Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract—Proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) is an im- are modeled through Boussinesq hypothesis which is simple
portant reduced order modeling technique in fluid mechanics. relationship between Reynolds stresses and velocity gradi-
The first step in POD is the collection of flow field data at different ents through the eddy viscosity. Turbulence models including
time steps from Direct numerical simulation. The singular value
decomposition extracts the most dominant modes from the col- Prandtl ’s mixing length model, K-ω model, Spalart-Allmaras
lected data. The implementation of Galerkin procedure produces model, K-∈ model and Smagronisky model are used to model
a reduced order model of considered flow field named as POD- the turbulent eddy viscosity.
ROM (ROM stands for reduced order model). In this paper, The schematic of energy distribution in turbulence modeling is
We have considered the one-dimensional Burgers equation and shown in Fig. 1a while Fig. 1b shows the energy distribution in
developed its reduce order model named as POD-G ROM. Two
closure models of POD-ROM have also been implemented on one- POD closure modeling. In turbulence modeling, Fig. 1a shows
dimensional Burgers equation. This work focuses on Smagronisky the shaded area which is modeled through different models
(POD-S) reduced order model and Dynamic subgrid-scale (POD- of RANS. Fig. 1b shows the shaded area which is modeled
D) reduced order model. We have further analyzed the effect of through different techniques of POD closure modeling. In
modes on accuracy of solution obtained through POD-D, POD- POD-G ROM, we consider M modes and reduced order model
S and POD-G ROMs. It was concluded that accuracy obtained
depends upon number of considered modes for all three ROMs is developed. The higher modes after M i.e. (M+1,M+2,...,N)
(POD-G, POD-S and POD-D). POD-S ROM performs same as contain relatively low energy but in turbulent flows discarded
POD-D ROM but needs a lot of iteration for Cs optimization. modes play a vital role. There is a need to model the
The constraint of Cs estimation through hit and trial is removed discarded modes through different modeling techniques for
in POD-S ROM. This model performs better than POD-S ROM better performance of reduced order models. The effect of
but it is computationally expensive.
discarded modes are modeled through POD closure modeling.
Closure modeling in POD-ROM is inspired from the modeling
I. I NTRODUCTION
techniques of turbulence. Few people have done work on
Realistic 3D flows are solved through direct numerical closure modeling of POD ROM [8]–[16]. This is in contrast
simulation which usually requires millions and sometimes with LES modeling of turbulence in which hundred of papers
billions degrees of freedom. Numerical simulation of fluid have already been published. There are numerous models in
flow through DNS is a computationally expensive endeavour literature including Mixing length, Smagorinsky, Variational
and its control is not practically feasible. The control in multiple scale and Dynamic subgrid-scale reduced order POD
real flows requires to update the plant output based upon model [7]. This work will focus on Smagornisky and Dynamic
feedback signal which needs numerous quick simulations. subgrid-scale reduced order models and compare the results
This motivates the engineers and scientists towards model with POD-G ROM. The symbols used for Smagornisky and
reduction techniques. Model reduction techniques based on Dynamic Subgrid-scale reduced order POD models are POD-S
proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) have successfully ROM and POD-D ROM respectively. In this work, the one-
been applied to many industrial problems. These applications dimensional Burgers equation is used for proof of concept. The
involve fluid flow control [1]–[4], image processing [5] and boundary conditions for one-dimensional Burgers equation are
pattern recognition. The simple reduced order model based on homogenous, i.e. at boundary u is set zero.
POD and Galerkin projection is called POD-G ROM, where
G stands for Galerkin projection. The POD method provides II. POD R EDUCED O RDERED M ODELS
optimal basis (modes) for dynamical system. Akhtar et al. [6] The POD reduced order model can be constructed in two
discussed that the POD-G ROM produces erroneous results steps, computation of POD modes from ensembled flow field
for turbulent flow. In this case the truncated modes do not data and Galerkin projection of Burgers equation onto a space
have significant amount of energy but have vital role in overall spanned by a number of POD modes. Let H be the Hilbert
dynamics of system [7]. space endowed with the inner product (., .)H and u(., t) ∈ H,
In turbulence modeling, closure problem arises when t ∈ [0, T ] be the state variable of a dynamical system.
Reynolds-Averaged Naiver-Stokes equation (RANS) contains Taking snapshots at different time instances t1 , t2 , ..., tN ∈
a term known as Reynolds stresses. These Reynolds stresses [0, T ] and ensembling these snapshots into a larger matrix will
∑
E(k) Where S, and V contain the POD basis, singular values
of W and eigenvectors of W respectively. In this work, a
truncated POD basis S M =span{ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 , ..., ϕM } is obtained
from snapshots ensembled data {u(., t1 ), u(., t2 ), ..., u(., tN )}
through SVD.
