4.5 Article

Data-driven turbulence modeling in separated flows considering physical mechanism analysis

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2022.109004

关键词

Turbulence modeling; Field inversion; Machine learning; Nonequilibrium turbulence; Artificial neural network

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [91852108, 92152301, 11872230, 92052203, 91952302]
  2. Aeronautical Science Foundation of China [2020Z006058002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper implements a data-driven Reynolds-averaged turbulence modeling approach using field inversion and machine learning to modify the Spalart-Allmaras model. The results show that the augmented model can reproduce the quantity of interest with relatively high accuracy and has a certain extent of generalization ability in similar flow conditions.
Accurate simulation of turbulent flow with separation is an important but challenging problem. In this paper, a data-driven Reynolds-averaged turbulence modeling approach, field inversion and machine learning is implemented to modify the Spalart-Allmaras model separately on three cases, namely, the S809 airfoil, a periodic hill and the GLC305 airfoil with ice shape 944. Field inversion based on a discrete adjoint method is used to quantify the model-form uncertainty with limited experimental data. An artificial neural network is trained to predict the model corrections with local flow features to extract generalized modeling knowledge. Physical knowledge of the nonequilibrium turbulence in the separating shear layer is considered when setting the prior model uncertainty. The results show that the model corrections from the field inversion demonstrate strong consistency with the underlying physical mechanism of nonequilibrium turbulence. The quantity of interest from the observation data can be reproduced with relatively high accuracy by the augmented model. In addition, the validation in similar flow conditions shows a certain extent of generalization ability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据