- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Fluids

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Reconstruction of Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes solutions from boundary data with partial Reynolds stress transport constraints

Jincheng Zhang*

  • *Contact author: jincheng.zhang.1@warwick.ac.uk
PDF

Phys. Rev. Fluids 11, 104602 – Published 6 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/rn1j-32n4

Abstract

Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs), a scientific machine learning framework for solving inverse and forward problems involving partial differential equations, are seeing many successes in fluid research recently. Based on PINNs, this paper develops a physics-informed framework for reconstructing incompressible Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes solutions from boundary data through the incorporation of Reynolds stress transport (RST) formulations without introducing empirical models for the unclosed terms. Specifically, the RST equations are first formulated with the exact forms for the advection and production terms as derived from the Reynolds averaging process while the unclosed terms that need empirical modeling in traditional turbulence models are absorbed into a single inadequacy term. The resulting underdetermined systems are then embedded via the PINNs approach to reconstruct turbulent flow fields based on the mean velocity components and Reynolds stress components at the domain boundary. A mechanism of enforcing the realizability condition for the Reynolds stress is further proposed to enhance the reconstruction performance, via a customized neural network design. The proposed approach is applied and evaluated via a set of flow cases, including a zero-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layer flow, an adverse-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layer flow, and a set of flow cases over periodic hills of parameterized geometries. The results show that for all the test flow cases, the mean flow quantities are reconstructed very accurately, and a decent accuracy is obtained for the turbulence quantities including both the normal and shear Reynolds stress components.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (65)