The one-dimensional Burgers equation
{
ut − vuxx + uux = f
(6)
u(x, 0) = u0 x
Turbulence
model A. POD Galerkin (POD-G) Reduced Order Model
LES The second step for obtaining a reduced order model is
Galerkin projection of Burgers equation on POD modes. This
(a) kc k reduced order model is without closure term and known as
POD-G. Taking the dot product of Eq. (5) with ϕ results in
E(m) the following equation.
{ }
ut , ϕ − vuxx , ϕ + uux , ϕ = f, ϕ ∀ϕ ∈ S M (7)
∑M
Here f =0 and u is substituted with i=1 ϕi (x)qi (t) which
results in
∑
M ∑
M
q̇k (t) = bk + Akm qm (t) +
m=1 m=1
(8)
∑
M
Bkmn qm (t)qn (t)
LES Inspired POD n=1
model
where bk = f, ϕk
(b) M m Akm = −νϕm,xx , ϕk
Bkmn = ϕn ϕm,x , ϕk
Fig. 1. Energy distribution versus (a) Wave number (b)Modes
B. The Smagronisky POD (POD-S) reduced order model
The dynamical system obtained from POD-G reduced order
result in model is accurate for laminar flow. In case of turbulent flows,
it is not recommended because Galerkin truncation does not
W = span{u(., t1 ), u(., t2 ), ...u(., tN )} (1)
produce accurate results despite having the most of energy
Let the time instances are tk = kδt, k = 1, 2, 3, ..., N having in captured modes [7]. The Smagronisky POD-ROM is LES
time step δt = NT−1 . The correlation matrix can be defined as inspired POD closure model which is based on concept of
energy cascading. In this method, energy of discarded modes is
Kij = (ui , uj ) (2) modeled through addition of extra term containing a constant
∫ coefficient of eddy viscosity and this model is named as POD-
where inner product is defined as (a, b) = Ω
a.b dΩ S ROM.
Kν = λν (3) ∑
M ∑
M
q̇k (t) = bk + Akm qm (t) +
νk (k=1,2,...,N) are eigenvectors , K ∈ RNXN is snapshot m=1 m=1
(9)
correlation matrix and λ1 , λ2 , λ3 , ..., λN > 0 are positive ∑
M ∑
M
M Cumulative Cumulative
energy of energy of
considered modes discarded modes
2 91.01 8.98
3 95.21 4.78
4 96.82 3.18
5 97.64 2.35
6 98.17 1.83
7 98.53 1.46
8 98.80 1.20
9 98.99 1.00
10 99.14 0.86
Fig. 10. The relative error of POD-G, POD-S and POD-D ROMs
TABLE II R EFERENCES
T IME FOR SIMULATION OF DIFFERENT ROMS IN SECONDS
[1] A. E. Deane and C. Mavriplis, “Low-dimensional de-
M POD-G POD-S POD-D scription of the dynamics in separated flow past thick
2 0.06 0.19 86.18 airfoils,” AIAA J., vol. 6, pp. 1222–1234, 1994.
3 0.08 0.35 43.95 [2] X. Ma and Karniadakis, “A low-dimensional model for
4 0.11 0.57 58.02
5 0.163 0.96 96.45 simulating three-dimensional cylinder flow,” J. Fluid
6 0.26 1.79 78.67 Mech, vol. 458, pp. 181–190, 2002.
7 0.39 2.88 18.60 [3] B. R. Noack, K. Afanasiev, M. Morzynski, and F.
8 0.63 4.73 56.45
9 1.12 6.55 720.81 Thiele, “A hierarchy of low-dimensional models for
10 1.24 9.56 778.27 the transient and post-transient cylinder wake,” J. Fluid
Mech, vol. 497, pp. 335–363, 2003.
[4] I. Akhtar and A. H. Nayfeh., “Model based control
IV. C ONCLUSION of laminar wake using fluidic actuation,” J. Comput.
In this paper, the POD-D ROM on one-dimensional Burgers Nonlin. Dyn., vol. 5(4), p. 041 015, 2010.
equation subjected to homogenous boundary conditions is [5] L. Sirovichs and M. Kirby, “Low-dimensional proce-
implemented. The effect of modes on POD reduced order dure for the characterization of human faces,” J. Opt.
models including POD-G, POD-S and POD-D ROMs is in- Soc. Am. A, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 529–524, 1987.
vestigated. POD-D and POD-S ROMs perform better than [6] I. Akhtar, Z. Wang, J. Borggaard, and T. Iliescu, “A new
POD-G ROM. The constraint of Cs estimation through hit and closure strategy for proper orthogonal decomposition
trial method is removed in POD-D ROM. In POD-D ROM, reduced-order models,” Journal of Computational and
the Cs can be calculated through defined procedures at any Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 7, no. 034503, pp. 1–6, 2012.
number of considered modes. This paper shows that relative [7] Z. Wang, “Reduced-order modeling of complex engi-
error decreases with increase in number of modes. The relative neering and geophysical flows: analysis and computa-
of POD-D ROM is same as of POD-S ROM as we vary M tions,” Tech. Rep., 2012, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
from 3 to 8. The time for numerical experiment using POD- and State University.
