Research Papers

Learning an Eddy Viscosity Model Using Shrinkage and Bayesian Calibration: A Jet-in-Crossflow Case Study

[+] Author and Article Information
Jaideep Ray

Sandia National Laboratories,
MS 9159, P.O. Box 969,
Livermore, CA 94550
e-mail: jairay@sandia.gov

Sophia Lefantzi

Sandia National Laboratories,
MS 9152, P.O. Box 969,
Livermore, CA 94550
e-mail: slefant@sandia.gov

Srinivasan Arunajatesan

Sandia National Laboratories,
MS 0825, P.O. Box 5800,
Albuquerque, NM 87185
e-mail: sarunaj@sandia.gov

Lawrence Dechant

Sandia National Laboratories,
MS 0825, P.O. Box 5800,
Albuquerque, NM 87185
e-mail: ljdecha@sandia.gov

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received July 7, 2016; final manuscript received August 2, 2017; published online September 7, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Yan Wang. The United States Government retains, and by accepting the article for publication, the publisher acknowledges that the United States Government retains, a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes.

ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Part B 4(1), 011001 (Sep 07, 2017) (10 pages) Paper No: RISK-16-1100; doi: 10.1115/1.4037557 History: Received July 07, 2016; Revised August 02, 2017

We demonstrate a statistical procedure for learning a high-order eddy viscosity model (EVM) from experimental data and using it to improve the predictive skill of a Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) simulator. The method is tested in a three-dimensional (3D), transonic jet-in-crossflow (JIC) configuration. The process starts with a cubic eddy viscosity model (CEVM) developed for incompressible flows. It is fitted to limited experimental JIC data using shrinkage regression. The shrinkage process removes all the terms from the model, except an intercept, a linear term, and a quadratic one involving the square of the vorticity. The shrunk eddy viscosity model is implemented in an RANS simulator and calibrated, using vorticity measurements, to infer three parameters. The calibration is Bayesian and is solved using a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method. A 3D probability density distribution for the inferred parameters is constructed, thus quantifying the uncertainty in the estimate. The phenomenal cost of using a 3D flow simulator inside an MCMC loop is mitigated by using surrogate models (“curve-fits”). A support vector machine classifier (SVMC) is used to impose our prior belief regarding parameter values, specifically to exclude nonphysical parameter combinations. The calibrated model is compared, in terms of its predictive skill, to simulations using uncalibrated linear and CEVMs. We find that the calibrated model, with one quadratic term, is more accurate than the uncalibrated simulator. The model is also checked at a flow condition at which the model was not calibrated.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Poroseva, S. , and Iaccarino, G. , 2001, “ Simulating Separated Flows Using the k − ε Model,” Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, pp. 375–383. https://web.stanford.edu/group/ctr/ResBriefs01/poroseva2.pdf
Sjögren, T. , and Johansson, A. V. , 2000, “ Development and Calibration of Algebraic Nonlinear Models for Terms in the Reynolds Stress Transport Equation,” Phys. Fluids, 12(6), pp. 1554–1572. [CrossRef]
Durbin, P. A. , 1995, “ Separated Flow Computations Using the k − ε − v 2 Model,” AIAA J., 33(4), pp. 659–664. [CrossRef]
Ray, J. , Lefantzi, S. , Arunajatesan, S. , and Dechant, L. , 2016, “ Bayesian Parameter Estimation of a k-Epsilon Model for Accurate Jet-in-Crossflow Simulations,” Am. Inst. Aeronaut. Astronaut. J., 54(8), pp. 2432–2448. [CrossRef]
Craft, T. J. , Launder, B. E. , and Suga, K. , 1996, “ Development and Application of a Cubic Eddy-Viscosity Model of Turbulence,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 17(2), pp. 108–115. [CrossRef]
Beresh, S. J. , Henfling, J. F. , Erven, R. J. , and Spillers, R. W. , 2005, “ Penetration of a Transverse Supersonic Jet Into a Subsonic Compressible Crossflow,” AIAA J., 43(2), pp. 379–389. [CrossRef]
Beresh, S. J. , Henfling, J. F. , Erven, R. J. , and Spillers, R. W. , 2005, “ Turbulent Characteristics of a Transverse Supersonic Jet in a Subsonic Compressible Crossflow,” AIAA J., 43(11), pp. 2385–2394. [CrossRef]
Beresh, S. J. , Henfling, J. F. , Erven, R. J. , and Spillers, R. W. , 2006, “ Crossplane Velocimetry of a Transverse Supersonic Jet in a Transonic Crossflow,” Am. Inst. Aeronaut. Astronaut. J., 44(12), pp. 3051–3061. [CrossRef]
Arunajatesan, S. , 2012, “ Evaluation of Two-Equation RANS Models for Simulation of Jet-in-Crossflow Problems,” AIAA Paper No. 2012-1199.
Chai, X. , and Mahesh, K. , 2011, “ Simulations of High Speed Turbulent Jets in Crossflow,” AIAA Paper No. 2010-4603.
Genin, F. , and Menon, S. , 2010, “ Dynamics of Sonic Jet Injection Into Supersonic Crossflow,” J. Turbul., 11, pp. 1–13. [CrossRef]
Brinckman, K. W. , Calhoon, W. H. , and Dash, S. M. , 2007, “ Scalar Fluctuation Modeling for High-Speed Aeropropulsive Flows,” AIAA J., 45(5), pp. 1036–1046. [CrossRef]
Papp, J. L. , and Dash, S. M. , 2001, “ Turbulence Model Unification and Assessment for High-Speed Aeropropulsive Flows,” AIAA Paper No. 2001-0880.
Edeling, W. N. , Cinnella, P. , Dwight, R. P. , and Bijl, H. , 2014, “ Bayesian Estimates of Parameter Variability in k − ε Turbulence Model,” J. Comput. Phys., 258, pp. 73–94. [CrossRef]
Cheung, S. H. , Oliver, T. A. , Prudencio, E. E. , Prudhomme, S. , and Moser, R. D. , 2011, “ Bayesian Uncertainty Analysis With Applications to Turbulence Modeling,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 96(9), pp. 1137–1149. [CrossRef]
Gilks, W. R. , Richardson, S. , and Spiegelhalter, D. J. , eds., 1996, Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice, Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Duraisamy, K. , Zhang, Z. J. , and Singh, A. P. , 2015, “ New Approaches in Turbulence and Transition Modeling Using Data-Driven Techniques,” AIAA Paper No. 2015-1284.
Zhang, Z. J. , and Duraisamy, K. , 2015, “ Machine Learning Methods for Data-Driven Turbulence Modeling,” AIAA Paper No. 2015-2460.
Zhang, Z. , Duraisamy, K. , and Gumerov, N. A. , 2015, “ Efficient Multiscale Gaussian Process Regression Using Hierarchical Clustering,” e-print arXiv:1511.02258. https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.02258
Pratap Singh, A. , Medida, S. , and Duraisamy, K. , 2016, “ Machine Learning-Augmented Predictive Modeling of Turbulent Separated Flows Over Airfoils,” e-print arXiv:1608.03990. https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.03990
Singh, A. P. , and Duraisamy, K. , 2016, “ Using Field Inversion to Quantify Functional Errors in Turbulence Closures,” Phys. Fluids, 28(4), p. 045110. [CrossRef]
Xiao, H. , Wu, J.-L. , Wang, J.-X. , Sun, R. , and Roy, C. , 2016, “ Quantifying and Reducing Model-Form Uncertainties in Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes Simulations: A Data-Driven, Physics-Informed Bayesian Approach,” J. Comput. Phys., 324, pp. 115–136. [CrossRef]
Wang, J.-X. , Wu, J.-L. , and Xiao, H. , 2016, “ A Physics Informed Machine Learning Approach for Reconstructing Reynolds Stress Modeling Discrepancies Based on DNS Data,” e-print arXiv:1606.07987. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.07987.pdf
Wu, J.-L. , Wang, J.-X. , Xiao, H. , and Ling, J. , 2016, “ Physics-Informed Machine Learning for Predictive Turbulence Modeling: A Priori Assessment of Prediction Confidence,” e-print arXiv:1607.04563. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305390200_Physics-Informed_Machine_Learning_for_Predictive_Turbulence_Modeling_A_Priori_Assessment_of_Prediction_Confidence
Weatheritt, J. , and Sandberg, R. , 2016, “ A Novel Evolutionary Algorithm Applied to Algebraic Modifications of the RANS Stress–Strain Relationship,” J. Comput. Phys., 325, pp. 22–37. [CrossRef]
Guillas, S. , Glover, N. , and Malki-Epshtein, L. , 2014, “ Bayesian Calibration of the Constants of the k − ε Turbulence Model for a CFD Model of Street Canyon Flow,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 279, pp. 536–553. [CrossRef]
Haario, H. , Laine, M. , Mira, A. , and Saksman, E. , 2006, “ DRAM-Efficient Adaptive MCMC,” Stat. Comput., 16(4), pp. 339–354. [CrossRef]
Parish, E. , and Duraisamy, K. , 2015, “ Quantification of Turbulence Modeling Uncertainties Using Full Field Inversions,” AIAA Paper No. 2015-2459.
Bazdidi-Tehrani, F. , Mohammadi-Ahmar, A. , Kianamsouri, M. , and Jadidi, M. , 2015, “ Investigation of Various Non-Linear Eddy Viscosity Turbulence Models for Simulating Flow and Pollutant Dispersion on and Around a Cubical Model Building,” Build. Simul., 8(2), pp. 149–166. [CrossRef]
Loyau, H. , Batten, P. , and Leschziner, M. A. , 1998, “ Modelling Shock/Boundary-Layer Interaction With Nonlinear Eddy-Viscosity Closures,” Flow Turbul. Combust., 60(3), pp. 257–282. [CrossRef]
Balabel, A. , and El-Askary, W. A. , 2011, “ On the Performance of Linear and Nonlinear k–ε Turbulence Models in Various Jet Flow Applications,” Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids, 30(3), pp. 325–340. [CrossRef]
Craft, T. J. , Launder, B. E. , and Suga, K. , 1997, “ Prediction of Turbulent Transitional Phenomena With a Nonlinear Eddy-Viscosity Model,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 18(1), pp. 15–28. [CrossRef]
Gatski, T. B. , and Speziale, C. G. , 1992, “ On Explicit Algebraic Stress Models for Complex Turbulent Flows,” Institute for Computer Application in Science and Engineering, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, Technical Report No. 92-58. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a258993.pdf
Hastie, T. , Tibshirani, R. , and Friedman, J. , 2008, The Elements of Statistical Learning (Springer Series in Statistics), 2 ed., Springer, New York.
R Core Team, 2012, “ R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing,” R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Friedman, J. , Hastie, T. , and Tibshirani, R. , 2010, “ Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models Via Coordinate Descent,” J. Stat. Software, 33(1), pp. 1–22. [CrossRef]
Soetaert, K. , and Petzoldt, T. , 2010, “ Inverse Modelling, Sensitivity and Monte Carlo Analysis in R Using Package FME,” J. Stat. Software, 33(3), pp. 1–28. [CrossRef]
Raftery, A. , and Lewis, S. M. , 1996, “ Implementing MCMC,” Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice, W. R. Gilks , S. Richardson , and D. J. Spiegelhalter , eds., Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 115–130.
Warnes, G. R. , and Burrows, R. , 2011, “ Mcgibbsit: Warnes and Raftery's MCGibbsit MCMC Diagnostic. R Package Version 1.0.8,” accessed Aug. 15, 2017, https://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/r-help/library/mcgibbsit/html/mcgibbsit.html


