 Properties of the turbulent/non-turbulent interface in boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 451, 383–410.Google Scholar
Chauhan, K., Philip, J., de Silva, C. M., Hutchins, N. & Marusic, I. 2014 The turbulent/non-turbulent interface and entrainment in a boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 742, 119–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, T. & Guestrin, C. 2016 XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colvert, B., Alsalman, M. & Kanso, E. 2018 Classifying vortex wakes using neural networks. Bioinspir. Biomim. 13, 025003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corrsin, S. & Kistler, A. L. 1954 Free-stream boundaries of turbulent flows. Technical Report Archive & Image Library.Google Scholar
Cui, Z., Yang, Z., Jiang, H.-Z., Huang, W.-X. & Shen, L. 2018 A sharp-interface immersed boundary method for simulating incompressible flows with arbitrarily deforming smooth boundaries. Intl J. Comput. Methods 15, 1750080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duraisamy, K., Iaccarino, G. & Xiao, H. 2019 Turbulence modeling in the age of data. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 51, 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukami, K., Fukagata, K. & Taira, K. 2019 Super-resolution reconstruction of turbulent flows with machine learning. J. Fluid Mech. 870, 106–120.Google Scholar
Gamahara, M. & Hattori, Y. 2017 Searching for turbulence models by artificial neural network. Phys. Rev. Fluids 2, 054604.Google Scholar
Germano, M., Piomelli, U., Moin, P. & Cabot, W. H. 1991 A dynamic subgrid-scale eddy viscosity model. Phys. Fluids A 3 (7), 1760–1765.Google Scholar
Green, M. A., Rowley, C. W. & Haller, G. 2007 Detection of Lagragian coherent strucutres in 3D turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 572, 111–120.Google Scholar
Haller, G. 2002 Lagrangian coherent strucutres from approximate velocity data. Phys. Fluids 14, 1851–1861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, J., Liu, H. & Cai, W. 2019 Online in situ prediction of 3-D flame evolution from its history 2-D projections via deep learning. J. Fluid Mech. 875, R2.Google Scholar
Hunt, J. C. R., Wray, A. A. & Moin, P. 1988 Eddies, streams, and convergene zones in turbulent flows. In Proceeding of the Summer Program, Center for Turbulence Research, pp. 193–208. Stanford University/NASA.Google Scholar
Jeong, J. & Hussain, F. 1995 On the identification of a vortex. J. Fluid Mech. 285, 69–94.Google Scholar
Johansson, P. B. V. & George, W. K. 2003 Equilibrium similarity, effects of initial conditions and local Reynolds number on the axisymmetric wake. Phys. Fluids 15, 603–617.Google Scholar
Kravchenko, A. G. & Moin, P. 2000 Numerical studies of flow over a circular cylinder at $Re_D=3900$. Phys. Fluids 12, 403–417.Google Scholar
Lee, J. & Zaki, T. A. 2018 Detection algorithm for turbulent interfaces and large-scale structures in intermittent flows. Comput. Fluids 175, 142–158.Google Scholar
Lee, S. & You, D. 2019 Data-driven prediction of unsteady flow over a circular cylinder using deep learning. J. Fluid Mech. 879, 217–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lilly, D. K. 1992 A proposed modification of the Germano subgrid scale closure method. Phys. Fluids A 4 (3), 633–635.Google Scholar
Ling, J., Jones, R. & Templeton, J. 2016 a Machine learning strategies for systems with invariance properties. J. Comput. Phys. 318, 22–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, J., Kurzawski, A. & Templeton, J. 2016 b Reynolds averaged turbulence modelling using deep neural networks with embedded invariance. J. Fluid Mech. 807, 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, J. & Templeton, J. 2015 Evaluation of machine learning algorithms for prediction of regions of high Reynolds averaged Navier Stokes uncertainty. Phys. Fluids 27, 085103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, M., Lu, J. & Tryggvason, G. 2015 Using statistical learning to close two-fluid multiphase flow equations for a simple bubbly system. Phys. Fluids 27, 092101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, X., Karamanos, G.-S. & Karniadakis, G. E. 2000 Dynamics and low-dimensionality of a turbulent near wake. J. Fluid Mech. 410, 29–65.Google Scholar
Maulik, R. & San, O. 2017 A neural network approach for the blind deconvolution of turbulent flows. J. Fluid Mech. 831, 151–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maulik, R., San, O., Rasheed, A. & Vedula, P. 2018 Data-driven deconvolution for large eddy simulations of Kraichnan turbulence. Phys. Fluids 30, 125109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, K. P. & Zaki, T. A. 2013 Conditional sampling of transitional boundary layers in pressure gradients. J. Fluid Mech. 728, 306–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parish, E. J. & Duraisamy, K. 2016 A paradigm for data-driven predictive modeling using field inversion and machine learning. J. Comput. Phys. 305, 758–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehill, B., Walsh, E. J., Brandt, L., Schlatter, P. & Zaki, T. A. 2013 Identifying turbulent spots in transitional boundary layers. Trans. ASME: J. Turbomach. 135, 011019.Google Scholar
de Silva, C. M., Philip, J., Chauhan, K., Meneveau, C. & Marusic, I. 2013 Multiscale geometry and scaling of the turbulent-nonturbulent interface in high Reynolds number boundary layers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 044501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ströfer, C. M., Wu, J.-L., Xiao, H. & Paterson, E. 2019 Data-driven, physics-based feature extraction from fluid flow fields using convolutional neural networks. Commun. Comput. Phys. 25, 625–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vollant, A., Balarac, G. & Corre, C. 2017 Subgrid-scale scalar flux modelling based on optimal estimation theory and machine-learning procedures. J. Turbul. 18, 854–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, J.-X., Wu, J.-L. & Xiao, H. 2017 Physics-informed machine learning approach for reconstructing Reynolds stress modeling discrepancies based on DNS data. Phys. Rev. Fluids 2, 034603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Z., Luo, K., Li, D., Tan, J. H. & Fan, J. R. 2018 Investigations of data-driven closure for subgrid-scale stress in large-eddy simulation. Phys. Fluids 30, 125101.Google Scholar
Westerweel, J., Fukushima, C., Pedersen, J. M. & Hunt, J. C. R. 2009 Momentum and scalar transport at the turbulent/non-turbulent interface of a jet. J. Fluid Mech. 631, 199–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, C. H. K. 1996 Vortex dynamics in the cylinder wake. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 28, 477–539.Google Scholar
Wu, J., Xiao, H., Sun, R. & Wang, Q. 2019 a Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations with explicit data-driven Reynolds stress closure can be ill-conditioned. J. Fluid Mech. 869, 553–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, J.-L., Xiao, H. & Paterson, E. 2018 Physics-informed machine learning approach for augmenting turbulence models: a comprehensive framework. Phys. Rev. Fluids 3, 074602.Google Scholar
Wu, Z., Lee, J., Meneveau, C. & Zaki, T. 2019 b Application of a self-organizing map to identify the turbulent-boundary-layer interface in a transitional flow. Phys. Rev. Fluids 4, 023902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, H., Wu, J.-L., Wang, J.-X., Sun, R. & Roy, C. J. 2016 Quantifying and reducing model-form uncertainties in Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulations: a data-driven physics-informed Bayesian approach. J. Comput. Phys. 324, 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Z., He, G., Wang, S. & Jin, G. 2019 Subgird-scale model for large-eddy simulation of isotropic turbulent flows using an artificial neural network. Comput. Fluids 195, 104319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar