Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 601–608 | Cite as

Reduced order model of three-dimensional Euler equations using proper orthogonal decomposition basis

  • Sangook Jun
  • Kyung-Hyun Park
  • Hyung-Min Kang
  • Dong-Ho Lee
  • Maenghyo Cho


This study seeks to validate the accuracy and the efficiency of the aerodynamic reduced order model (ROM). In doing this, snapshot data are generated from the full system analysis of a fighter wing problem. From an eigensystem analysis of these snapshots, the basis vector reproducing the behavior of the full system is obtained. The span length, sweep angle, dihedral angle, and spar and rib thickness representing the wing configuration are determined as the input variables. The constructed ROM is applied to the fighter wing problem while varying the input conditions for validation. Subsequently, a comparison of the reduced system with the full system confirmed that the aerodynamic performance is within 4% error and that the L2 norms are 10−6 order of the entire flow field. Therefore, the ROM is able to capture the variation of the aerodynamic performance with respect to the input variables. Though there are structural input variables which influence the aerodynamic performance indirectly, the ROM can reproduce the flow field of the full system. Additionally, even if the ROM incurs a high computational cost to generate snapshots, it can represent the behavior of the full system efficiently once the reduced order model is constructed.


Aerodynamics/structure coupling analysis Proper orthogonal decomposition Reduced order model Wing-fuselage system 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    D. J. Lucia, P. S. Beran and W. A. Silva, Reduced-order modeling: new approaches for computational physics, Aerospace Science, 40 (2004) 51–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    D. J. Lucia, Reduced Order Modelling for High Speed Flows With Moving Shocks, Ph. D Thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology, School of Engineering and Management, (2001).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    P. Holmes, J. L. Lumley and G. Berkooz, Turbulence, Coherent Structures, Dynamical Systems and Symmetry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, (1996).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Taehyoun Kim, Efficient Reduced-Order System Identification for Linear Systems with Multiple Inputs, AIAA journal, 43(7) (2005) 1455–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    P. S. Beran, D. J. Lucia and C. L. Pettit, Reduced-Order Modelling of Limit-Cycle Oscillation for Aeroelastic Systems, Journal of Fluids and Structures, 19 (2004) 575–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    G. A. Ashford, An Unstructured Grid Generation and Adaptive Solution Technique for High-Reynolds-Number Compressible Flows, Ph. D thesis, University of Michigan, (1996).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    D. L. Whitaker, Two-dimensional Euler Computations on a Triangular Mesh Using an Upwind, Finite-Volume Scheme, Ph. D thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, (1988).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    W. K. Anderson and D. L. Bonhaus, An Implicit Upwind Algorithm for Computing Turbulent Flows on Unstructured Grids, Computer Fluids, 23(1) (1994) 1–21.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    V. Venkatakrishnan, Convergence to Steady Solutions of the Euler Equations on Unstructured Grids with Limiters, Journal of computational physics, 118 (1995) 120–130.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    V. Schmitt and F. Charpin, Pressure Distributions on the ONERA-M6-Wing at Transonic Mach Numbers, Experimental Data Base for Computer Program Assessment. Report of the Fluid Dynamics Panel Working Group 04, AGARD AR 138, May 1979.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. A. Aminpour, An assumed stress hybrid 4 node shell element with drilling degrees of freedom, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 33 (1992) 11–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Maenghyo Cho and Hyungi Kim, A refined semi-analytic design sensitivity based the mode decomposition and Neumann series, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 62 (2005) 19–49.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    D. S Choi, J. O. Jun, B. K. Kim, S. H. Park, M. H. Cho, D. H. Lee, K. T. Lee and S. M. Jun, Static Aeroelastic Analysis for Aircraft Wings using CFD/CST Coupling Methodology, Journal of the Korea Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 35(4) (2007) 287–294.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    M. K. Bhardwaj, A CFD/CSD Interaction Methodology for Aircraft Wings, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Aerospace Engineering, The Virginia State University at Blacksburg, Virginia, (1997).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. T. Batina, Unsteady Euler Airfoil Solutions Using Unstructured Dynamic Meshes, AIAA Journal, 28(8) (1990) 1381~1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    B. K. Kim, S. O. Jun, Y. H. Jeon, J. H. Kim and D. H. Lee, Efficiency of Dynamic Mesh in Static Aeroelastic Analysis and Design Optimization Problem, Journal of the Korea Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences, 35(2) (2007) 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Y. S. Kim, J. Kim, Y. H. Jeon, J. S. Bang, D. H. Lee, Y. H. Kim and C. Park, Multidisciplinary Aerodynamic-Structural Design Optimization of Supersonic Fighter Wing Using Response Surface Methodology, 40 th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, USA, (2002) AIAA-2002-0322.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sangook Jun
    • 1
  • Kyung-Hyun Park
    • 1
  • Hyung-Min Kang
    • 1
  • Dong-Ho Lee
    • 2
  • Maenghyo Cho
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering/Institute of Advanced Aerospace TechnologySeoul National UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations