Machine learning is rapidly becoming a core technology for scientific computing, with numerous opportunities to advance the field of computational fluid dynamics. Here we highlight some of the areas of highest potential impact, including to accelerate direct numerical simulations, to improve turbulence closure modeling and to develop enhanced reduced-order models. We also discuss emerging areas of machine learning that are promising for computational fluid dynamics, as well as some potential limitations that should be taken into account.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Godunov, S. & Bohachevsky, I. Finite difference method for numerical computation of discontinuous solutions of the equations of fluid dynamics. Mat. Sb. 47, 271–306 (1959).
Eymard, R., Gallouët, T. & Herbin, R. Finite volume methods. Handb. Numer. Anal. 7, 713–1018 (2000).
Zienkiewicz, O. C., Taylor, R. L., Nithiarasu, P. & Zhu, J. Z. The Finite Element Method, 3 (Elsevier, 1977).
Canuto, C., Hussaini, M. Y., Quarteroni, A. & Zang, T. A. Spectral Methods in Fluid Dynamics (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012).
Brunton, S. L. & Kutz, J. N. Data-Driven Science and Engineering: Machine Learning, Dynamical Systems and Control (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).
Recht, B. A tour of reinforcement learning: the view from continuous control. Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2, 253–279 (2019).
Vinuesa, R. et al. The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the sustainable development goals. Nat. Commun. 11, 233 (2020).
Noé, F., Tkatchenko, A., Müller, K.-R. & Clementi, C. Machine learning for molecular simulation. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 71, 361–390 (2020).
Niederer, S. A., Sacks, M. S., Girolami, M. & Willcox, K. Scaling digital twins from the artisanal to the industrial. Nat. Comput. Sci. 1, 313–320 (2021).
Samuel, A. L. Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM J. Res. Dev. 3, 210–229 (1959).
Brenner, M., Eldredge, J. & Freund, J. Perspective on machine learning for advancing fluid mechanics. Phys. Rev. Fluids 4, 100501 (2019).
Brunton, S. L., Noack, B. R. & Koumoutsakos, P. Machine learning for fluid mechanics. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 52, 477–508 (2020).
Duraisamy, K., Iaccarino, G. & Xiao, H. Turbulence modeling in the age of data. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 51, 357–377 (2019).
Ahmed, S. E. et al. On closures for reduced order models—a spectrum of first-principle to machine-learned avenues. Phys. Fluids 33, 091301 (2021).
Wang, B. & Wang, J. Application of artificial intelligence in computational fluid dynamics. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 60, 2772–2790 (2021).
Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P. & Karniadakis, G. E. Physics-informed neural networks: a deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. J. Comput. Phys. 378, 686–707 (2019).
Karniadakis, G. E. et al. Physics-informed machine learning. Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 422–440 (2021).
Noé, F., Olsson, S., Köhler, J. & Wu, H. Boltzmann generators: sampling equilibrium states of many-body systems with deep learning. Science 365, eaaw1147 (2019).
Vinuesa, R., Hosseini, S. M., Hanifi, A., Henningson, D. S. & Schlatter, P. Pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layers developing around a wing section. Flow. Turbul. Combust. 99, 613–641 (2017).
Choi, H. & Moin, P. Grid-point requirements for large eddy simulation: Chapman’s estimates revisited. Phys. Fluids 24, 011702 (2012).
Bar-Sinai, Y., Hoyer, S., Hickey, J. & Brenner, M. P. Learning data-driven discretizations for partial differential equations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 15344–15349 (2019).
Stevens, B. & Colonius, T. Enhancement of shock-capturing methods via machine learning. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 34, 483–496 (2020).
Jeon, J., Lee, J. & Kim, S. J. Finite volume method network for the acceleration of unsteady computational fluid dynamics: Non-reacting and reacting flows. Int. J. Energy Res. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.7879 (2022).
Stevens, B. & Colonius, T. FiniteNet: a fully convolutional LSTM network architecture for time-dependent partial differential equations. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.03014 (2020).
Kochkov, D. et al. Machine learning-accelerated computational fluid dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2101784118 (2021).
Chandler, G. J. & Kerswell, R. R. Invariant recurrent solutions embedded in a turbulent two-dimensional Kolmogorov flow. J. Fluid Mech. 722, 554–595 (2013).
