Struct Multidisc Optim (2012) 46:129136

DOI 10.1007/s00158-011-0757-1

INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION

Enhanced POD projection basis with application to shape

optimization of car engine intake port
Manyu Xiao Piotr Breitkopf
Rajan Filomeno Coelho Catherine Knopf-Lenoir
Pierre Villon

Received: 26 August 2011 / Revised: 2 December 2011 / Accepted: 26 December 2011 / Published online: 13 January 2012
c Springer-Verlag 2012


Abstract In this paper we present a rigorous method for the

construction of enhanced Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD) projection bases for the development of efficient
Reduced Order Models (ROM). The resulting ROMs are
seen to exactly interpolate global quantities by design,
such as the objective function(s) and nonlinear constraints
involved in the optimization problem, thus narrowing the
search space by limiting the number of constraints that need
to be explicitly included in the statement of the optimization problem. We decompose the basis into two subsets of
orthogonal vectors, one for the representation of constraints
and the other one, in a complementary space, for the minimization of the projection errors. An explicit algorithm is
presented for the case of linear objective functions. The proposed method is then implemented within a bi-level ROM
and is illustrated with an application to the multi-objective
shape optimization of a car engine intake port for two competing objectives: CO2 emissions and engine power. We
show that optimization using the proposed method produces
Pareto dominant and realistic solutions for the flow fields
within the combustion chamber, providing further insight
into the flow properties.
Keywords Proper Orthogonal Decomposition
Reduced order modeling Intake port Optimization

M. Xiao P. Breitkopf (B) C. Knopf-Lenoir P. Villon

Laboratoire Roberval, Universit de Technologie de Compigne,
Compigne, France
e-mail: piotr.breitkopf@gmail.com
R. Filomeno Coelho
BATir, Universit Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

1 Introduction
Using high-fidelity simulation models to predict the
response of structures for design optimization and uncertainty quantification often leads to an unacceptable computational cost, thus motivating the research of techniques
to extract features from complex physical fields using a
reduced number of full-order numerical experiments. The
Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (Berkooz et al. 1993)
is of particular interest in the optimization of engineering
problems, where a set of scalar objective/constraint functions that depends on the values of design variables, is
evaluated such as a surface/volume integration of a velocity/stress/. . . field obtained from a finite element/volume
simulation. Literature reviewed thus far shows a large volume of work recently published on improving the precision
of POD-like ROMs and on interpolation between these
ROMs.
One of the research directions focuses on minimizing
the number of full-scale analyses by including information about the gradients. Weickum et al. (2009) enriched a
POD for the transient response of linear elastic structures
by using the gradients of the POD modes with respect to
the design/random parameters for robust shape optimization. In the same spirit (Carlberg and Farhat 2011; Hay et al.
2010) extended the concept of POD snapshots to include
derivatives of the state variables with respect to system input
parameters.
In order to avoid generating additional sampling points,
an effort has been made to develop interpolating strategies
between the ROMs. Missoum (2008) used Lagrange interpolation to control the relative contributions of individual
modes in order to perform a random-field-based probabilistic optimization of a tube impacting a rigid wall. Mathelin
and Le Maitre (2010) proposed polynomial transformation

130

of the POD projection coefficients over a coarse time-step,

for application to the 2D flow past a circular cylinder in
asymptotic and transient cases. Amsallem et al. (2009) interpolated the ROM data in a tangent space to the manifold of
symmetric positive-definite matrices, and mapped the result
back to the manifold for the dynamic characterization of a
parameterized structural model so as to evaluate its response
to a given input. Degroote et al. (2010) compared spline
interpolation of the reduced-order system matrices in the
original space as well as in the tangent space to the Riemannian manifold with Kriging interpolation of the predicted
outputs for a steady-state thermal design problem and probabilistic analysis via Monte Carlo simulation of an unsteady
contaminant transport problem.
Our approach in this paper targets the development of
multi-objective/multi-disciplinary optimization techniques
using high-quality ROMs. In this work we improve the bilevel reduced-order model strategy (Filomeno Coelho et al.
2007, 2008) based on the POD of the initial data set and
on kriging/RBF/MLS/. . . approximation of the projection
coefficients. In Xiao et al. (2010) we have introduced the
constrained POD, which consists basically of the adaptation of POD coefficients in order to interpolate quantities
of interest (objective/constraint functions). Here, we focus
on further tailoring the POD technique in order to modify the basis vectors rather than the coefficients in order to
interpolate global quantities exactly. The benefits are a better physical meaning of the adapted POD modes, a lower
number of basis vectors and a deeper insight into the postprocessed optimization results. This approach, focusing on
the improvement of the precision of the ROM by an appropriate choice of basis vectors, may be used in local as well
as in global versions of the POD.
The paper is organized in three parts: in the first section,
we revisit the standard POD, reformulated here as a minimization problem. This presentation allows the introduction
of additional constraints, aiming to enhance the projection coefficients of a standard POD basis (Xiao et al.
2010). Section 2 is the central part of the paper, where the
basis vectors are considered as variables of a constrained
minimization problem and an algorithm is presented for
the explicit computation of additional modes. In the third
section, we present the data analysis and the results obtained
for the multi-objective shape optimization results of a car
engine intake port. We close with some concluding remarks
and prospects for future work.

2 Proper Orthogonal Decomposition


T


Let v(k) = v1(k) , . . . , vn(k) ; k = 1, . . . , M be a set of
snapshots of the velocity field obtained by running a high

M. Xiao et al.

fidelity model on a representative sample of M points in

the design space, where n is the size of a snapshot and
corresponds typically to the number of degrees of freedom associated with a finite element model. The Principal
Component Analysis of the data allows us to express the
snapshots in terms of an average snapshot v and the set of
basis vectors 
v (k) = v +  (k)

(1)

The basis  is usually presented (after mean centering the

data) as a set of eigenvectors of the covariance matrix,
or singular value decomposition of the data matrix. The
coefficients are calculated by the projection of these
snapshots on the basis 


(k) = v(k) ,  , k = 1 . . . M.
(2)
The reduced order model is obtained by using only a subset ,m of the first m<<n modes. The snapshots are then
reproduced with the error given by
M


k=m+1
M


(3)

i=1

where we make the reasonable assumption that the number

of experiments is less than the dimensionality of the finite
element problem, M < n.
In the current paper, we use an alternative presentation,
more suitable for the derivation of constrained approximation, in which the basis vectors may be interpreted as a
solution of the minimization problem
M




 (k)

 = Argmin
(4)
v v(k)  2
k=1

L ()

In Xiao et al. (2010), (4) was exploited in order to introduce an additional constraint requiring that some functions
(objective or optimization constraints) have the same value
whether evaluated using an exact or an approximate field,
thus
 
(5)
J v = J (v)
at least for the snapshot sampling points. Our approach then
was to express the approximate snapshot using a standard
POD basis (4)
v (k) = v +  (k)

(6)

with a modified set of coefficients obtained by solving the

minimization problem
M






(k) = Argmin
v (k) v(k)  2
=const

k=1

L ()

Enhanced POD projection basis with application to shape optimization of car engine intake port

subject to the set of constraints



J v (k) = J v(k) , k = 1 . . . M.

(7)

In the case of linear constraints, the discrete form of (7) is

CT v = CT v(k) = c(k) , k = 1 . . . M

(8)

and are obtained by solving



 T
  (k)   T
T C
,m M,m ,m
,m M v(k) v

=
CT ,m
0

c(k) CT v
(9)
with the matrix W representing both the interpolation
operator over the reference grid and the numerical integration of the quantity of interest J (v), M a standard
finite element mass matrix and the Lagrange multipliers.
This approach was successfully applied to several problems using a bi-level approximation, coupling POD with
kriging/RBF/Diffuse Approximation and we showed that
satisfying the interpolation property (5) was critical in
a multi-objective problem. There remain however some
difficulties, since the existence of a solution to (9) cannot
be guaranteed in a general case.

3 Computing constrained modes 

Here, we propose an alternative formulation in which
instead of modifying the coefficients, we express the
approximate field using a modified set of orthogonal
modes 
v (k) = v +  (k)

(10)

obtained by imposing the constraints (5) on the minimization problem

M 




 (k)
(k) 
 = Argmin
(11)
v v  2
 T =I

k=1

L ()

and with the coefficients obtained by projecting the snapshots on the modified basis in the same way as in standard
POD (2)


(k) = v(k) ,  , k = 1 . . . M.
(12)
The main idea behind this algorithm is based on the observation that the necessary and sufficient condition (NSC) for
the existence of a solution to (11) is that for any velocity
field v in the high fidelity model space, there should exist a
field w in the reduced order space such that

To satisfy this condition, it is sufficient for ImC to belong

to the reduced space with basis . ImC is obtained by QR
factorization of the matrix C



