Physical Interpretation of

Pedro M. Milani1
Mechanical Engineering Department,
Stanford University,
Machine Learning Models
Stanford, CA 94305
Applied to Film Cooling Flows

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/141/1/011004/6309973/turbo_141_01_011004.pdf by Prasad V. Potluri Siddhartha Institute Of Technology user on 08 November 2023
e-mail: pmmilani@stanford.edu

Julia Ling
Principal Scientist,
Citrine Informatics,
Redwood City, CA 94063
John K. Eaton
Mechanical Engineering Department,
Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305
Current turbulent heat flux models fail to predict accurate temperature distributions in
film cooling flows. The present paper focuses on a machine learning (ML) approach to
this problem, in which the gradient diffusion hypothesis (GDH) is used in conjunction
with a data-driven prediction for the turbulent diffusivity field at. An overview of the
model is presented, followed by validation against two film cooling datasets. Despite
insufficiencies, the model shows some improvement in the near-injection region. The
present work also attempts to interpret the complex ML decision process, by analyzing
the model features and determining their importance. These results show that the model
is heavily reliant of distance to the wall d and eddy viscosity  t, while other features
display localized prominence. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4041291]

1 Introduction
Modern gas turbine blades must operate under high-
temperature conditions and need to be cooled to meet their
required lifespan. Film cooling is a technique widely employed
for this purpose [1]. To determine the effectiveness of such cool-
ing configurations, Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS)
simulations usually are employed in the design cycle due to their
much lower computational cost when compared to higher fidelity
large eddy simulations (LES) and direct numerical simulations
(DNS). However, RANS simulations must model all turbulent
scales, and current state-of-the-art models are well known to pro-
vide poor predictions of quantities of interest, especially the mean
temperature. Therefore, the turbomachinery community would
greatly benefit from transport models better suited to compute the
mean temperature field in film cooling flows.
Many closure models have been proposed for the momentum
equation. Those include the two equation k–e [2] and k–x [3]
models, with several subsequent modifications and improvements
(e.g., in Shih et al. [4]). Hoda and Acharya [5] applied several of
these models to the problem of predicting the velocity field in a
film cooling flow and found that none produced excellent agree-
ment. However, the focus of the present work is the closure of the
temperature equation for two reasons: first, because work by Ling
et al. [6] showed that modeling errors in the turbulent heat flux
contribute significantly to the error in the mean temperature field
and second, because this is a relatively unexplored field; modeling
options for the temperature equation are much more limited than
they are for the momentum equation.
For the purposes of this paper, the flow is considered incom-
pressible and temperature is assumed to behave as a passive
scalar, which is justified when advective transport is much stron-
ger than buoyancy. Then, the scalar transport equation for a statis-
tically stationary flow is given by Eq. (1), where h indicates the
normalized temperature (the passive scalar), overbars indicate
time average, and a is the molecular diffusivity. The unclosed
term, which needs a model, is the turbulent scalar flux u0i h0 . The
simplest and most widely employed model is the gradient diffu-
sion hypothesis (GDH), which linearly relates the turbulent scalar
1
Corresponding author.
Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for
publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received August 16,
2018; final manuscript received August 22, 2018; published online October 17, 2018.
Editor: Kenneth Hall.
flux and the mean scalar gradient via a turbulent diffusivity at, as
shown in Eq. (2). To specify at everywhere in the domain, solvers
typically employ the Reynolds analogy by fixing a turbulent
Prandtl number, usually Prt ¼ 0.85 [7]. Then, at is found as a func-
tion of the eddy viscosity field, at ¼  t/Prt
!
@   @ @h @ 0 0
ui h ¼ a  uh (1)
@xi @xi @xi @xi i
@h
u0i h0 ¼ at (2)
@xi
Previous research has shown that this approach does not capture
the turbulent scalar flux adequately. Recent experimental work by
Schreivogel et al. [8] investigated inclined jets in crossflow with
and without trenches and found misalignment between u0i h0 and
ð@h=@xi Þ, including regions of counter-gradient transport. Kohli
and Bogard [9] used experimental data to estimate the turbulent
Prandlt number in a film cooling configuration and found a spa-
tially varying field, roughly between 0.5 and 2.
Literature does not present many alternatives to the simple
GDH of Eq. (2) with a fixed Prt. The two other commonly cited
models are the generalized gradient diffusion hypothesis (GGDH)
of Daly and Harlow [10] and the higher order generalized gradient
diffusion hypothesis (HOGGDH) of Abe and Suga [11]. Like the
GDH, both need the tuning of a model constant; unlike the GDH,
they also require the full Reynolds stress tensor u0i u0j . Ling et al.
[6] found that indeed the GGDH and HOGGDH could represent
the turbulent scalar flux slightly better in a film cooling configura-
tion. However, these models struggled with numerical instabil-
ities, and the authors concluded that appropriate tuning of model
parameters is more important than switching to a more complex
model. That led Milani et al. [12] to propose a novel approach to
this problem: use the GDH of Eq. (2) but prescribe the turbulent
diffusivity at using a machine learning (ML) algorithm.
Machine learning is a framework where an algorithm processes
large amounts of data and uses that data to build models and make
predictions. There is a small but growing community trying to
apply these methods to turbulence modeling problems. Ling et al.
[13] trained deep neural networks to predict the RANS anisotropy
tensor. Weatheritt et al. [14] used symbolic regression to predict
nonlinear relationships between stress and strain in the wake
behind a high-pressure turbine blade. Duraisamy et al. [15]

Journal of Turbomachinery Copyright V

C 2019 by ASME JANUARY 2019, Vol. 141 / 011004-1
employed machine learning as a step in their proposed methodol-
ogy for improving closure models. In many of these papers,
machine learning is found to be a promising tool to produce
improved models. However, these models tend to be difficult to
interpret, particularly when complex algorithms such as deep neu-
ral networks and random forests (RF) are used.
Explaining the predictions of a machine learning model can be
extremely useful for a few different reasons. It can help one
diagnose misleading models or improve the models by highlight-
ing their weaknesses. In physical simulations, interpretation of
machine learning models can provide insights on the underlying
physics and thus inspire scientists to develop new physics-based
models. Model interpretation is a challenging task and an open
question in the broader machine learning community. One of the
many attempts to address this is by Ribeiro et al. [16], who recog-
nizes the importance of explaining ML models and develops a
local explanation technique. In the turbulence community, Wu
et al. [17] applied dimensionality reduction to visualize features in
high dimensional space, which could be useful to generate
insights if coupled with a machine learning model.
To address this, the current paper analyzes the model used by
Milani et al. [12] to obtain improved results in film cooling flows
in an attempt to gain insights on the decisions it makes. In Sec. 2,
a brief overview of the model is presented. Section 3 presents vali-
dation results on two different datasets. In Sec. 4, the importance
of different features is determined and then used for model inter-
pretation. Finally, Sec. 5 discusses conclusions and suggestions
for future work.
2 Machine Learning Methodology
2.1 Algorithm. The idea behind the model first presented in
Milani et al. [12] is to use the GDH as a simple closure to Eq. (1)
coupled with a turbulent diffusivity field that is predicted by a
machine learning algorithm, at,ML. This field is assumed to be a
function of local, properly nondimensionalized RANS variables:
the mean velocity gradient, ru, the mean scalar gradient as calcu-
lated by the Prt ¼ 0.85 model, rh, the distance to the nearest wall,
d, and the eddy viscosity,  t. The quantity at,ML is a scalar, and
therefore must be Galilean invariant, but ru and rh change
under different reference frames. To address this inconsistency,
the methodology proposed in Ling et al. [18] is followed to obtain
invariant bases: a total of 19 features are extracted, {/1, /2,…,
/19} (see Sec. 4 for a complete list). A machine learning model is
then used at each computational cell of the RANS domain to map
between these 19 features and the local turbulent diffusivity:
at,ML ¼ f(/1, /2,…, /19). Note that the selection of the 19 features
is a design choice, made once at the start of the current work.
They depend exclusively on the results of a k–e RANS
simulation—as soon as one is run in any geometry, the features
are readily available in each computational cell of the domain.
The ML step consists of the choice of the functional form of f
and its calibration against data. At training time, the function f is
calibrated to reproduce as well as possible the mapping from the
features to at in the training datasets. At test time, the function f is
used to assign a value of at to each cell of the domain of test data-
sets (distinct from the training ones), given the 19 features avail-
able from RANS.
There are several different machine learning tools to perform
this regression task (i.e., different forms of f). For this research, a
RF with Ntrees ¼ 1000 was chosen and implemented in Python
using the SCIKIT-LEARN package [19]. The work of Ling and Tem-
pleton [20] showed that RFs, despite being relatively easy to
implement and tune, give good accuracy for turbulence modeling
applications. A random forest is an ensemble of Ntrees distinct
binary decision trees, each constructed with a different training
set—consisting of points that are randomly sampled from the total
training data. The overall decision of the forest is an average of
each individual tree’s prediction. See Sec. 4.1 for a more in-depth
011004-2 / Vol. 141, JANUARY 2019
explanation of the RF model. Milani et al. [12] demonstrated that
Ntrees ¼ 1000 is sufficient to provide good predictive accuracy for
this class of problems.
Since a supervised learning approach is taken, the model
requires training data to fit the function f, for which the true at is
known. To generate this, one can leverage DNS/LES of the same
geometries where RANS data are available. In these high-fidelity
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/141/1/011004/6309973/turbo_141_01_011004.pdf by Prasad V. Potluri Siddhartha Institute Of Technology user on 08 November 2023
datasets, the quantity u0i h0 is directly available, together with the
mean scalar gradient ð@h=@xi Þ. Then, a turbulent diffusivity at,LES
is found as a least-squares fit to Eq. (2). This field is interpolated
onto the RANS mesh, and the resulting quantity is assumed to be
the true diffusivity that is used to train the random forest.
2.2 Datasets. In the present work, four distinct geometries
were studied. They consist of three different film cooling configu-
rations, and a separated flow around a wall-mounted cube. In all
of them, a RANS simulation was performed using the commercial
software Fluent, with the realizable k–e model of Shih et al. [4]
and enhanced wall treatment. For the initial RANS calculations,
the GDH with Prt ¼ 0.85 was used in the scalar transport equation.
In all cases, a fine mesh near the wall was used (first cell at
yþ  1), and a mesh convergence study showed satisfactory
results. Also, a second-order upwind scheme was used for spatial
discretization. In three of the cases, a DNS or high-resolution LES
that has been well-validated against experimental data is also
available (see more information in Milani et al. [12]); for one
case, 3D mean scalar concentration measurements obtained using
magnetic resonance concentration (MRC) are available for
validation.
The Baseline geometry consists of a single circular film cooling
hole, discharging at a 30 deg inclination angle into a square main-
flow channel of side 8.6D (D is the hole diameter). The film cool-
ing hole has a length L/D ¼ 4.1. The blowing ratio, BR, and
density ratio, DR, are both equal to 1. The incoming boundary
layer, measured 2D before injection, has a thickness of d/D ¼ 1.4.
The coolant flows from a plenum underneath the channel, which
is fed from the spanwise direction, and contains scalar concentra-
tion h ¼ 1. The concentration in the main channel, upstream of
injection, is h ¼ 0. Figure 1(a) shows a spanwise plane at the cen-
ter of the channel for this geometry. The RANS simulation of the
Fig. 1 Center spanwise plane showing contours of h calcu-
lated by the RANS simulation with Prt 5 0.85 in (a) the baseline
case and (b) the FPG case. BR 5 1 and DR 5 1 for both cases.
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 2 Schematic showing the film cooling hole in the Skewed
case, adapted from Folkersma and Bodart [24]. The first image
shows the top view, and the second shows the side view.
Lengths are nondimensionalized by the hole diameter.
Baseline case is described in Coletti et al. [21] and the LES comes
from Bodart et al. [22].
The other two film cooling geometries are based on the Base-
line configuration, but slightly modified to alter some flow charac-
teristics. One of them has a significant favorable pressure gradient
(FPG) in the main flow: the flow goes through an initially square
channel that contracts in the vertical direction, causing it to
accelerate. The blowing ratio (defined as the bulk velocity in the
cooling hole divided by the bulk velocity of the main flow at the
injection location) and density ratio are also one, BR ¼ DR ¼ 1.
The incoming boundary layer thickness is smaller than in the
Baseline case, as expected (d/D ¼ 1.0 measured 2D before injec-
tion). The cooling hole and the plenum are identical to the Base-
line case. High-fidelity simulation data are not available; instead,
3D mean concentration data obtained through the MRC technique
by Coletti et al. [23] are used for model validation. The aforemen-
tioned reference also contains more details about this geometry.
The third film cooling configuration is the Skewed case. It con-
sists of a channel with a single compound-angle injection hole:
the hole is inclined 30 deg in the streamwise direction and 30 deg
in the spanwise direction (see Fig. 2). The channel is rectangular,
8.6D in height and 17.3D in width (it is twice as wide to accom-
modate the lateral motion of the jet). The incoming boundary
layer has thickness d/D ¼ 1.9, measured 2D upstream of injection.
The blowing ratio and density ratio are both 1. The film cooling
hole has the same length L/D ¼ 4.1 as before. The RANS
simulation is described in Milani et al. [12] and the LES is given
in Folkersma and Bodart [24]. The latter source also provides
much more detail about the geometry and the resulting flow.
The fourth geometry used is a wall-mounted cube in crossflow,
described in the work of Rossi et al. [25]. It consists of a flow near
a wall that encounters a cube of side D. There is a small region on
top of the cube that is kept at a constant temperature h ¼ 1, which
generates a nontrivial scalar distribution. Rossi et al. [25] presents
both a RANS simulation and a DNS of that geometry; a contour
plot of the results can be found in Fig. 3. While this is not a film
cooling flow, it was included in the training database because it
includes key features that would be found in a film cooling flow,
including 3D flow separation and a free shear layer.
Table 1 shows a summary of all the four datasets utilized,
including their respective Reynolds number based on D (hole
diameter or cube length) and either coolant jet bulk velocity (base-
line, FPG, skewed) or free-stream velocity (cube). For this work,
the model was trained in the Skewed and Cube datasets, and then
tested on the Baseline and FPG cases. The datasets were
Journal of Turbomachinery
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/141/1/011004/6309973/turbo_141_01_011004.pdf by Prasad V. Potluri Siddhartha Institute Of Technology user on 08 November 2023
Fig. 3 Center spanwise plane of the Cube geometry, with con-
tours of h taken from the DNS
Table 1 Summary of the datasets
Case Description ReD Use
Baseline Inclined jet in crossflow 3000 Test
FPG Inclined jet in FPG crossflow 3400 Test
Skewed Compound-angle jet in crossflow 5800 Train
Cube Wall-mounted cube in crossflow 5000 Train
designated as training or testing based on the availability of high
fidelity LES/DNS data: in order to be used in the training set, high
fidelity simulation data are required because the u0i h0 field is
needed. Testing is possible without it, as long as there are experi-
mental data against which the mean scalar field can be validated.
Note that the range of Reynolds numbers studied is limited by
the availability of reliable high-fidelity simulations and 3D experi-
mental data (since neither DNS/LES or MRC are possible in
much higher Re). This is a limitation of the current work—and in
the future, it would be interesting to study how well machine
learning models calibrated in low Re flow generalize to higher
Reynolds number.
3 Machine Learning Results
In this section, the machine learning model is compared against
a traditional RANS model in the Baseline and FPG cases. Valida-
tion is performed by comparing the computed mean scalar fields
to the known answer from high-fidelity simulations or experi-
ments. Those fields are obtained by solving the scalar transport
equation using distinct diffusivity fields: the regular at,RANS,
obtained from Prt ¼ 0.85; the machine-learned diffusivity, at,ML;
and the diffusivity extracted from the LES, at,LES (only in the
Baseline case, because it is not available in the FPG case).
In all cases, the scalar transport equation is solved with a fixed
velocity field, obtained from the original RANS. This is a limita-
tion of the present approach, since the only correction proposed is
in the turbulent scalar flux model—the traditional RANS velocity
field, which is not perfectly accurate, is still employed in the sca-
lar equation. This is justified since multiple studies have shown
that the traditional models for turbulent mixing work poorly in
film cooling configurations (recent examples include the work of
Schreivogel et al. [8] and Oliver et al. [26]), so even an attempt to
fix only them is still valuable. Using the LES velocity field is pos-
sible to isolate the errors due to the mixing model; however, this
is not realistic for a standalone RANS solver, where LES veloc-
ities are not available. If the ML model is to be used in practice, it
must be used with a RANS velocity field.
3.1 Baseline Results. In this subsection, the model is applied
to the Baseline geometry. The current results differ from the ones
presented in Milani et al. [12] for two reasons. First, a better
numerical scheme was used in the present work to solve the scalar
equation (the different diffusivities were input into Fluent, and the
scalar equation was solved in the same converged mesh used for
the original RANS, with second-order accurate methods). Second,
the field at,RANS is defined presently as  t/0.85, where  t is the
eddy viscosity from the realizable k–e model; in Milani et al., it is
JANUARY 2019, Vol. 141 / 011004-3