Bauer, P., Thorpe, A. & Brunet, G. The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction. Nature 525, 47–55 (2015).
Schenk, F. et al. Warm summers during the Younger Dryas cold reversal. Nat. Commun. 9, 1634 (2018).
Vinuesa, R. et al. Turbulent boundary layers around wing sections up to Rec = 1,000,000. Int. J. Heat. Fluid Flow. 72, 86–99 (2018).
Aloy Torás, C., Mimica, P. & Martinez Sober, M. in Artificial Intelligence Research and Development: Current Challenges, New Trends and Applications (eds Falomir, Z. et al.) 59–63 (IOS Press, 2018).
Li, Z. et al. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.08895 (2020).
Li, Z. et al. Multipole graph neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. In Proc. 34th Int. Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems 6755–6766 (NIPS, 2020).
Li, Z. et al. Neural operator: graph kernel network for partial differential equations. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.03485 (2020).
Shan, T. et al. Study on a Poisson’s equation solver based on deep learning technique. In Proc. 2017 IEEE Electrical Design of Advanced Packaging and Systems Symposium (EDAPS) 1–3 (IEEE, 2017).
Zhang, Z. et al. Solving Poisson’s equation using deep learning in particle simulation of PN junction. In Proc. 2019 Joint International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Sapporo and Asia-Pacific International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC Sapporo/APEMC) 305–308 (IEEE, 2019).
Bridson, R. Fluid Simulation (A. K. Peters, 2008).
Ajuria, E. et al. Towards a hybrid computational strategy based on deep learning for incompressible flows. In Proc. AIAA AVIATION 2020 Forum 1–17 (AIAA, 2020).
Özbay, A. et al. Poisson CNN: convolutional neural networks for the solution of the Poisson equation on a Cartesian mesh. Data Centric Eng. 2, E6 (2021).
Weymouth, G. D. Data-driven multi-grid solver for accelerated pressure projection. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.11029 (2021).
Fukami, K., Nabae, Y., Kawai, K. & Fukagata, K. Synthetic turbulent inflow generator using machine learning. Phys. Rev. Fluids 4, 064603 (2019).
Morita, Y. et al. Applying Bayesian optimization with Gaussian-process regression to computational fluid dynamics problems. J. Comput. Phys. 449, 110788 (2022).
Boussinesq, J. V. Théorie Analytique de la Chaleur: Mise en Harmonie avec la Thermodynamique et avec la Théorie Mécanique de la Lumière T. 2, Refroidissement et Échauffement par Rayonnement Conductibilité des Tiges, Lames et Masses Cristallines Courants de Convection Théorie Mécanique de la Lumière (Gauthier-Villars, 1923).
Slotnick, J. et al. CFD Vision 2030 Study: A Path to Revolutionary Computational Aerosciences. Technical Report NASA/CR-2014-218178 (NASA, 2014).
Kutz, J. N. Deep learning in fluid dynamics. J. Fluid Mech. 814, 1–4 (2017).
Ling, J., Kurzawski, A. & Templeton, J. Reynolds averaged turbulence modelling using deep neural networks with embedded invariance. J. Fluid Mech. 807, 155–166 (2016).
Craft, T. J., Launder, B. E. & Suga, K. Development and application of a cubic eddy-viscosity model of turbulence. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 17, 108–115 (1996).
Marin, O., Vinuesa, R., Obabko, A. V. & Schlatter, P. Characterization of the secondary flow in hexagonal ducts. Phys. Fluids 28, 125101 (2016).
Spalart, P. R. Strategies for turbulence modelling and simulations. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 21, 252–263 (2000).
Vidal, A., Nagib, H. M., Schlatter, P. & Vinuesa, R. Secondary flow in spanwise-periodic in-phase sinusoidal channels. J. Fluid Mech. 851, 288–316 (2018).
Wang, J. X., Wu, J. L. & Xiao, H. Physics-informed machine learning approach for reconstructing Reynolds stress modeling discrepancies based on DNS data. Phys. Rev. Fluids 2, 034603 (2017).
Wu, J.-L., Xiao, H. & Paterson, E. Physics-informed machine learning approach for augmenting turbulence models: a comprehensive framework. Phys. Rev. Fluids 3, 074602 (2018).
Jiang, C. et al. An interpretable framework of data-driven turbulence modeling using deep neural networks. Phys. Fluids 33, 055133 (2021).