D ROM is still very large than POD-G ROM. In future, more [8] B. Podvin, “A proper-orthogonal-decomposition based
POD-closure models should be proposed which should address model for the wall layer of a turbulent channel flow,”
the issue of time as well as accuracy. Phys. Fluids, vol. 21, pp. 581–586, 2009.
[9] D. Rempfer and H. F. Fasel, “Dynamics of three-
ACKNOWLEDGMENT dimensional coherent structures in a flat-plate boundary
The first author would like to thank Dr Zhu Wang (Industrial layer,” J. Fluid Mech, vol. 275, pp. 257–283, 1994.
postdoc of the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications [10] W. Cazemier, R. W. Verstappen, and A. E. Veldman,
(IMA) at University of Minnesota, Twin Cities U.S.A.) for his “Proper orthogonal decomposition and low-dimensional
guidance in this research. This research is partially supported models for driven cavity flows,” Phys. Fluids, vol. 10,
by TWAS (The World Academy of Sciences for the developing no. 7, pp. 1685–1699, 1998.
world) under Research Grant Agreement (RGA) No: 11-208 [11] Z. Wang, I. Akhtar, J. Borggaard, and T. Iliescu, “Two-
RG/ENG/AS-C UNESCO FR: 3240262645. level discretizations of nonlinear closure models for
proper orthogonal decomposition,” J. Comput. Phys,
vol. 230, pp. 126–146, 2011.
[12] J. Borggaard, T. Iliescu, and Z. Wang, “Artificial viscos-
ity proper orthogonal decomposition,” Math. Comput.
Model, vol. 53, pp. 269–279, 2011.
[13] I. Akhtar, J. Borggaard, T. Iliescu, and C. J. Ribbens,
“Modeling high frequency modes for accurate low-
dimensional galerkin models,” in Proceedings of the
AIAA 39th Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference,
AIAA Paper, AIAA Paper No. 2009-4202, 2009.
[14] J. S. Smagorinsky, “General circulation experiments
with the primitive equations,” Mon. Weather Review,
vol. 91, pp. 99–164, 1963.
[15] J. G. M. Eggels, “Direct and large eddy simulation of
turbulent flow in a cylindrical pipe geometry,” Tech.
Rep., 1994, Delft University Press, Delft.
[16] L. C. Berselli, T. Iliescu, and W. J. Layton, Mathematics
of large eddy simulation of turbulent flows. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 2006.
[17] M. A. Domis, “Large-eddy simulation of a passive
scalar in isotropic turbulence,” J. Fluid Mech, vol. 104,
pp. 55–79, 1981.
[18] J. W. Deardorff, “A numerical study of three-
dimensional turbulent channel flow at large reynolds
number,” J. Fluid Mech, vol. 41, pp. 453–480, 1970.
[19] N. Mansour, J. H. Ferziger, and W. C. Reynolds, Large-
eddy simulation of turbulent mixing layer, Stanford
University Report No TF-11, 1978.
[20] Y. Morinishi and H. Kobayashi, “Large eddy simula-
tion of backward facing step flow,” in Int. Symp. on
Engineering Turbulence Modeling and Measurements
(Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia), 1990.
[21] F. Unger and R. Friedrich, “Large eddy simulation of
fully-developed turbulent pipe flow,” in 18th Symp. on
Turbulent Shear Flows (Munich), 1991.
[22] J. G. M. Eggels and F. T. M. Nieuwstadt, “Large eddy
simulation of turbulent flow in an axially rotating pipe,”
in 19th Symp. on Turbulent Shear Flows (Kyoto, Japan),
1993.
[23] M. Germano, U. Piomelli, P. Moin, and W. H. Cabot,
“Dynamic subgrid-scale eddy viscosity model,” Phys.
Fluids A3 J., vol. 3, pp. 1760–1765, 1991.
[24] P. Moin, K. Squires, W. Cabot, and S. Lee, “A dynamic
subgrid-scale model for compressible turbulence and
scalar transport,” Phys. Fluids, vol. 3, pp. 2746–2757,
1991.
[25] N. M. El-Hady, T. A. Zang, and U. Piomelli, “Appli-
cation of dynamic subgrid-scale model to axisymmetric
transitional boundary layer at high speed,” Phys. Fluids,
vol. 6, pp. 1299–1309, 1994.
[26] P. Sagaut, Large eddy simulation for incompress-
ible flows, Third, ser. Scientific Computation. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 2006, p. 556.
[27] K. Kunisch and S. Volkwein, “Control of the burgers
equation by a reduced-order approach using proper or-
thogonal decomposition,” J. Optimization Theory Appl.,
vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 345–371,