 R1
C = QR = Q1 Q2
(14)
= Q1 R1
0
where R1 is an upper triangular matrix p p, Q1 is n p,
Q1 is n (n p) and Q1 and Q2 have orthogonal columns.
Since R1 is invertible, ImC = ImQ1 , so the the first p terms
of the basis


 = 1 . . . p p+1 . . . m

C v=C w
T

(13)

(15)

may be assimilated with Q1 and the remaining basis vectors

are to be found in the ImQ2 giving
 = [Q1 Q2
]

(16)

where
is the matrix of first m p eigenvectors of the
M 

T


covariance matrix
v(k) v Q2 Q2T v(k) v of the
k=1

snapshots v(k) projected on Q2 . Finally, the coefficients of

the constrained approximation v (k) = v +  (k) are given
as in (2) by


(k) =  T v(k) v
(17)
There is a clear interpretation of the role of these
 two sub-
sets of the basis vectors: the first subset  = 1 . . . p
is sufficient for optimization since due to the orthogonality
properties of Q1 and Q2 , the remaining m p modes have
no contribution to the quantities of interest such as objective functions and constraints. This is a key advantage, as
the size of the ROM may now be kept low! The question
then arises, do we ever need to compute the second subset
of modes? The answer is clearly yes, as the full set of modes
provides a deeper insight into the optimized solutions permitting the reconstruction of detailed flow field beyond the
global quantities involved in optimization process. On the
other hand, since our approach preserves global quantities
by design, it narrows the search space by limiting the number of constraints that need to be explicitly included in the
optimization problem statement.

4 Application: intake port of an automotive

diesel engine
We use the test case presented below to illustrate three
features of the proposed approach:

131

the constrained POD has analogous convergence properties to the standard POD,

132

M. Xiao et al.

Fig. 1 Six CAD variables

defining the geometry of the
duct

the additional p modes have a simple physical interpretation,

the first p basis vectors alone are sufficient for optimization.

We show below, that the above properties allow us to

outperform the standard POD in a multi-objective optimization case. This allows us, when projecting the results to the
full space of M modes, to get a qualitative insight into the
optimal solution.
4.1 Description of the test case
In the automotive industry, an engine must be optimized
for the competing objectives of performance and compliance with environmental standards. This study focuses
specifically on the design and optimization of the intake
duct of the cylinder. The goal is to find a set of shape
compromises for the duct maximizing two objectives:

vorticity or tumble T , related to the ability of the fluid

and fuel to mix efficiently in the combustion chamber
(pollution reduction);
mass flow Q, characterizing the power of the engine.

The velocity field in the combustion chamber depends

on the shape of the intake port which is driven by six design
variables y = (y1 ,. . . , y6 )T (Fig. 1).

Fig. 2 Flowchart of the process

and definition of the zone of
interest for computation of T
and Q (18)

T and Q are computed by integrating the velocity field

within a fixed zone  chosen in the cylindrical part of the
combustion chamber


T
=
T
=
(y)
(x x0 ) vz d



(18)

v
d
S
Q
=
Q
=
(y)

where vz is the axial component of the velocity field, S is the

cylinder cross section and x x0 is the radial coordinate.
The optimization problem may be formally stated as
max (T (v (y) ) , Q (v (y))
yinf y = (y1 , . . . , y6 )T ysup

(19)

Before discussing the solution of the optimization problem,

we first begin with a description of the Design of Experiments and the analysis of the data in the next subsection.
4.1.1 Simulation process
The parametric CAD model was generated using STARDesign. CFD mesh of approximately 90,000 cells was
obtained and fluid flow computation was carried out using
STAR-CCM code. The computations were stationary, the
number of iterations was 1,000 (enough to reach convergence in most cases) with pressure conditions in input and

Enhanced POD projection basis with application to shape optimization of car engine intake port

(a)

(b)

133

(c)

Fig. 3 POD and CPOD2 error for the velocity field (a) and for objective functions T (b) and Q (c)

output and a turbulence k- model. The flowchart is given

in Fig. 2 which gives also the location of the volume used to
compute both the tumble and the mass flow.

4.2.3 Comparison of traditional and constrained

POD modes

Figure 3 shows the relative L 2 error on the velocity field v

reconstructed with the standard POD and using the proposed
approach (curve labeled CPOD2, for Constrained POD
version 2). The error is only slightly higher for CPOD2 and
decreases at the same rate as for the POD. More precisely,
the initial part of the CPOD2 curve is shifted by two units to
the right, corresponding to the number of additional modes
p = 2. Figure 3b and c show the convergence of the relative
L 2 error on T = (T1 , , TM )T and Q = (Q 1 , , Q M )T
against the number of POD modes used in reconstruction.
As expected, for CPOD2 the error is zero.