Rudin, C. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 206–215 (2019).
Vinuesa, R. & Sirmacek, B. Interpretable deep-learning models to help achieve the sustainable development goals. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 926 (2021).
Cranmer, M. et al. Discovering symbolic models from deep learning with inductive biases. In Proc. 34th Int. Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems 17429–17442 (NIPS, 2020)
Weatheritt, J. & Sandberg, R. D. A novel evolutionary algorithm applied to algebraic modifications of the RANS stress-strain relationship. J. Comput. Phys. 325, 22–37 (2016).
Koza, J. R. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection (MIT Press, 1992).
Weatheritt, J. & Sandberg, R. D. The development of algebraic stress models using a novel evolutionary algorithm. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 68, 298–318 (2017).
Brunton, S. L., Proctor, J. L. & Kutz, J. N. Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 3932–3937 (2016).
Beetham, S. & Capecelatro, J. Formulating turbulence closures using sparse regression with embedded form invariance. Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 084611 (2020).
Schmelzer, M., Dwight, R. P. & Cinnella, P. Discovery of algebraic Reynolds-stress models using sparse symbolic regression. Flow Turbul. Combust. 104, 579–603 (2020).
Beetham, S., Fox, R. O. & Capecelatro, J. Sparse identification of multiphase turbulence closures for coupled fluid-particle flows. J. Fluid Mech. 914, A11 (2021).
Rezaeiravesh, S., Vinuesa, R. & Schlatter, P. On numerical uncertainties in scale-resolving simulations of canonical wall turbulence. Comput. Fluids 227, 105024 (2021).
Emory, M., Larsson, J. & Iaccarino, G. Modeling of structural uncertainties in Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes closures. Phys. Fluids 25, 110822 (2013).
Mishra, A. A. & Iaccarino, G. Uncertainty estimation for Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes predictions of high-speed aircraft nozzle jets. AIAA J. 55, 3999–4004 (2017).
Poroseva, S., Colmenares, F. J. D. & Murman, S. On the accuracy of RANS simulations with DNS data. Phys. Fluids 28, 115102 (2016).
Wu, J., Xiao, H., Sun, R. & Wang, Q. Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations with explicit data-driven Reynolds stress closure can be ill-conditioned. J. Fluid Mech. 869, 553–586 (2019).
Obiols-Sales, O., Vishnu, A., Malaya, N. & Chandramowlishwaran, A. CFDNet: a deep learning-based accelerator for fluid simulations. In Proc. 34th ACM Int. Conf. on Supercomputing 1–12 (ACM, 2020).
Spalart. P. & Allmaras, S. A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows. In 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 1992-0439 (AIAA, 1992).
Weller, H. G., Tabor, G., Jasak, H. & Fureby, C. A tensorial approach to computational continuum mechanics using object-oriented techniques. Comput. Phys. 12, 620–631 (1998).
Gibou, F., Hyde, D. & Fedkiw, R. Sharp interface approaches and deep learning techniques for multiphase flows. J. Comput. Phys. 380, 442–463 (2019).
Ma, M., Lu, J. & Tryggvasona, G. Using statistical learning to close two-fluid multiphase flow equations for a simple bubbly system. Phys. Fluids 27, 092101 (2015).
Mi, Y., Ishii, M. & Tsoukalas, L. H. Flow regime identification methodology with neural networks and two-phase flow models. Nucl. Eng. Des. 204, 87–100 (2001).
Smagorinsky, J. General circulation experiments with the primitive equations: I. The basic experiment. Mon. Weather Rev. 91, 99–164 (1963).
Beck, A. D., Flad, D. G. & Munz, C.-D. Deep neural networks for data-driven LES closure models. J. Comput. Phys. 398, 108910 (2019).
Lapeyre, C. J., Misdariis, A., Cazard, N., Veynante, D. & Poinsot, T. Training convolutional neural networks to estimate turbulent sub-grid scale reaction rates. Combust. Flame 203, 255–264 (2019).
Maulik, R., San, O., Rasheed, A. & Vedula, P. Subgrid modelling for two-dimensional turbulence using neural networks. J. Fluid Mech. 858, 122–144 (2019).
Kraichnan, R. H. Inertial ranges in two-dimensional turbulence. Phys. Fluids 10, 1417–1423 (1967).
Vollant, A., Balarac, G. & Corre, C. Subgrid-scale scalar flux modelling based on optimal estimation theory and machine-learning procedures. J. Turbul. 18, 854–878 (2017).
Gamahara, M. & Hattori, Y. Searching for turbulence models by artificial neural network. Phys. Rev. Fluids 2, 054604 (2017).
Maulik, R. & San, O. A neural network approach for the blind deconvolution of turbulent flows. J. Fluid Mech. 831, 151–181 (2017).
Reissmann, M., Hasslbergerb, J., Sandberg, R. D. & Klein, M. Application of gene expression programming to a-posteriori LES modeling of a Taylor Green vortex. J. Comput. Phys. 424, 109859 (2021).
Novati, G., de Laroussilhe, H. L. & Koumoutsakos, P. Automating turbulence modelling by multi-agent reinforcement learning. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 87–96 (2021).
Hutchins, N., Chauhan, K., Marusic, I., Monty, J. & Klewicki, J. Towards reconciling the large-scale structure of turbulent boundary layers in the atmosphere and laboratory. Bound. Layer Meteorol. 145, 273–306 (2012).
Britter, R. E. & Hanna, S. R. Flow and dispersion in urban areas. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 35, 469–496 (2003).
Giometto, M. G. et al. Spatial characteristics of roughness sublayer mean flow and turbulence over a realistic urban surface. Bound. Layer Meteorol. 160, 425–452 (2016).
Bou-Zeid, E., Meneveau, C. & Parlange, M. A scale-dependent Lagrangian dynamic model for large eddy simulation of complex turbulent flows. Phys. Fluids 17, 025105 (2005).
Moeng, C. A large-eddy-simulation model for the study of planetary boundary-layer turbulence. J. Atmos. Sci. 13, 2052–2062 (1984).
Mizuno, Y. & Jiménez, J. Wall turbulence without walls. J. Fluid Mech. 723, 429–455 (2013).
Encinar, M. P., García-Mayoral, R. & Jiménez, J. Scaling of velocity fluctuations in off-wall boundary conditions for turbulent flows. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 506, 012002 (2014).
Sasaki, K., Vinuesa, R., Cavalieri, A. V. G., Schlatter, P. & Henningson, D. S. Transfer functions for flow predictions in wall-bounded turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 864, 708–745 (2019).
Arivazhagan, G. B. et al. Predicting the near-wall region of turbulence through convolutional neural networks. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.07340 (2021).
Milano, M. & Koumoutsakos, P. Neural network modeling for near wall turbulent flow. J. Comput. Phys. 182, 1–26 (2002).
Moriya, N. et al. Inserting machine-learned virtual wall velocity for large-eddy simulation of turbulent channel flows. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09271 (2021).
Bae, H. J. & Koumoutsakos, P. Scientific multi-agent reinforcement learning for wall-models of turbulent flows. Nat. Commun. 13, 1443 (2022).
Taira, K. et al. Modal analysis of fluid flows: an overview. AIAA J. 55, 4013–4041 (2017).
Rowley, C. W. & Dawson, S. T. Model reduction for flow analysis and control. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 49, 387–417 (2017).
Taira, K. et al. Modal analysis of fluid flows: applications and outlook. AIAA J. 58, 998–1022 (2020).
Lumley, J. L. in Atmospheric Turbulence and Wave Propagation (eds Yaglom, A. M. & Tatarski, V. I.) 166–178 (1967).
Schmid, P. J. Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and experimental data. J. Fluid Mech. 656, 5–28 (2010).
Baldi, P. & Hornik, K. Neural networks and principal component analysis: learning from examples without local minima. Neural Netw. 2, 53–58 (1989).
Murata, T., Fukami, K. & Fukagata, K. Nonlinear mode decomposition with convolutional neural networks for fluid dynamics. J. Fluid Mech. 882, A13 (2020).
Eivazi, H., Le Clainche, S., Hoyas, S. & Vinuesa, R. Towards extraction of orthogonal and parsimonious non-linear modes from turbulent flows. Expert Syst. Appl. 202, 117038 (2022).
Noack, B. R., Afanasiev, K., Morzynski, M., Tadmor, G. & Thiele, F. A hierarchy of low-dimensional models for the transient and post-transient cylinder wake. J. Fluid Mech. 497, 335–363 (2003).