Fig. 4 Mean scalar field in the Baseline geometry. The left panels show wall-normal planes at the wall (Y/D 5 0), equivalent to
adiabatic effectiveness. The right panels show streamwise planes at X/D 5 2 and X/D 5 5, respectively. Contour lines are
shown at h 5 0:75, 0.5, 0.25. (a) has the LES field, (b)–(d) contain the mean scalar field calculated using different turbulent dif-
fusivity fields.
defined as ð0:09k2 =e=0:85Þ, where the numerator is the eddy vis-
cosity from the standard k–e model. This difference in models
makes the Prt ¼ 0.85 results reported next significantly more accu-
rate than the ones from Milani et al. close to the wall, but less so
in the shear layer between the jet and the free-stream.
Figure 4 shows contour plots of the scalar concentration in the
Baseline geometry. Figure 4(a) displays the LES results and a few
interesting features should be highlighted. From the wall plot, it is
clear that the adiabatic effectiveness is not monotonic: at a blow-
ing ratio of 1, the core of the jet is detached from the wall, leading
to low values of scalar concentration immediately after injection.
The concentration then recovers after reattachment at around
X/D ¼ 4, and falls slowly afterward. In the spanwise planes, a dis-
tinctive kidney shape is observed at X/D ¼ 2 due to the presence
of a strong counter-rotating vortex pair after injection. Note that
since the LES results were thoroughly validated against experi-
mental data [22], these results are treated as the ground truth that
the RANS models should be able to capture.
The calculations with the traditional RANS model, using
Prt ¼ 0.85, are shown in Fig. 4(b). The detachment mentioned
before is not well captured, since the wall normal plane shows a
continuous h ¼ 0:25 contour. Regarding the streamwise planes, it
is possible to observe the kidney shape at X/D ¼ 2. However, the
high concentration jet core is located closer to the wall (another
evidence that the detachment is not accurately captured) and with
a much smoother gradient in the windward side. Also, the calcula-
tions underestimate the peak scalar concentration and the lateral
spread of the jet core, which can be seen at X/D ¼ 5 as well. These
problems arise due to high diffusivity at assigned by the model in
011004-4 / Vol. 141, JANUARY 2019
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/141/1/011004/6309973/turbo_141_01_011004.pdf by Prasad V. Potluri Siddhartha Institute Of Technology user on 08 November 2023
the near-injection region, which causes the scalar contained in the
core to diffuse more quickly toward the wall and particularly
toward the free-stream.
Figure 4(c) presents the results from using the machine learning
turbulent diffusivity. It shows some qualitative improvement over
the Prt ¼ 0.85 model, but it also faces difficulties. It predicts
the detachment of the jet core better, as evidenced by the nonmo-
notonic behavior of the scalar concentration at the wall, but it
underpredicts the decay of the adiabatic effectiveness further
downstream, causing the h ¼ 0:25 contour to end about 2.5D far-
ther in the wall-normal plane. In the streamwise planes, the peak
concentration at the jet core is now overpredicted, both at X/D ¼ 2
and X/D ¼ 5. The lateral spread of the kidney-shaped region is
more accurately captured and its features are sharper and more
accurate (the curvature at the bottom and the y-gradient at the
top), but the model now overpredicts the total extent of the region
of high scalar concentration. A qualitative comparison between
Figs. 4(c) and 4(d) shows an important result: the scalar concen-
tration predicted by the machine learning algorithm is very similar
to the one predicted by directly using the turbulent diffusivity
from the LES, at,LES. This shows that the random forest is per-
forming well at predicting what it was trained to predict (a field
at,ML that looks as close as possible to at,LES); the shortcomings in
the scalar field, then, arise due to weaknesses in the model,
because even with a perfect diffusivity, there is only so much of
the real physics one can capture with the gradient diffusion
hypothesis.
To compare the results more quantitatively, Fig. 5 shows two
lines plots at crucial locations: one at the center of the channel at
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 5 Line plots of h in the Baseline geometry. (a) shows wall-normal variation at Z/D 5 0 and
X/D 5 2; (b) shows streamwise variation at Z/D 5 0 and Y/D 5 0. The top-right corner of plot (b)
shows a zoomed-in version of itself close to injection.
the X/D ¼ 2 location, showing how h changes in the wall-normal
direction (Fig. 5(a)), and one showing how it evolves in the
streamwise direction at the wall (Fig. 5(b)). Note that the latter is
equivalent to the centerline adiabatic effectiveness. In Fig. 5(a), it
is clear that the Prt ¼ 0.85 solution underestimates the peak con-
centration because the scalar at the center to the jet diffuses too
much in the y-direction, leading to a smoother gradient at the top
and a higher concentration at the wall. The machine learning
results, in turn, overestimate this peak concentration; but the ML
model performs much better at the top of the jet, where the
y-gradient is well captured, and in computing the value of h at the
wall (at X/D ¼ 2, the jet is still detached). In Fig. 5(b), the nonmo-
notonic behavior is obvious for the LES results of Bodart et al.
[22]: a dip happens at around X/D ¼ 2, but the concentration
recovers at around X/D ¼ 4. The machine learning field reprodu-
ces this better qualitatively but misses the exact numbers; the
Prt ¼ 0.85 curve displays a qualitatively incorrect trend. At higher
distances from injection (X/D > 10), all models capture the results
relatively well, with the machine learning model slightly overesti-
mating h.
Finally, integral error metrics can be defined to compare 3D
fields point-by-point over different regions of the flow. Equation
(3) shows the error metric used, where the sum is performed over
all cells of a specified region of interest
X wall, so comparisons are made starting at Y/D ¼ 0.15 (i.e.,
jhi  h i;LES jVi
i
error ¼ X (3)
Vi
i Fig. 6(a), the experimental contours are shown: on the left, a wall-
hi is the scalar calculated with one of the different diffusivities at
the ith cell, while h i;LES is the concentration from the LES. Vi is
the volume of the ith cell. Note that this is a generalized form of
the metric used in Milani et al. [12], which weights the error in
each cell by the cell’s volume, and thus is more appropriate for
unstructured meshes. The results of applying the error metrics can
be found in Table 2. These numbers show that using the machine
learning diffusivity is about as good as using the Prt ¼ 0.85 closure
in the overall domain and very near the wall. However, the accu-
racy in the injection region, which is where most of the interesting
physics happen, can be significantly improved by using the pro-
posed ML model. Note that using the LES diffusivity has, in gen-
eral, the smallest errors as expected. However, as Figs. 4 and 5
showed, the ML model matches the LES results well in most of
the interesting regions of the flow.
Journal of Turbomachinery
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/141/1/011004/6309973/turbo_141_01_011004.pdf by Prasad V. Potluri Siddhartha Institute Of Technology user on 08 November 2023
Table 2 Error in the Baseline case using distinct diffusivity
fields
Region of interest (baseline)
Total Injection Wall
X/D: –1 to 19 X/D: –1 to 4 X/D: 1 to 19
Y/D: 0 to 2 Y/D: 0 to 2 Y/D: 0 to 0.1
Z/D: –1 to 1 Z/D: –1 to 1 Z/D: –1 to 1
RANS 0.0228 0.0278 0.0220
ML 0.0222 0.0188 0.0228
LES 0.0170 0.0159 0.0202
3.2 Favorable Pressure Gradient Results. Next, the machine
learning model is applied to make predictions in the FPG dataset.
The exact same random forest used in Sec. 3.1 (which was calibrated
in the Skewed and Cube datasets) is employed, and predictions are
based on the RANS features of the FPG dataset. Then, the scalar
fields are computed with the RANS velocity field and either at,RANS
or at,ML. The validation is done by comparing those computed scalar
fields with the 3D MRC data of Coletti et al. [23]. There are two
important points to note in this comparison: first, due to partial vol-
ume effects, the experimental data are not very accurate close to the
0.15D ¼ 0.9 mm above the wall). Second, there is experimental
uncertainty in the h measurements at each cell of around 0.05.
Figure 6 shows the contour plots in the FPG geometry. In
normal plane at the closest location to the wall allowed by the
experiment, which is a “near-wall” adiabatic effectiveness; and
on the right, streamwise planes at the same locations as before
(X/D ¼ 2 and X/D ¼ 5). Many of the qualitative features described
in the Baseline case are also observed here, like the kidney shape
and the separation followed by reattachment. Some notable differ-
ences can be seen at the X/D ¼ 2 streamwise location. Because of
the accelerating flow and thinner incoming boundary layer, the
high-concentration jet core is pushed toward the bottom wall and
spreads more laterally when compared to the Baseline geometry.
Comparing Figs. 6(b) and 6(c) to Fig. 6(a) tells a very similar
story to the comparisons made in the Baseline case. The RANS
diffusivity predicts a much less drastic separation of the jet core,
while the machine learning diffusivity performs better at that. The
former underpredicts the peak concentration at X/D ¼ 2 and
X/D ¼ 5 due to high vertical diffusion, particularly toward the
JANUARY 2019, Vol. 141 / 011004-5
 Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/141/1/011004/6309973/turbo_141_01_011004.pdf by Prasad V. Potluri Siddhartha Institute Of Technology user on 08 November 2023
Fig. 6 Mean scalar field in the FPG case. The left panels show wall-normal planes at a near-wall location (Y/D 5 0.15). The
right panels show streamwise planes at X/D 5 2 and X/D 5 5, respectively. Contour lines are shown at h 5 0:75, 0.5, 0.25. (a) has
the MRC field from Coletti et al. [23], (b) and (c) contain the mean scalar field calculated using different turbulent diffusivity
fields.