  1. S. L. Brunton, B. R. Noack, and P. Koumoutsakos, Machine learning for fluid mechanics, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 52, 477 (2020).
  2. J. N. Kutz, Deep learning in fluid dynamics, J. Fluid Mech. 814, 1 (2017).
  3. R. Maulik, K. Fukami, N. Ramachandra, K. Fukagata, and K. Taira, Probabilistic neural networks for fluid flow surrogate modeling and data recovery, Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 104401 (2020).
  4. X. Zhang, F. Xie, T. Ji, Z. Zhu, and Y. Zheng, Multi-fidelity deep neural network surrogate model for aerodynamic shape optimization, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 373, 113485 (2021).
  5. M. Tang, Y. Liu, and L. J. Durlofsky, Deep-learning-based surrogate flow modeling and geological parameterization for data assimilation in 3D subsurface flow, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 376, 113636 (2021).
  6. J. Zhang and S. Fu, An efficient approach for quantifying parameter uncertainty in the SST turbulence model, Comput. Fluids 181, 173 (2019).
  7. S. Shahane, N. R. Aluru, and S. P. Vanka, Uncertainty quantification in three dimensional natural convection using polynomial chaos expansion and deep neural networks, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 139, 613 (2019).
  8. N. Geneva and N. Zabaras, Quantifying model form uncertainty in Reynolds-averaged turbulence models with Bayesian deep neural networks, J. Comput. Phys. 383, 125 (2019).
  9. J. Rabault, M. Kuchta, A. Jensen, U. Réglade, and N. Cerardi, Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control, J. Fluid Mech. 865, 281 (2019).
  10. D. Fan, L. Yang, Z. Wang, M. S. Triantafyllou, and G. E. Karniadakis, Reinforcement learning for bluff body active flow control in experiments and simulations, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, 26091 (2020).
  11. P. Garnier, J. Viquerat, J. Rabault, A. Larcher, A. Kuhnle, and E. Hachem, A review on deep reinforcement learning for fluid mechanics, Comput. Fluids 225, 104973 (2021).
  12. D. Kochkov, J. A. Smith, A. Alieva, Q. Wang, M. P. Brenner, and S. Hoyer, Machine learning-accelerated computational fluid dynamics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2101784118 (2021).
  13. R. Vinuesa and S. L. Brunton, Enhancing computational fluid dynamics with machine learning, Nat. Comput. Sci. 2, 358 (2022).
  14. C. Lin, M. Maxey, Z. Li, and G. E. Karniadakis, A seamless multiscale operator neural network for inferring bubble dynamics, J. Fluid Mech. 929, A18 (2021).
  15. S. Cai, Z. Wang, L. Lu, T. A. Zaki, and G. E. Karniadakis, DeepM&Mnet: Inferring the electroconvection multiphysics fields based on operator approximation by neural networks, J. Comput. Phys. 436, 110296 (2021).
  16. K. Duraisamy, G. Iaccarino, and H. Xiao, Turbulence modeling in the age of data, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 51, 357 (2019).
  17. K. Duraisamy, Perspectives on machine learning-augmented Reynolds-averaged and large eddy simulation models of turbulence, Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 050504 (2021).
  18. J. Ling, A. Kurzawski, and J. Templeton, Reynolds averaged turbulence modelling using deep neural networks with embedded invariance, J. Fluid Mech. 807, 155 (2016).
  19. J. Cai, P.-E. Angeli, J.-M. Martinez, G. Damblin, and D. Lucor, Revisiting tensor basis neural network for Reynolds stress modeling: Application to plane channel and square duct flows, Comput. Fluids 275, 106246 (2024).
  20. S. B. Pope, A more general effective-viscosity hypothesis, J. Fluid Mech. 72, 331 (1975).
  21. J.-X. Wang, J.-L. Wu, and H. Xiao, Physics-informed machine learning approach for reconstructing Reynolds stress modeling discrepancies based on DNS data, Phys. Rev. Fluids 2, 034603 (2017).
  22. J.-L. Wu, R. Sun, S. Laizet, and H. Xiao, Representation of stress tensor perturbations with application in machine-learning-assisted turbulence modeling, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 346, 707 (2019).
  23. M. A. Cruz, R. L. Thompson, L. E. Sampaio, and R. D. Bacchi, The use of the Reynolds force vector in a physics informed machine learning approach for predictive turbulence modeling, Comput. Fluids 192, 104258 (2019).
  24. P. S. Volpiani, M. Meyer, L. Franceschini, J. Dandois, F. Renac, E. Martin, O. Marquet, and D. Sipp, Machine learning-augmented turbulence modeling for RANS simulations of massively separated flows, Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 064607 (2021).
  25. A. Cremades, S. Hoyas, R. Deshpande, P. Quintero, M. Lellep, W. J. Lee, J. P. Monty, N. Hutchins, M. Linkmann, I. Marusic, and R. Vinuesa, Identifying regions of importance in wall-bounded turbulence through explainable deep learning, Nat. Commun. 15, 3864 (2024).
  26. R. Villiers, V. Mons, D. Sipp, E. Lamballais, and M. Meldi, Enhancing unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes modelling from sparse data through sequential data assimilation and machine learning, Flow Turbul. Combust. 115, 991 (2025).
  27. M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations, J. Comput. Phys. 378, 686 (2019).
  28. M. Raissi, Z. Wang, M. S. Triantafyllou, and G. E. Karniadakis, Deep learning of vortex-induced vibrations, J. Fluid Mech. 861, 119 (2019).
  29. M. Raissi, A. Yazdani, and G. E. Karniadakis, Hidden fluid mechanics: Learning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations, Science 367, 1026 (2020).
  30. J. Zhang and X. Zhao, Digital twin of wind farms via physics-informed deep learning, Energy Convers. Manage. 293, 117507 (2023).
  31. S. Cai, H. Li, F. Zheng, F. Kong, M. Dao, G. E. Karniadakis, and S. Suresh, Artificial intelligence velocimetry and microaneurysm-on-a-chip for three-dimensional analysis of blood flow in physiology and disease, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2100697118 (2021).