Lee, K. & Carlberg, K. T. Model reduction of dynamical systems on nonlinear manifolds using deep convolutional autoencoders. J. Comput. Phys. 404, 108973 (2020).
Benner, P., Gugercin, S. & Willcox, K. A survey of projection-based model reduction methods for parametric dynamical systems. SIAM Rev. 57, 483–531 (2015).
Carlberg, K., Barone, M. & Antil, H. Galerkin v. least-squares Petrov-Galerkin projection in nonlinear model reduction. J. Comput. Phys. 330, 693–734 (2017).
Cenedese, M., Axås, J., Bäuerlein, B., Avila, K. & Haller, G. Data-driven modeling and prediction of nonlinearizable dynamics via spectral submanifolds. Nat. Commun. 13, 872 (2022).
Lopez-Martin, M., Le Clainche, S. & Carro, B. Model-free short-term fluid dynamics estimator with a deep 3D-convolutional neural network. Expert Syst. Appl. 177, 114924 (2021).
Vlachas, P. R., Byeon, W., Wan, Z. Y., Sapsis, T. P. & Koumoutsakos, P. Data-driven forecasting of high-dimensional chaotic systems with long short-term memory networks. Proc. R. Soc. A 474, 20170844 (2018).
Srinivasan, P. A., Guastoni, L., Azizpour, H., Schlatter, P. & Vinuesa, R. Predictions of turbulent shear flows using deep neural networks. Phys. Rev. Fluids 4, 054603 (2019).
Abadía-Heredia, R. et al. A predictive hybrid reduced order model based on proper orthogonal decomposition combined with deep learning architectures. Expert Syst. Appl. 187, 115910 (2022).
Pathak, J., Hunt, B., Girvan, M., Lu, Z. & Ott, E. Model-free prediction of large spatiotemporally chaotic systems from data: a reservoir computing approach. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 024102 (2018).
Kaiser, E. et al. Cluster-based reduced-order modelling of a mixing layer. J. Fluid Mech. 754, 365–414 (2014).
Peherstorfer, B. & Willcox, K. Data-driven operator inference for nonintrusive projection-based model reduction. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 306, 196–215 (2016).
Benner, P., Goyal, P., Kramer, B., Peherstorfer, B. & Willcox, K. Operator inference for non-intrusive model reduction of systems with non-polynomial nonlinear terms. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 372, 113433 (2020).
Qian, E., Kramer, B., Peherstorfer, B. & Willcox, K. Lift & Learn: physics-informed machine learning for large-scale nonlinear dynamical systems. Physica D 406, 132401 (2020).
Loiseau, J.-C. & Brunton, S. L. Constrained sparse Galerkin regression. J. Fluid Mech. 838, 42–67 (2018).
Loiseau, J.-C. Data-driven modeling of the chaotic thermal convection in an annular thermosyphon. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 34, 339–365 (2020).
Guan, Y., Brunton, S. L. & Novosselov, I. Sparse nonlinear models of chaotic electroconvection. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, 202367 (2021).
Deng, N., Noack, B. R., Morzynski, M. & Pastur, L. R. Low-order model for successive bifurcations of the fluidic pinball. J. Fluid Mech. 884, A37 (2020).
Deng, N., Noack, B. R., Morzynski, M. & Pastur, L. R. Galerkin force model for transient and post-transient dynamics of the fluidic pinball. J. Fluid Mech. 918, A4 (2021).
Callaham, J. L., Rigas, G., Loiseau, J.-C. & Brunton, S. L. An empirical mean-field model of symmetry-breaking in a turbulent wake. Sci. Adv. 8, eabm4786 (2022).
Callaham, J. L., Brunton, S. L. & Loiseau, J.-C. On the role of nonlinear correlations in reduced-order modelling. J. Fluid Mech. 938, A1 (2022).
Champion, K., Lusch, B., Kutz, J. N. & Brunton, S. L. Data-driven discovery of coordinates and governing equations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 22445–22451 (2019).
Yeung, E., Kundu, S. & Hodas, N. Learning deep neural network representations for Koopman operators of nonlinear dynamical systems. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.06850 (2017).
Takeishi, N., Kawahara, Y. & Yairi, T. Learning Koopman invariant subspaces for dynamic mode decomposition. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 1130–1140 (ACM, 2017).
