Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
169 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Identifying regions of importance in wall-bounded turbulence through explainable deep learning (2302.01250v4)

Published 2 Feb 2023 in physics.flu-dyn and cs.AI

Abstract: Despite its great scientific and technological importance, wall-bounded turbulence is an unresolved problem in classical physics that requires new perspectives to be tackled. One of the key strategies has been to study interactions among the energy-containing coherent structures in the flow. Such interactions are explored in this study for the first time using an explainable deep-learning method. The instantaneous velocity field obtained from a turbulent channel flow simulation is used to predict the velocity field in time through a U-net architecture. Based on the predicted flow, we assess the importance of each structure for this prediction using the game-theoretic algorithm of SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). This work provides results in agreement with previous observations in the literature and extends them by revealing that the most important structures in the flow are not necessarily the ones with the highest contribution to the Reynolds shear stress. We also apply the method to an experimental database, where we can identify completely new structures based on their importance score. This framework has the potential to shed light on numerous fundamental phenomena of wall-bounded turbulence, including novel strategies for flow control.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (70)
  1. O. Reynolds, An experimental investigation of the circumstances which determine whether the motion of water shall be direct or sinuous, and of the law of resistance in parallel channels, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal society of London 174 (1883) 935–982.
  2. G. I. Taylor, The spectrum of turbulence, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A - Mathematical and Physical Sciences 164 (1938) 476–490. doi:10.1098/rspa.1938.0032.
  3. The structure of turbulent boundary layers, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 30 (1967) 741–773. doi:10.1017/S0022112067001740.
  4. A. N. Kolmogorov, Local structure of turbulence in an incompressible fluid at very high Reynolds numbers., Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR (30) (1941) 9–13.
  5. I. E. Agency, Key world energy statistics, https://www.iea.org/reports/key-world-energy-statistics-2020, accessed 20-nov-2022, IEA, Paris, 2020.
  6. A. R. Kerstein, Turbulence in combustion processes: modeling challenges, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 29 (2002) 1763–1773.
  7. N. Peters, Multiscale combustion and turbulence, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 32 (2009) 1–25.
  8. P. Panagiotou, K. Yakinthos, Aerodynamic efficiency and performance enhancement of fixed-wing UAVs, Aerospace Science and Technology 99 (2020) 105575.
  9. Flow Control in Wings and Discovery of Novel Approaches via Deep Reinforcement Learning, Fluids 7 (2022) 62.
  10. W. D. Lubitz, Impact of ambient turbulence on performance of a small wind turbine, Renewable Energy 61 (2014) 69–73.
  11. M. Optis, J. Perr-Sauer, The importance of atmospheric turbulence and stability in machine-learning models of wind farm power production, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 112 (2019) 27–41.
  12. A. G. Ulke, M. F. Andrade, Modeling urban air pollution in São Paulo, Bazil: sensitivity of model predicted concentrations to different turbulence parameterizations, Atmospheric environment 35 (2001) 1747–1763.
  13. Modeling wind flow and vehicle-induced turbulence in urban streets, Atmospheric environment 42 (2008) 4918–4931.
  14. J. Jiménez, Near-wall turbulence, Physics of Fluids 25 (2013) 101302.
  15. The turbulent cascade in five dimensions, Science 357 (2017) 782–784.
  16. J. Jiménez, Coherent structures in wall-bounded turbulence, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 842 (2018) P1.
  17. Turbulence statistics in fully developed channels flows at low Reynolds numbers, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 177 (1987) 133–166.
  18. Wall turbulence at high friction Reynolds numbers, Physical Review Fluids 7 (2022) 014602. doi:10.1103/PhysRevFluids.7.014602.
  19. S. S. Lu, W. W. Willmarth, Measurements of the structure of the Reynolds stress in a turbulent boundary layer, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 60 (1973) 481–511. doi:10.1017/S0022112073000315.
  20. The wall region in turbulent shear flow, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 54 (1972) 39–48. doi:10.1017/S0022112072000515.
  21. Deep learning, Nature 521 (2015) 436–444.
  22. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation, in: Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Part III 18, Springer, 2015, pp. 234–241.
  23. S. M. Lundberg, S.-I. Lee, A unified approach to interpreting model predictions, Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017).
  24. What Makes an Online Review More Helpful: An Interpretation Framework Using XGBoost and SHAP Values, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 16(3) (2021) 466–490.
  25. RKHS-SHAP: Shapley Values for Kernel Methods, Preprint arXiv:2110.09167v2 (2022).
  26. Convolutional-network models to predict wall-bounded turbulence from wall quantities, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 928 (2021) A27. doi:10.1017/jfm.2021.812.
  27. Interpreted machine learning in fluid dynamics: explaining relaminarisation events in wall-bounded shear flows, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 942 (2022) A2.
  28. Predicting coherent turbulent structures via deep learning, Frontiers in Physics 10 (2022) 888832.
  29. The three-dimensional structure of momentum transfer in turbulent channels, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 694 (2012) 100–130.
  30. M. P. Encinar, J. Jiménez, Identifying causally significant features in three-dimensional isotropic turbulence, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 965 (2023) A20.
  31. A. Lozano-Durán, G. Arranz, Information-theoretic formulation of dynamical systems: Causality, modeling, and control, Physical Review Research 4 (2022) 023195.
  32. Information-theoretic causality and applications to turbulence: energy cascade and inner/outer layer interactions, Preprint arXiv:2310.20544 (2023).
  33. High-Reynolds number wall turbulence, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 43 (2011) 353–375.
  34. Deep reinforcement learning for turbulent drag reduction in channel flows, European Journal of Physics E, To Appear 46 (2023).
  35. A. Lozano-Durán, J. Jiménez, Effect of the computational domain on direct simulations of the turbulent channels up to R⁢eτ𝑅subscript𝑒𝜏Re_{\tau}italic_R italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 4200, Physics of Fluids 26 (2014) 011702.
  36. Influence of the computational domain on dns of turbulent heat transfer up to R⁢eτ𝑅subscript𝑒𝜏Re_{\tau}italic_R italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2000 for P⁢r𝑃𝑟Pritalic_P italic_r = 0.71, International journal of heat and mass transfer 122 (2018) 983–992.
  37. Direct numerical simulation of turbulent channel flow up to R⁢eτ=590𝑅subscript𝑒𝜏590{R}e_{\tau}=590italic_R italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 590, Physics of Fluids 11 (1999) 943–945.
  38. Scaling of the energy spectra of turbulent channels, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 500 (2004) 135–144.
  39. S. Hoyas, J. Jiménez, Scaling of the velocity fluctuations in turbulent channels up to R⁢eτ=2003𝑅subscript𝑒𝜏2003Re_{\tau}=2003italic_R italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2003, Physics of Fluids 18 (2006) 011702.
  40. Velocity statistics in turbulent channel flow up to R⁢eτ=4000𝑅subscript𝑒𝜏4000{R}e_{\tau}=4000italic_R italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 4000, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 758 (2014) 327–343.
  41. M. Lee, R. Moser, Direct numerical simulation of turbulent channel flow up to R⁢eτ≈5200𝑅subscript𝑒𝜏5200{R}e_{\tau}\approx 5200italic_R italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ 5200, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 774 (2015) 395–415.
  42. Y. Yamamoto, Y. Tsuji, Numerical evidence of logarithmic regions in channel flow at R⁢eτ=8000𝑅subscript𝑒𝜏8000Re_{\tau}=8000italic_R italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 8000, Physical Review Fluids 3 (2018) 012602(R).
  43. When explainability meets adversarial learning: Detecting adversarial examples using shap signatures, in: 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), 2020, pp. 1–8. doi:10.1109/IJCNN48605.2020.9207637.
  44. How can i explain this to you? an empirical study of deep neural network explanation methods, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020) 4211–4222.
  45. J. Jiménez, The streaks of wall-bounded turbulence need not be long, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 945 (2022) R3. doi:10.1017/jfm.2022.572.
  46. Characteristics of vortex packets in turbulent boundary layers, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 478 (2003) 35–46.
  47. R. Deshpande, I. Marusic, Characterising momentum flux events in high Reynolds number turbulent boundary layers, Fluids 6 (2021) 168.
  48. Self-similar vortex clusters in the turbulent logarythmic region, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 561 (2006) 329–358.
  49. H. Nakagawa, I. Nezu, Prediction of the contributions to the Reynolds stress from bursting events in open-channel flows, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 80 (1977) 99–128. doi:10.1017/S0022112077001554.
  50. A. Lozano-Durán, J. Jiménez, Time-resolved evolution of coherent structures in turbulent channels: characterization of eddies and cascades, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 759 (2014) 432–471.
  51. Formation and evolution of shear layers in a developing turbulent boundary layer, Proc. 11th International Symposium on Turbulence and Shear Flow Phenomena (TSFP11) Southampton, UK, July 30 to August 2 (2019).
  52. G. E. Elsinga, I. Marusic, Evolution and lifetimes of flow topology in a turbulent boundary layer, Phys. Fluids 22 (2010) 015102.
  53. Control effects on coherent structures in a non-uniform adverse-pressure-gradient boundary layer, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 97 (2022) 109036.
  54. H. Choi, P. Moin, Grid-point requirements for large eddy simulation: Chapman’s estimates revisited, Physics of Fluids 24 (2012) 011702.
  55. The transformative potential of machine learning for experiments in fluid mechanics, Preprint arXiv:2303.15832 (2023).
  56. A code for simulating heat transfer in turbulent channel flow, Mathematics 9 (2021). doi:10.3390/math9070756.
  57. Convergence of numerical simulations of turbulent wall-bounded flows and mean cross-flow structure of rectangular ducts, Meccanica 51 (2016) 3025–3042.
  58. S. Hoyas, J. Jiménez, Reynolds number effects on the Reynolds-stress budgets in turbulent channels, Physics of Fluids 20 (2008) 101511.
  59. P. Monkewitz, The late start of the mean velocity overlap log law at-a generic feature of turbulent wall layers in ducts, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 910 (2021). doi:10.1017/jfm.2020.998.
  60. P. Spalart, H. Abe, Empirical scaling laws for wall-bounded turbulence deduced from direct numerical simulations, Physical Review Fluids 6 (2021). doi:10.1103/PhysRevFluids.6.044604.
  61. DNS of passive scalars in turbulent pipe flow, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 940 (2022).
  62. From coarse wall measurements to turbulent velocity fields through deep learning, Physics of Fluids 33 (2021) 075121.
  63. Three-dimensional ESRGAN for super-resolution reconstruction of turbulent flows with tricubic interpolation-based transfer learning, Physics of Fluids 34 (2022) 125126.
  64. A deep-learning approach for reconstructing 3D turbulent flows from 2D observation data, Preprint arXiv:2208.05754 (2022a).
  65. A transformer-based synthetic-inflow generator for spatially-developing turbulent boundary layers, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, To Appear. Preprint arXiv:2208.05754 (2022b).
  66. Deep residual learning for image recognition, In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778.
  67. H. H. Tan, K. H. Lim, Vanishing gradient mitigation with deep learning neural network optimization, in: 2019 7th international conference on smart computing & communications (ICSCC), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–4.
  68. A sufficient condition for convergences of Adam and RMSProp, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 11127–11135.
  69. Why Should I Trust You? Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier, In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2016, pp. 1135–1144.
  70. S. Lipovetsky, M. Conklin, Analysis of regression in game theory approach, In: Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry 17 (2001) 319–330.
Citations (15)