  32. X. Jin, S. Cai, H. Li, and G. E. Karniadakis, NSFnets (Navier-Stokes flow nets): Physics-informed neural networks for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, J. Comput. Phys. 426, 109951 (2021).
  33. D. Lucor, A. Agrawal, and A. Sergent, Simple computational strategies for more effective physics-informed neural networks modeling of turbulent natural convection, J. Comput. Phys. 456, 111022 (2022).
  34. L. Yang, X. Meng, and G. E. Karniadakis, B-PINNs: Bayesian physics-informed neural networks for forward and inverse PDE problems with noisy data, J. Comput. Phys. 425, 109913 (2021).
  35. Y. Yang and P. Perdikaris, Adversarial uncertainty quantification in physics-informed neural networks, J. Comput. Phys. 394, 136 (2019).
  36. X. Meng and G. E. Karniadakis, A composite neural network that learns from multi-fidelity data: Application to function approximation and inverse PDE problems, J. Comput. Phys. 401, 109020 (2020).
  37. A. Krishnapriyan, A. Gholami, S. Zhe, R. Kirby, and M. W. Mahoney, Characterizing possible failure modes in physics-informed neural networks, Adv. Neural Info. Process. Syst. 34, 26548 (2021).
  38. S. Wang, Y. Teng, and P. Perdikaris, Understanding and mitigating gradient flow pathologies in physics-informed neural networks, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 43, A3055 (2021).
  39. S. Wang, X. Yu, and P. Perdikaris, When and why PINNs fail to train: A neural tangent kernel perspective, J. Comput. Phys. 449, 110768 (2022).
  40. F. Pioch, J. H. Harmening, A. M. Müller, F.-J. Peitzmann, D. Schramm, and O. el Moctar, Turbulence modeling for physics-informed neural networks: Comparison of different RANS models for the backward-facing step flow, Fluids 8, 43 (2023).
  41. S. Ghosh, A. Chakraborty, G. O. Brikis, and B. Dey, RANS-PINN based simulation surrogates for predicting turbulent flows, arXiv:2306.06034.
  42. X. Ren, P. Hu, H. Su, F. Zhang, and H. Yu, Physics-informed neural networks for transonic flow around a cylinder with high Reynolds number, Phys. Fluids 36, 036129 (2024).
  43. Z. Li, F. Montomoli, and S. Sharma, Investigation of compressor cascade flow using physics-informed neural networks with adaptive learning strategy, AIAA J. 62, 1400 (2024).
  44. S. Yazdani and M. Tahani, Data-driven discovery of turbulent flow equations using physics-informed neural networks, Phys. Fluids 36, 035107 (2024).
  45. L. Sliwinski and G. Rigas, Mean flow reconstruction of unsteady flows using physics-informed neural networks, Data-Centric Eng. 4, e4 (2023).
  46. Y. Patel, V. Mons, O. Marquet, and G. Rigas, Turbulence model augmented physics-informed neural networks for mean-flow reconstruction, Phys. Rev. Fluids 9, 034605 (2024).
  47. H. Eivazi, M. Tahani, P. Schlatter, and R. Vinuesa, Physics-informed neural networks for solving Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations, Phys. Fluids 34, 075117 (2022).
  48. B. E. Launder, G. J. Reece, and W. Rodi, Progress in the development of a Reynolds-stress turbulence closure, J. Fluid Mech. 68, 537 (1975).
  49. S. B. Pope, Turbulent Flows (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000).
  50. Turbulence Model Benchmarking Working Group, AIAA Fluid Dynamics Technical Committee, Turbulence modeling resource, https://tmbwg.github.io/turbmodels/ (2026), accessed 2026-08-05.
  51. C. G. Speziale, S. Sarkar, and T. B. Gatski, Modelling the pressure-strain correlation of turbulence: An invariant dynamical systems approach, J. Fluid Mech. 227, 245 (1991).
  52. S. Sarkar and C. G. Speziale, A simple nonlinear model for the return to isotropy in turbulence, Phys. Fluids 2, 84 (1990).
  53. M. K. Chung and S. K. Kim, A nonlinear return-to-isotropy model with Reynolds number and anisotropy dependency, Phys. Fluids 7, 1425 (1995).
  54. T. Homan, O. B. Shende, and A. Mani, Reynolds stress decay modeling informed by anisotropically forced homogeneous turbulence, Phys. Rev. Fluids 9, 094608 (2024).
  55. P. A. Durbin and B. A. Pettersson Reif, Statistical Theory and Modeling for Turbulent Flows (John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 2011).
  56. G. Alfonsi, Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations for turbulence modeling, Appl. Mech. Rev. 62, 040802 (2009).
  57. P. A. Durbin, Some recent developments in turbulence closure modeling, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 50, 77 (2018).
  58. E. Kiyani, K. Shukla, J. F. Urbán, J. Darbon, and G. E. Karniadakis, Optimizing the optimizer for physics-informed neural networks and Kolmogorov-Arnold networks, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 446, 118308 (2025).
  59. G. Eitel-Amor, R. Örlü, and P. Schlatter, Simulation and validation of a spatially evolving turbulent boundary layer up to Reθ = 8300, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 47, 57 (2014).
  60. A. Bobke, R. Vinuesa, R. Örlü, and P. Schlatter, History effects and near equilibrium in adverse-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layers, J. Fluid Mech. 820, 667 (2017).
  61. H. Xiao, J.-L. Wu, S. Laizet, and L. Duan, Flows over periodic hills of parameterized geometries: A dataset for data-driven turbulence modeling from direct simulations, Comput. Fluids 200, 104431 (2020).
  62. P. Luo, Y. Tang, and Y. Liu, Modification of Reynolds-stress model with two-component limit for predicting separated flows, Phys. Fluids 37, 085172 (2025).
  63. C. G. Speziale, R. Abid, and P. A. Durbin, On the realizability of Reynolds stress turbulence closures, J. Sci. Comput. 9, 369 (1994).
  64. Z. Zou, Z. Wang, and G. Em Karniadakis, Learning and discovering multiple solutions using physics-informed neural networks with random initialization and deep ensemble, Proc. R. Soc. A 481, 20250205 (2025).
  65. J. Zhang, RSTnets, GitHub, 2026, https://github.com/zhangxcii/RSTnets.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Fluids 11, 104602– Published 6 October, 2026
  • Received 17 February 2026
  • Accepted 15 September 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation