4.6 Article

Uniform Bounds with Difference Quotients for Proper Orthogonal Decomposition Reduced Order Models of the Burgers Equation

Journal

JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING
Volume 95, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10915-023-02160-2

Keywords

Difference quotients; Proper orthogonal decomposition; Reduced order models; Error analysis; Optimality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, we provide evidence of uniform error bounds for proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) reduced order modeling (ROM) of the Burgers equation with the inclusion of difference quotients (DQs). Our study focuses on the behavior of DQ ROM error bounds using different POD spaces and error measures. Numerical tests show that DQ ROM errors are significantly smaller than noDQ errors, and the addition of DQs in the POD process leads to an optimality/super-optimality behavior.
In this paper, we prove uniform error bounds for proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) reduced order modeling (ROM) of Burgers equation, considering difference quotients (DQs), introduced in Kunisch and Volkwein (Numer Math 90(1):117-148, 2001). In particular, we study the behavior of the DQ ROM error bounds by considering L-8(O) and H-0(1) (O) POD spaces and l8(L-2) and natural-norm errors. We present some meaningful numerical tests checking the behavior of error bounds. Based on our numerical results, DQ ROM errors are several orders of magnitude smaller than noDQ ones (in which the POD is constructed in a standard way, i.e., without the DQ approach) in terms of the energy kept by the ROM basis. Further, noDQ ROM errors have an optimal behavior, while DQ ROM errors, where the DQ is added to the POD process, demonstrate an optimality/super-optimality behavior. It is conjectured that this possibly occurs because the DQ inner products allow the time dependency in the ROM spaces to make an impact.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available