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Top: Removal of CEVM coefficients ci as λ is increased. Bottom: Mean prediction error and ±2 standard deviation bounds of prediction error, as a function of log(λ). λmin (left vertical line) and λ1se (right vertical line) are also shown.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Top: Plot of the physically realistic part of the parameter space, R (filled circles) along with the region where the RANS simulator runs without crashing C3 (crosses). Bottom: The experimental vorticity field as a flood plot, with locations with large vorticity (○) and the subset of probes with accurate surrogate models (+).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Marginalized PDFs of c3,Cε2,Cε1, and σ2. The dashed line is the prior density due to R and the solid line denotes the posterior density. The vertical lines are the nominal values of the parameters. The figure at the bottom right shows magnitude of the data—model misfit. As a comparison to σ, the 95th percentile of the (experimental) vorticity magnitude is 3.8×103 s−1.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Plots of simulated streamwise vorticity field (as a flood plot) with contours of experimental vorticity overlaid. Left: Simulations using RANS-LEVM driven by nominal parameters. Middle: RANS–CEVM, driven by the nominal parameters in Ref. [5]. Right: Predictions using Copt. The improvement is stark. Note that the scales of the vertical and horizontal axes are different.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Results of the posterior predictive test using 100 samples. We plot the predicted vorticity normalized by the measured value at the probes with accurate surrogate models. The horizontal line indicates the experimental measurement. The error bars span the 5th–95th percentile range and the filled ○ are the median prediction.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Box-and-whisker plots of the posterior samples' runs with RANS–CEVM, for the PVM. The horizontal line denotes experimental results. The open ○ are prediction using nominal CEVM parameters [5], whereas the filled ⋄ are predictions using an LEVM with nominal parameters. Model predictions are normalized by their experimental counterparts.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Plots of streamwise velocity deficit (top row) and vertical velocity (bottom row) at three locations 200, 300, and 400 mm downstream of the jet. Experimental data are plotted using symbols, LEVM (nominal) using the dotted line, the CEVM (nominal) using the dashed line, and the ensemble mean of 100 samples from the posterior using the solid line. The + symbols are the predictions using Copt. The crossflow is M = 0.8.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Plots of streamwise velocity deficit (top row) and vertical velocity (bottom row) at three locations 200, 300, and 400 mm downstream of the jet. Experimental data are plotted using symbols, LEVM (nominal) using the dotted line, the CEVM (nominal) using the dashed line, and the ensemble mean of 100 samples from the posterior using the solid line. The + symbols are the predictions using Copt. The crossflow is M = 0.7.




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Articles from Part A: Civil Engineering
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In