free-stream, while the latter overpredicts it slightly. Both RANS
models predict the jet core lower than what is shown in the
experiment.
The same quantitative tools used in Sec. 3.1 can also be
employed here. Line plots showing vertical variation at a fixed
X/D ¼ 2 location and streamwise variation of the near-wall effec-
tiveness are shown in Fig. 7. Figure 7(a) makes it clear that the
ML diffusivity slightly overpredicts the peak concentration, while
the Prt ¼ 0.85 model underpredicts it. The ML model captures a
sharper, more accurate concentration gradient above the peak, and
does a slightly better job toward the wall. In the near-wall effec-
tiveness of Fig. 7(b), neither model captures the detachment well
between X/D ¼ 2 and X/D ¼ 4, but the ML diffusivity gets closer;
both models yield similar and accurate results far away from the
hole, at X/D > 10.
Table 3 has the error metrics calculated in the FPG case using
Eq. (3). Note that to apply that cell-by-cell difference, the MRC
data (available in a uniform Cartesian mesh) are linearly interpo-
lated onto the RANS mesh. The numbers show, once again, that
the models have somewhat similar results in the full region. In
the near-wall region, between Y/D ¼ 0.15 and Y/D ¼ 0.25, the
Prt ¼ 0.85 performed better. Finally, as seen before, the ML model
obtained better results in the near injection region as a whole,
though the difference was not as significant as the improvement
seen in Table 2.
Overall, as this comparison has shown, the same machine learn-
ing model obtained similar results in both datasets, the Baseline
and the FPG. Its comparison to the Prt ¼ 0.85 model reveals
strengths and weaknesses that should be investigated further. This
consistency in results is reassuring: had the application of the

Fig. 7 Line plots of h in the FPG geometry. (a) shows wall-normal variation at the centerline
of the X/D 5 2 position; (b) shows streamwise variation at the centerline of Y/D 5 0.15 position
(near-wall centerline adiabatic effectiveness). The top-right corner of plot (b) shows a
zoomed-in version of itself close to injection.

011004-6 / Vol. 141, JANUARY 2019 Transactions of the ASME

 Table 3 Error in the FPG case using distinct diffusivity fields Table 4 Features used by the model, sorted in descending
order of feature importance. The last column indicates the
Region of interest (FPG) standard deviation of the importance across all trees in the
forest.
Total Injection Wall
ID Feature Importance r
X/D: –1 to 19 X/D: –1 to 4 X/D: 1 to 19 pffiffiffi

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/141/1/011004/6309973/turbo_141_01_011004.pdf by Prasad V. Potluri Siddhartha Institute Of Technology user on 08 November 2023
Y/D: 0.15 to 2 Y/D: 0.15 to 2 Y/D: 0.15 to 0.25 17 kd 0.2996 0.0133
Z/D: –1 to 1 Z/D: –1 to 1 Z/D: –1 to 1 Red ¼

18  t/ 0.1537 0.0136
RANS 0.0225 0.0326 0.0392 5 tr(R2SRS2) 0.0891 0.0028
ML 0.0202 0.0286 0.0453 1 tr(S3) 0.0651 0.0047
0 tr(S2) 0.0606 0.0031
2 tr(R2) 0.0579 0.0032
present approach produced radically different effects in these two 8 qT S2q 0.0559 0.0082
similar datasets, one might suspect that the ML algorithm is sensi- 6 qTq 0.0463 0.0033
tive to small differences in the simulation, which is an undesirable 3 tr(R2S) 0.0440 0.0045
property. The present results, however, hint that this novel and 9 qT R2q 0.0298 0.0082
somewhat unorthodox machine learning approach has the poten- 4 tr(R2S2) 0.0222 0.0021
tial to generate robust turbulence models. 7 qT Sq 0.0187 0.0020
13 qT R2Sq 0.0162 0.0028
12 qT SRS2q 0.0082 0.0012
4 Feature Analysis 11 qT RS2q 0.0076 0.0008
The objective of this section is to analyze how important each 15 qT R2SRq 0.0073 0.0009
of the different flow features /i is for the RF in its predictions of 14 qT R2S2q 0.0071 0.0009
at. This analysis is useful because it provides physical insight into 16 qT RS2R2q 0.0058 0.0008
the machine learning model that could be used to devise improved 10 qT RSq 0.0052 0.0008
analytic models.

4.1 Background on Random Forests. Louppe [27] provides standard deviation (r) in the importance between all trees in the
a comprehensive explanation of how random forests and decision forest is also calculated for each feature, which gives a metric of
trees work. The following paragraphs give a simplified overview how different the trees in the forest are. Note that the feature
to motivate feature importance and describe how it can be importance metric is commonly used in random forest models and
calculated. is more thoroughly described in Ref. [27].
A random forest is an ensemble algorithm because it consists of
a set of different instances of a same, simpler building block 4.2 Feature Importance. Table 4 shows each of the 19 fea-
model, the binary decision tree. Each tree is distinct because it is tures of the present model, ranked by the importance calculated
fitted to a randomly selected subset of the full training set. Each of according to Sec. 4.1. Each feature is a scalar, and they form an
these random subsets is drawn with replacement from the full invariant basis of the relevant tensorial quantities (see Ref. [18]).
training set, so that some points are repeated and some are S and R denote the symmetric and antisymmetric parts of the
omitted. mean velocity gradient tensor ru, which are 3  3 tensors, and q
To construct the tree (i.e., at training time), the splits are deter-
denotes the mean concentration gradient (i.e., q ¼ rh), a three-
mined through a greedy algorithm. At a given node n, each choice dimensional vector. Note again that this RF was trained in the
of a split can be represented by a particular feature /i and a Skewed and Cube datasets and the feature importance is solely
threshold, T. Each choice of {/i, T}, would lead to some data
based on those training points. Figure 8 presents the same infor-
points falling into the left child of n, and the remaining falling mation in graphical form.
into the right child. The algorithm picks the particular /i and T
The first observation is that when the model is trained, the
that minimize the sum of the variances in the target quantity at,LES Reynolds number based on distance to the wall Red is by far
of the points in the two child nodes, weighted by the number of the most important feature; alone, it accounts for about 30% of
elements in each child node. Intuitively, the algorithm wants the
ðnÞ
most informative split possible: by choosing f/i ; T ðnÞ g at node
n, it separates the data into two sides, with each side containing
points that are similar to each other. At test time, each data point
starts at the root and goes down the tree according to the rules
imposed by each node, until a leaf is reached and the turbulent dif-
fusivity at,ML is assigned.
As the tree is trained, the quality of each split is calculated.
This is just the reduction in variance between the set of points
assigned to node n and the two complementary subsets of points
that go to the left and right children of n. Then, for each tree, the
feature importance is calculated as the sum of the qualities of all
the splits where that feature is used, weighted by the number of
training points that pass through each split. This quantity is nor-
malized, so the importance metrics of all the features sum to one.
Higher importance for a feature means that the feature is more
often used to make informative splits. Intuitively, this importance
metric shows how much each feature was able to explain the var-
iance in the turbulent diffusivity in the training set. Fig. 8 Feature importance for each model feature in the train-
For a random forest, the importance metric in each of its deci- ing set. Error bars indicate the standard deviation between the
sion trees is individually calculated and then averaged. The 1000 trees in the forest.

Journal of Turbomachinery JANUARY 2019, Vol. 141 / 011004-7


Fig. 9 Contour plots showing the pointwise feature usage of selected features in the Baseline case. These are streamwise
planes at X/D 5 2 and the contour lines show levels of h 5 0:75, 0.5, 0.25 in the LES field. The figure is blanked in cells where
the gradient of the mean scalar field is negligible. Color plots are available in the online version.
the variance of the diffusivity. The eddy viscosity ratio  t/ is the
second most important feature, contributing about 15%. The
Reynolds analogy (i.e., the assumption that scalar transport is
analogous to momentum transport, which leads to a fixed Prt)
implies that at is only a function of  t, so it is expected that  t/
would be an important feature. The Reynolds analogy breaks
down at the wall, where scalar and momentum transport have
asymptotically different behaviors, as noted by Ling [28]. Thus,
the RF could learn this by including a strong dependence on the
distance of a cell to the wall.
Despite the high importance attained by these two features, the
17 other features derived from ru and rh are responsible for
about 55% of the overall combined importance. This shows that
the RF, in an attempt to explain the extracted turbulent diffusivity
at,LES, needs to use much more information than just the local
eddy viscosity and distance to the wall. Interestingly, the RF
seems to use the features derived purely from the velocity gradient
much more than the features that also involve the concentration
gradient (a combined importance of 34% and 21%, respectively).
This hints that it is building a roughly linear scalar closure in the
training set, even though it has the capability of building a nonlin-
ear one. Since the present model prescribes at in Eq. (2) as a weak
function of rh, then Eq. (1) remains almost linear.
4.3 Pointwise Feature Usage. Section 4.2 deals only with
the feature importance, an aggregate metric computed over all
points in the training set. Another potentially interesting question
concerns how the model uses the features at test time. For this, a
new metric is proposed, the pointwise feature usage (PFU). After
the RF is constructed, the forest generates at,ML predictions in
every point in the test set by tracing a path down the branches of
the tree for each tree. Depending on the path that the algorithm
follows from root to leaf for a particular test point, the model con-
siders different features to split on. Counting how many times
each feature is employed for a split in that path, one can generate
a rough idea of which features were important to make a decision
in that computational cell. This count is then normalized (so that,
at each example in the test set it sums to one), and the resulting
quantity is the pointwise feature usage metric.
This procedure is applied to the Baseline dataset and Fig. 9
shows the results. It contains contour plots showing the PFU of
011004-8 / Vol. 141, JANUARY 2019
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/141/1/011004/6309973/turbo_141_01_011004.pdf by Prasad V. Potluri Siddhartha Institute Of Technology user on 08 November 2023
six different features (note that they are normalized such that the
importance of all 19 features sum to 1 at each location). The fea-
tures presented are among the ones that had highest aggregate
training set importance as shown in Table 4, so they are expected
to contribute the most to the RF decisions. Figure 9 shows the
same streamwise planes from before, at location X/D ¼ 2, and
overlays the importance plots with contour lines of the mean sca-
lar concentration from the LES of Bodart et al. [22].
As expected from the results of Sec. 4.2, the Red is the feature
most often used in splits, as shown in Fig. 9(a). The PFU attains
the highest values closest to the bottom wall: in the first few com-
putational cells, within the viscous sublayer, it surpasses 0.4 (i.e.,
the feature is used in more than 40% of all splits). This is expected
because the turbulent scalar transport has a strong dependence on
the distance from the wall in regions where viscous effects are
dominant. Usage of this feature is also high below the jet core and
in the shear layer on the windward side of the jet. On the other
hand, the eddy viscosity shown in Fig. 9(b) is not very useful on
the bottom of the jet (importance around 0.1), but it becomes
important closer to the free-stream, particularly in the shear layer
in the windward side of the jet. In this region, the gradients in the
mean scalar and streamwise velocity fields behave similarly,
which would lead one to believe that the Reynolds analogy is a
better assumption (compared to other regions of this flow). These
results seem to support that conclusion.
The contour plots of two features that only depend on the veloc-
ity gradient are shown in Figs. 9(c) and 9(d) (features 5 and 1,
respectively). Interestingly, feature 5 (a sixth-order term in the
velocity gradient) is highly important directly under the jet core
(as seen by a PFU of around 0.2 near Z/D ¼ 0 and Y/D ¼ 0.1).
This coincides with a critical location in the flow where the
Prt ¼ 0.85 model overestimates vertical scalar transport. The pres-
ent work, then, suggests that this sixth-order term might be related
to this phenomenon. The contour plot for feature 1 (the third-
order term based on the symmetric part of the velocity gradient)
might seem uninteresting, but it shows a consistent and very thin
hot spot in the cells right next to the wall: in the first few cells,
located in the viscous sublayer, this term has the second highest
PFU (after Red), with a value of around 0.2.
Figures 9(e) and 9(f) show contour plots of the two most impor-
tant features that include information about the mean scalar gradi-
ent (features 8 and 6, respectively). The former is used moderately
Transactions of the ASME
in most of the plane, except in the proximity of the wall
(Y/D < 0.2), where it is practically irrelevant. Feature 6 (which is
just the squared norm of the mean scalar gradient) is also unim-
portant very close to the wall (where, due to the adiabatic bound-
ary condition, the scalar gradient is zero), but it shows moderate
importance toward the top of the jet core, and also in symmetric
hot spots at around Y/D ¼ 0.1 and Z/D ¼ 60.6. The latter is a
insights that might be useful to improve machine learning models
and propose new analytical ones.
The past few years have seen a sharp rise in interest in data-
driven turbulence modeling. For these machine learning methods
to reach their full impact, they should not be black boxes: model
interpretability is crucial for unlocking scientists’ ability to learn
from data-driven models. This study presents techniques to gain

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/141/1/011004/6309973/turbo_141_01_011004.pdf by Prasad V. Potluri Siddhartha Institute Of Technology user on 08 November 2023
region with relatively high in-plane gradient (as seen by the prox- spatially resolved modeling insights from data-driven turbulence
imity of the contour levels), where the bottom of the counter- models. Future work will dive deeper into using these modeling
rotating vortex pair is located. insights to design more accurate analytic models.
From a modeling perspective, these results could be useful to
inspire different approaches for scalar transport closure. For Acknowledgment
instance, the very high importance of distance to the wall in pre-
dicting the diffusivity suggests that one might want to build that Pedro M. Milani was supported by grants from Sandia National
into a model: instead of prescribing at, it could be better to pre- Laboratories (under agreement number 1757831) and by Honey-
scribe at =Rebd for some power b, at least near the wall. The third- well Aerospace.
order term tr(S3) could also be used in a model that attempts to
predict the correct transport very near to the wall, due to its high Nomenclature
importance there. It seems that a linear closure could be sufficient BR ¼ blowing ratio in a jet in crossflow configuration
in most regions of the flow, since the features involving rh are d¼ distance to the nearest wall
not used in most of the geometry; however, nonlinearities could D¼ length scale (hole diameter/cube height)
also hold the key to obtaining right behavior in the regions where DR ¼ density ratio in a jet in crossflow configuration
features that involve the scalar gradient have higher pointwise fea- GDH ¼ gradient diffusion hypothesis
ture usage. k¼ turbulent kinetic energy
L¼ length of film cooling hole
ML ¼ machine learning
MRC ¼ magnetic resonance concentration
5 Conclusion n¼ node in a decision tree
Ntrees ¼ number of trees in the random forest
The present paper revisited the machine learning approach for
PFU ¼ pointwise feature usage
turbulent scalar modeling presented by Milani et al. [12]. It was
Prt ¼ turbulent Prandtl number  t/at
calibrated on two datasets where high-fidelity simulations are
q¼ gradient in the mean scalar gradient, q ¼ rh
available (cube and skewed) and then validated on two other data-
R¼ antisymmetric part of velocity gradient,
sets (baseline and FPG). The scalar fields presented were obtained
R ¼ 0:5 ðru  ru T Þ
in a more rigorous manner, which explains the difference between
RF ¼ random forest
some results of the present work and the original presentation of
S¼ symmetric part of velocity gradient,
the model. 3D comparisons between fixed Prt models and the pres-
S ¼ 0:5 ðru þ ru T Þ
ent machine learning model in the baseline and FPG cases show
T¼ feature threshold at a decision tree node
some improvement (particularly in the critical near-injection
tr() ¼ Trace of a tensor
region of film cooling flows) but also some lingering deficiencies.
Vi ¼ Volume of the ith computational cell
Another interesting result is that under the current framework, the
at ¼ turbulent diffusivity (m2/s)
learning process manages to obtain a field not too dissimilar from
at,LES ¼ diffusivity extracted from the high-fidelity simulation
its theoretical best—that solved with the diffusivity extracted
at,ML ¼ diffusivity predicted by the machine learning algorithm
from the LES. This shows that the dominating error source in the
at,RANS ¼ diffusivity predicted by the fixed Prt ¼ 0.85 model
machine learning model is not the machine learning step, but the
d¼ boundary layer thickness
model form (GDH with scalar diffusivity).
e¼ turbulent dissipation rate
Future work aimed at producing more accurate models should
h¼ scalar concentration, 0  h  1
attempt to move away from the simple GDH, using other closures
t ¼ eddy viscosity calculated by RANS (m2/s)
that ideally would be amenable to machine learning techniques.
r¼ standard deviation
An anisotropic diffusivity could be an interesting possibility.
/i ¼ ith feature used by the machine learning model
Also, further validation of the present model against different film
cooling flows would test the robustness of the machine learning
procedure and guide the choice of new training datasets. Finally,
as discussed earlier, one limitation of the current approach is the References
use of the velocity field from typical RANS models when solving [1] Bogard, D. G., and Thole, K. A., 2006, “Gas Turbine Film Cooling,” J. Propul.
Power, 22(2), pp. 249–270.
for the scalar equation. Future work could overcome this by com- [2] Launder, B., and Spalding, D., 1974, “The Numerical Computation of Turbu-
bining the current approach with a machine learning technique to lent Flows,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 3(2), pp. 269–289.
improve the modeling in the momentum equation (like the ones [3] Wilcox, D. C., 1998, Turbulence Modeling for CFD, Vol. 2, DCW Industries,
presented by other authors, such as Ling [13], Weatheritt [14], La Canada, CA.
[4] Shih T- H., Zhu, J., and Lumley, L. J., 1995, “A new Reynolds Stress Algebraic
and Duraisamy [15]). Equation Model,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.,
In Sec. 4, the first attempt at extracting physical intuition from [5] Hoda, A., and Acharya, S., 1999, “Predictions of a Film Coolant Jet in Cross-
the machine learning model came in the form of analyzing how flow With Different Turbulence Models,” ASME J. Turbomach., 122(3), pp.
much different features are used by the model. It showed that the 558–569.
[6] Ling, J., Ryan, K. J., Bodart, J., and Eaton, J. K., 2016, “Analysis of Turbulent
random forest depends heavily on the distance to the wall to pre- Scalar Flux Models for a Discrete Hole Film Cooling Flow,” ASME J. Turbom-
dict at, with the eddy viscosity also being relatively important. ach., 138(1), p. 011006.
Overall, the features that depend on the scalar field are not partic- [7] Kays, W. M., 1994, “Turbulent Prandtl Number—Where Are We?,” ASME J.
ularly important, hinting that the RF infers a model that almost Heat Transfer, 116(2), pp. 284–295.
[8] Schreivogel, P., Abram, C., Fond, B., Straußwald, M., Beyrau, F., and Pfitzner,
maintains the linearity of the scalar transport equation. Point-by- M., 2016, “Simultaneous kHz-Rate Temperature and Velocity Field Measure-
point analysis of the features in the Baseline model, in the form of ments in the Flow Emanating From Angled and Trenched Film Cooling Holes,”
a proposed metric called pointwise feature usage, revealed Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 103, pp. 390–400.