Summary

  • The paper introduces an explainable deep learning framework that uses U-net and SHAP to identify key turbulent structures with a 2% prediction error.
  • It finds that wall-attached ejections are the most impactful, while smaller structures show greater relative significance per unit volume.
  • The study extends the methodology to experimental datasets, highlighting its potential to enhance turbulence modeling and control strategies.

An Examination of the Role of Explainable Deep Learning in Understanding Wall-Bounded Turbulence

The paper "Identifying regions of importance in wall-bounded turbulence through explainable deep learning" proposes a novel methodological framework that combines deep learning with explainable AI techniques to better understand the dynamics of wall-bounded turbulence—a persistently challenging problem in fluid dynamics. By leveraging a deep learning architecture known as U-net, alongside the game-theoretic SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) values, the research investigates the importance of coherent structures in turbulent flow dynamics.

Methodological Approach

The paper utilizes a U-net deep learning model, trained on high-fidelity direct numerical simulation (DNS) data of turbulent channel flows, to predict future states of the flow fields. This capability allows the researchers to assess the predictive importance of coherent structures within the turbulence. The model’s predictions, validated with a low error margin of 2% against test data, demonstrate the efficacy of U-nets in capturing complex spatial dependencies in turbulence.

By applying SHAP to the trained U-net model, the authors provide a means of explaining the impact of each identified flow structure on the model’s predictions. SHAP values serve to quantify the marginal contribution of individual structures to the prediction error reduction, offering a novel and objective metric for assessing the significance of turbulent structures.

Key Findings

The paper’s application of SHAP analysis reveals several important findings. Despite traditional measures emphasizing the contribution of structures to Reynolds shear stress, the results show that the most predictive (i.e., impactful) structures as measured by SHAP values are not necessarily those contributing most to Reynolds shear stress. Specifically, it was identified that wall-attached ejections have the highest importance score for predictions, though when measured per unit volume, smaller structures often exhibit greater relative significance.

The research extends these methods to experimental datasets, highlighting their potential applicability beyond numerical simulations. The analysis across different Reynolds numbers reveals that the importance of structures such as sweeps tends to increase with higher Reynolds numbers, noting an agreement with prior empirical findings.

Implications and Future Perspectives

The methodologies outlined provide a fresh lens through which to evaluate the dynamics of wall-bounded turbulence, pushing beyond mere statistical association toward a more causal understanding of flow structures. This framework offers possibilities for improving turbulence modeling and advancing control strategies in fluid dynamics applications. Notably, the usage of SHAP within this context could bear significant implications for enhancing data-driven subgrid-scale models and facilitating turbulence control strategies that can be economically beneficial in various engineering scenarios.

Looking ahead, the authors suggest that the insights gathered using this framework can play a vital role in more practical high-Reynolds-number experiments and applications. The extended framework's application to experimental datasets demonstrates its utility in less ideal conditions, suggesting broader domains of applicability, including areas where traditional DNS data is not feasible.

Conclusion

By integrating explainable AI techniques into deep learning models for turbulence simulation, this paper advances both theoretical and applied fluid dynamics. It sets a precedent for interpreting complex machine learning models in physics-based applications, showing how a nuanced understanding of coherence in turbulent structures can lead to optimized flow prediction and control strategies. Future research might further explore the methodologies introduced, deepening our understanding and expanding their practical utility in diverse fluid dynamics applications.

Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com