Petrov-Galerkin Projection-Based Model Reduction with an Optimized Test Space

Computational modeling is a pillar of modern aerospace research and is increasingly becoming more important in the engineering process as computer technology and numerical methods grow more powerful and sophisticated. However, computational modeling remains expensive for many aerospace engineering problems, such as large-scale aeroservoelastic control problems and multidisciplinary design optimization. Model reduction methods have therefore garnered interest as an alternative means of preserving high-fidelity in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) at a much lower computational cost. Specifically, projection-based model reduction methods seek to identify highly-important modes of a full-order model (FOM), for use in a projection of the FOM to a low-rank but highlyaccurate reduced model. Many projection-based model reduction techniques are based on proper-orthogonal decomposition (POD), in which the approximation/trial basis is obtained from a singular value decomposition of a set of solution samples of the full-order model. Many applications derived from POD use a Galerkin approach, in that the test space used to project the equations is the same as the trial space. Yet, research has shown accuracy and stability benefits of using a Petrov-Galerkin approach, in which the test and trial spaces are different. An active area of research concerns the determination of this test space. This paper adapts methods for defining test functions for discontinuous Petrov-Galkerin PDE systems to the case of reduced models. Following the derivation, a steady linear model reduction example is used to verify the mathematical framework presented. Following this, a steady nonlinear problem and an unsteady nonlinear problem are presented to test the robustness of the optimal test space and to compare the method’s performance to the performance of other commonly-used POD methods.

[1]  Gary Collins,et al.  Output Error Estimation for Projection-Based Reduced Models , 2019, AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum.

[2]  Ji-chao Li,et al.  Adjoint-Based Two-Step Optimization Method Using Proper Orthogonal Decomposition and Domain Decomposition , 2018 .

[3]  G. Rozza,et al.  POD-Galerkin reduced order methods for CFD using Finite Volume Discretisation: vortex shedding around a circular cylinder , 2017, 1701.03424.

[4]  G. Rozza,et al.  POD-Galerkin method for finite volume approximation of Navier–Stokes and RANS equations , 2016 .

[5]  Steven M. Kast Methods for Optimal Output Prediction in Computational Fluid Dynamics. , 2016 .

[6]  Krzysztof J. Fidkowski,et al.  Optimal test functions for boundary accuracy in discontinuous finite element methods , 2015, J. Comput. Phys..

[7]  Louis J. Durlofsky,et al.  Constraint reduction procedures for reduced‐order subsurface flow models based on POD–TPWL , 2015 .

[8]  Gianluigi Rozza,et al.  Model Order Reduction in Fluid Dynamics: Challenges and Perspectives , 2014 .

[9]  Gianluigi Rozza,et al.  Reduced Order Methods for Modeling and Computational Reduction , 2013 .

[10]  Juan Du,et al.  Non-linear Petrov-Galerkin methods for reduced order hyperbolic equations and discontinuous finite element methods , 2013, J. Comput. Phys..

[11]  Charbel Farhat,et al.  The GNAT method for nonlinear model reduction: Effective implementation and application to computational fluid dynamics and turbulent flows , 2012, J. Comput. Phys..

[12]  G. McBain Linearized Compressible Flow , 2012 .

[13]  Charbel Farhat,et al.  The GNAT nonlinear model reduction method and its application to uid dynamics problems , 2011 .

[14]  C. Farhat,et al.  Efficient non‐linear model reduction via a least‐squares Petrov–Galerkin projection and compressive tensor approximations , 2011 .

[15]  Leszek Demkowicz,et al.  A class of discontinuous Petrov–Galerkin methods. II. Optimal test functions , 2011 .

[16]  Leszek Demkowicz,et al.  A Class of Discontinuous Petrov–Galerkin Methods. Part I: The Transport Equation , 2010 .

[17]  Philip L. Roe,et al.  An Entropy Adjoint Approach to Mesh Refinement , 2010, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[18]  Saifon Chaturantabut Dimension reduction for unsteady nonlinear partial differential equations via empirical interpolation methods , 2009 .

[19]  Matthew F. Barone,et al.  Stable Galerkin reduced order models for linearized compressible flow , 2009, J. Comput. Phys..

[20]  Karen Willcox,et al.  Model Reduction for Large-Scale Systems with High-Dimensional Parametric Input Space , 2008, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[21]  David Galbally,et al.  Nonlinear model reduction for uncertainty quantification in large-scale inverse problems : application to nonlinear convection-diffusion-reaction equation , 2008 .

[22]  Clarence W. Rowley,et al.  Model Reduction for fluids, Using Balanced Proper Orthogonal Decomposition , 2005, Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos.

[23]  Siep Weiland,et al.  Missing Point Estimation in Models Described by Proper Orthogonal Decomposition , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[24]  Marcus Meyer,et al.  Efficient model reduction in non-linear dynamics using the Karhunen-Loève expansion and dual-weighted-residual methods , 2003 .

[25]  J. Peraire,et al.  Balanced Model Reduction via the Proper Orthogonal Decomposition , 2002 .

[26]  Juan J. Alonso,et al.  Airfoil design optimization using reduced order models based on proper orthogonal decomposition , 2000 .

[27]  Earl H. Dowell,et al.  Reduced order models in unsteady aerodynamics , 1999 .

[28]  L. Sirovich Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures. I. Coherent structures , 1987 .