Journal of Turbomachinery JANUARY 2019, Vol. 141 / 011004-9

 [9] Kohli, A., and Bogard, D. G., 2005, “Turbulent Transport in Film Cooling
Flows,” ASME J. Heat Transfer, 127(5), pp. 513–520.
[10] Daly, B. J., and Harlow, F. H., 1970, “Transport Equations in Turbulence,”
Phys. Fluids, 13(11), pp. 2634–2649.
[11] Abe, K., and Suga, K., 2001, “Towards the Development of a Reynolds-
Averaged Algebraic Turbulent Scalar-Flux Model,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow,
22(1), pp. 19–29.
[12] Milani, P. M., Ling, J., Saez-Mischlich, G., Bodart, J., and Eaton, J. K., 2018,
“A Machine Learning Approach for Determining the Turbulent Diffusivity in
Film Cooling Flows,” ASME J. Turbomach., 140(2), p. 021006.
[13] Ling, J., Kurzawski, A., and Templeton, J., 2016, “Reynolds Averaged Turbu-
lence Modelling Using Deep Neural Networks With Embedded Invariance,”
J. Fluid Mech., 807, pp. 155–166.
[14] Weatheritt, J., Pichler, R., Sandberg, R. D., Laskowski, G., and Michelassi, V.,
2017, “Machine Learning for Turbulence Model Development Using a High-
Fidelity HPT Cascade Simulation,” ASME Paper No. GT2017-63497.
[15] Duraisamy, K., Zhang, Z. J., and Singh, A. P., 2015, “New Approaches in Tur-
bulence and Transition Modeling Using Data-Driven Techniques,” AIAA Paper
No. AIAA 2015-1284.
[16] Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C., 2016, “Why Should I Trust
You?: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier,” 22nd ACM SIGKDD
International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp.
1135–1144.
[17] Wu, J., Wang, J., Xiao, H., and Ling, J., 2017, “Visualization of High Dimen-
sional Turbulence Simulation Data Using t-SNE,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA
2017-1770.
[18] Ling, J., Jones, R., and Templeton, J., 2016, “Machine Learning Strategies for
Systems With Invariance Properties,” J. Comput. Phys., 318, pp. 22–35.
011004-10 / Vol. 141, JANUARY 2019
[19] Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O.,
Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos,
A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., and Duchesnay, E., 2011, “Scikit-
Learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn., 12, pp. 2825–2830.
[20] Ling, J., and Templeton, J., 2015, “Evaluation of Machine Learning Algorithms
for Prediction of Regions of High Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes
Uncertainty,” Phys. Fluids, 27(8), p. 085103.
[21] Coletti, F., Benson, M., Ling, J., Elkins, C., and Eaton, J., 2013, “Turbulent Trans-
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/141/1/011004/6309973/turbo_141_01_011004.pdf by Prasad V. Potluri Siddhartha Institute Of Technology user on 08 November 2023
port in an Inclined Jet in Crossflow,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 43, pp. 149–160.
[22] Bodart, J., Coletti, F., Bermejo-Moreno, I., and Eaton, J., 2013, “High-Fidelity
Simulation of a Turbulent Inclined Jet in a Crossflow,” Cent. Turbul. Res.
Annu. Res. Briefs, (epub).
[23] Coletti, F., Elkins, C. J., and Eaton, J. K., 2013, “An Inclined Jet in Crossflow
Under the Effect of Streamwise Pressure Gradients,” Exp. Fluids, 54(9), p. 1589.
[24] Folkersma, M., and Bodart, J., 2018, “Large Eddy Simulation of an Asymmetric
Jet in Crossflow,” Direct and Large-Eddy Simulation X, Springer International
Publishing, Basel, Switzerland, pp. 85–91.
[25] Rossi, R., Philips, D., and Iaccarino, G., 2010, “A Numerical Study of Scalar
Dispersion Downstream of a Wall-Mounted Cube Using Direct Simulations and
Algebraic Flux Models,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 31(5), pp. 805–819.
[26] Oliver, T. A., Anderson, J. B., Bogard, D. G., Moser, R. D., and Laskowski, G.,
2017, “Implicit LES for Shaped-Hole Film Cooling Flow,” ASME Paper No.
GT2017-63314.
[27] Louppe, G., 2014, “Understanding Random Forests: From Theory to Practice,”
e-print: arXiv:1407.7502.
[28] Ling, J., 2014, “Improvements in Turbulent Scalar Mixing Modeling for
Trailing Edge Slot Film Cooling Geometries: A Combined Experimental and
Computational Approach,” Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Transactions of the ASME