Lusch, B., Kutz, J. N. & Brunton, S. L. Deep learning for universal linear embeddings of nonlinear dynamics. Nat. Commun. 9, 4950 (2018).
Mardt, A., Pasquali, L., Wu, H. & No‚, F. VAMPnets: deep learning of molecular kinetics. Nat. Commun. 9, 5 (2018).
Otto, S. E. & Rowley, C. W. Linearly-recurrent autoencoder networks for learning dynamics. SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 18, 558–593 (2019).
Wang, R., Walters, R. & Yu, R. Incorporating symmetry into deep dynamics models for improved generalization. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.03061 (2020).
Wang, R., Kashinath, K., Mustafa, M., Albert, A. & Yu, R. Towards physics-informed deep learning for turbulent flow prediction. In Proc. 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining 1457–1466 (ACM, 2020).
Frezat, H., Balarac, G., Le Sommer, J., Fablet, R. & Lguensat, R. Physical invariance in neural networks for subgrid-scale scalar flux modeling. Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 024607 (2021).
Erichson, N. B., Muehlebach, M. & Mahoney, M. W. Physics-informed autoencoders for Lyapunov-stable fluid flow prediction. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.10866 (2019).
Kaptanoglu, A. A., Callaham, J. L., Hansen, C. J., Aravkin, A. & Brunton, S. L. Promoting global stability in data-driven models of quadratic nonlinear dynamics. Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 094401 (2021).
Vinuesa, R., Lehmkuhl, O., Lozano-Durán, A. & Rabault, J. Flow control in wings and discovery of novel approaches via deep reinforcement learning. Fluids 865, 281–302 (2019).
Guastoni, L. et al. Convolutional-network models to predict wall-bounded turbulence from wall quantities. J. Fluid Mech. 928, A27 (2021).
Kim, H., Kim, J., Won, S. & Lee, C. Unsupervised deep learning for super-resolution reconstruction of turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 910, A29 (2021).
Fukami, K., Fukagata, K. & Taira, K. Super-resolution reconstruction of turbulent flows with machine learning. J. Fluid Mech. 870, 106–120 (2019).
Güemes, A. et al. From coarse wall measurements to turbulent velocity fields through deep learning. Phys. Fluids 33, 075121 (2021).
Fukami, K., Nakamura, T. & Fukagata, K. Convolutional neural network based hierarchical autoencoder for nonlinear mode decomposition of fluid field data. Phys. Fluids 32, 095110 (2020).
Raissi, M., Yazdani, A. & Karniadakis, G. E. Hidden fluid mechanics: learning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations. Science 367, 1026–1030 (2020).
Eivazi, H., Tahani, M., Schlatter, P. & Vinuesa, R. Physics-informed neural networks for solving Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.10711 (2021).
Kim, Y., Choi, Y., Widemann, D. & Zohdi, T. A fast and accurate physics-informed neural network reduced order model with shallow masked autoencoder. J. Comput. Phys. 451, 110841 (2021).
Eivazi, H. & Vinuesa, R. Physics-informed deep-learning applications to experimental fluid mechanics. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.15402 (2022).
Markidis, S. The old and the new: can physics-informed deep-learning replace traditional linear solvers? Front. Big Data https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2021.669097 (2021).
Kim, J., Moin, P. & Moser, R. Turbulence statistics in fully developed channel flow at low Reynolds number. J. Fluid Mech. 177, 133–166 (1987).
Fukagata, K. Towards quantum computing of turbulence. Nat. Comput. Sci. 2, 68–69 (2022).
Barba, L. A. The hard road to reproducibility. Science 354, 142–142 (2016).
Mesnard, O. & Barba, L. A. Reproducible and replicable computational fluid dynamics: it’s harder than you think. Comput. Sci. Eng. 19, 44–55 (2017).
R.V. acknowledges financial support from the Swedish Research Council (VR) and from ERC grant no. ‘2021-CoG-101043998, DEEPCONTROL’. S.L.B. acknowledges funding support from the Army Research Office (ARO W911NF-19-1-0045; programme manager M. Munson).
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information
Nature Computational Science thanks Michael Brenner and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Principal Handling Editor: Jie Pan, in collaboration with the Nature Computational Science team.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Vinuesa, R., Brunton, S.L. Enhancing computational fluid dynamics with machine learning. Nat Comput Sci 2, 358–366 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-022-00264-7