The first p constrained modes do not depend on the velocity field as they are obtained by a QR decomposition of the
constraint matrix C without considering the snapshots. The
matrix C size is r n, where r = 2 is the number of constraints and n is the number of nodes on the reference grid
in the zone of interest. In our case, the QR decomposition
gives p = 2 and the corresponding velocity fields are illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5. We observe readily, that the first
mode (Fig. 4) corresponds to the pure rotation of the fluid
with no mass flow, while the second mode (Fig. 5) depicts a
uniform flow with no vorticity.
Figure 6 compares the first POD modes (left) with their
constrained counterparts p + 1. . . m (right).
As is usual with the standard POD, the physical interpretation of these modes is not straightforward. However,
we may make two observations here. First, there is an
overall similarity between the corresponding vector fields.
When comparing the CPOD2 modes with the POD ones,
the difference is mainly due to the subtraction of the pure
mass flow and the pure vorticity components. The second
observation is quite obvious when looking at the underlying
math: for the CPOD2, the mass flow and vorticity are null

Fig. 4 Constrained mode 1. T = 1.034, Q = 1.968*107

Fig. 5 Constrained mode 2. T = 1.7*1014 , Q = 2.3* 102

4.2 Data analysis

4.2.1 Design of experiments
The Design of Experiments (DOE) consists of a combination of Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) points and a
two-level factorial design for a total of 146 design points.
4.2.2 Reconstruction error analysis

134

M. Xiao et al.

POD mode 1

constrained mode 3

T = 0.806, Q = -0.138

T= -2.7 *10-14, Q = 0

POD mode 2

constrained mode 4

T = -0.406, Q = 5.0*10-3

T = 2.4*10-14, Q = 0

POD mode 3

constrained mode 5

T= -0.068, Q = 1.87*10-3

T = 1.948 *10-14, Q = 0

Fig. 6 Comparison of POD modes with their CPOD2 counterparts

for modes p + 1. . . m. So, as far as optimizing T and Q,

it is sufficient to restrict oneself to the first two constrained
modes.
4.3 Multicriteria optimization
The multicriteria optimization was performed using the
genetic algorithm MOGA (Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm, Eddy and Lewis 2001) available in the environment
DAKOTA developed by Sandia Labs Dakota (2011), and are
illustrated in Fig. 7a for 12 POD modes. Results using the
constrained POD with 2 modes are shown in Fig. 7b.
The crosses correspond to the points measured with
the fine model, and circles denote the points of the final

population of the genetic algorithm and are interpreted as

an optimized Pareto set. The POD-based optimized Pareto
set is not acceptable since it does not dominate the initial
data. The Pareto set obtained using CPOD2 is acceptable in
the sense that the final MOGA points dominate the initial
data. Another advantage of CPOD2 is that for an optimal
point obtained here with only 2 modes, we can reconstruct
the complete velocity fields using an arbitrary number of
modes. In Table 1, the values of T and Q are given for a
choice of four Pareto points used in cross-validation with
full-scale analysis (marked with asterisks in Fig. 7b) along
with the corresponding values of the design variables.
Since the final reconstruction of the optimal design
obtained with two CPOD2 modes consists of performing

Enhanced POD projection basis with application to shape optimization of car engine intake port

135

Fig. 7 Original (DOE, solid

line) and optimized Pareto sets,
a original POD, b constrained
POD

(a)

Table 1 Example compromise

solutions from the Pareto set

Solution

(b)

T/T_max

Q/Q_max

Y1

y2

y3

y4

y5

y6

1.0406

0.8448

1.0

0.2699

0.5721

0.7421

0.8981

0.1108

0.4635

0.2541

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.4682

0.9482

0.8717

1.0

0.0226

0.5343

0.0172

1.0

0.2029

1.0016

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

number

(a) point 1

(b) point 2

(c) point 3

(d) point 4

Fig. 8 Optimal velocity fields for four points of the Pareto set. a point 1. b point 2. c point 3. d point 4

