Machine learning mesh-adaptation for laminar and turbulent flows: applications to high-order discontinuous Galerkin solvers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a machine learning-based mesh refinement technique for steady and unsteady incompressible flows. The clustering technique proposed by Otmani et al. (Phys Fluids 35(2):027112, 2023) is used to mark the viscous and turbulent regions for the flow past a cylinder at $$Re=40$$ R e = 40 (steady laminar flow), at $$Re=100$$ R e = 100 (unsteady laminar flow), and at $$Re=3900$$ R e = 3900 (unsteady turbulent flow). Within this clustered region, we use high mesh resolution, while downgrading the resolution outside, to show that it is possible to obtain levels of accuracy similar to those obtained when using a uniformly refined mesh. The mesh adaptation is effective, as the clustering successfully identifies the two flow regions, a viscous/turbulent dominated region (including the boundary layer and wake) that requires high resolution and an inviscid/irrotational region, which only requires low resolution. The new clustering sensor is compared with traditional feature-based sensors (Q-criterion and vorticity based) commonly used for mesh adaptation. Unlike traditional sensors that rely on problem-dependent thresholds, our novel approach eliminates the need for such thresholds and locates the regions that require adaptation. After the initial validation using flows past cylinders, the clustering technique is applied in an engineering context to study the flow around a horizontal axis wind turbine configuration which has been tested experimentally at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. The data used within this framework are generated using a high-order discontinuous Galerkin solver, allowing to locally refine the polynomial order ( p -refinement) in each element of the clustered region. For the laminar test cases, we can reduce the computational cost by 32% (steady $$Re=40$$ R e = 40 case) and 20% (unsteady $$Re=100$$ R e = 100 case), while we get a reduction of 33% for the $$Re=3900$$ R e = 3900 turbulent case. In the context of the wind turbine, a reduction of 43% in computational cost is observed, while maintaining the accuracy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".