136

a simple interpolation of coefficients for the optimal design parameters values followed by a linear combination
of the already available modes, we may use a higher
value for m. The velocity fields reconstructed with the full
set of m = 146 modes for the four solutions are shown in
Fig. 8ad.
We see that for point 1 corresponding to the lowest values of the valve and short turn angles, the minimal bowl
height and a maximal port diameter allow for maximizing
T by adjusting the runner length and the downdraft angle
giving a vorticity dominated flow (Fig. 8a), resulting in an
environmentally friendly design. The power of the engine
is however too low due to an insufficient mass flow. Conversely, for the optimal point 4, corresponding to maximal
values of all the parameters, a high value of Q is obtained
and the field (Fig. 8d) is dominated by the mass flow. This
solution (which belongs to the Pareto set of the initial DOE)
has to be discarded due to the excessive CO2 emission rate.
Points 2 and point 3 (Fig. 8b, c), provide a compromise
between the two objectives, both with a maximal downdraft
angle. Once again, the increase in port diameter and runner
length allows us to adjust the vorticity while a maximum
value of the bowl height permits the tuning of the valve
angle, short turn radius, the port diameter and the runner
length for higher engine power.

5 Conclusions
The numerical results show that with the standard POD, the
reconstruction error may lead to unreliable results, especially in multi-objective optimization problems. This is
because the basis truncation produces an error in the calculation of the functionals of the velocity field. The approach
proposed in this paper overcomes this limitation by modifying the orthogonal modes, by imposing the conservation of
integral quantities.
Two conclusions may be drawn. First, realistic Pareto
sets are obtained more easily than with the original POD
approach. The second advantage is that the number of
modes needed for optimization is reduced to the number
of objective functions: two in the case presented, with no
impact on the quality of estimation of the quantities of
interest. Moreover, the final solutions may be reconstructed
using a high number of modes (much higher than normally
used in POD), providing a finer physical insight into the
optimized solutions.

M. Xiao et al.

In terms of future prospects, even though the use of a constrained approach within local POD approximations seems
straightforward, further research is needed to investigate
dedicated manifold interpolation techniques. An extension
of the approach to problems with energy-type quadratic
constraints is also currently under investigation.
Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Agence Nationale
de la Recherche in the scope of OMD2 project ANR-08-COSI-007.

References
Amsallem D, Cortial J, Carlberg K, Farhat C (2009) A method for
interpolating on manifolds structural dynamics reduced-order
models. Int J Numer Methods Eng 80:12411258. doi:10.1002/
nme.2681
Berkooz G, Holmes P, Lumley JL (1993) The proper orthogonal
decomposition in the analysis of turbulent flows. Ann Rev Fluid
Mech 25:539575
Carlberg K, Farhat C (2011) A low-cost, goal-oriented compact
proper orthogonal decomposition basis for model reduction of
static systems. Int J Numer Methods Eng. doi:10.1002/nme.3074
DAKOTA Reference Manual. http://dakota.sandia.gov/licensing/votd/
html-ref/index.html, last accessed on 26 August 2011
Degroote J, Vierendeels J, Willcox K (2010) Interpolation among
reduced-order matrices to obtain parameterized models for
design, optimization and probabilistic analysis. Int J Numer
Methods Fluids. doi:10.1002/fld.2089
Eddy J, Lewis K (2001) Effective generation of Pareto sets using
genetic programming. In: Proc. of DETC01 ASME 2001 design
engineering technical conferences and computers and information
in engineering conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 912 September
Filomeno Coelho R, Breitkopf P, Knopf-Lenoir C (2007) Model reduction for multidisciplinary optimizationapplication to a 2D wing.
Struct Multidiscipl Optim. doi:10.1007/s00158-007-0212-5
Filomeno Coelho R, Breitkopf P, Knopf-Lenoir C, Villon P (2008) Bilevel model reduction for coupled problemsapplication to a 3D
wing. Struct Multidiscipl Optim. doi:10.1007/s00158-008-0335-3
Hay A, Borggaard J, Akhtar I, Pelletier D (2010) Reduced-order models for parameter dependent geometries based on shape sensitivity
analysis. J Comput Phys. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2009.10.033
Mathelin L, Le Maitre O (2010) Equation-free model reduction
for complex dynamical systems. Int J Numer Methods Fluids.
doi:10.1002/fld.2219
Missoum S (2008) Probabilistic optimal design in the presence of
random fields. Struct Multidiscipl Optim. doi:10.1007/s00158007-0126-2
Weickum G, Eldred M, Maute K (2009) A multi-point reduced-order
modeling approach of transient structural dynamics with application to robust design optimization. Struct Multidiscipl Optim.
doi:10.1007/s00158-008-0309-5
Xiao M, Breitkopf P, Filomeno Coelho R, Knopf-Lenoir C,
Sidorkiewicz M, Villon P (2010) Model reduction by CPOD and
Krigingapplication to the shape optimization of an intake port.
Struct Multidiscipl Optim 41(4):555574