Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-lfk5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-13T14:12:12.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Model predictive control of fluid–structure interaction via Koopman-based reduced-order model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2026

Haokui Jiang
Affiliation:
Institute for Ocean Engineering, Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen 518055, PR China
Shunxiang Cao*
Affiliation:
Institute for Ocean Engineering, Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen 518055, PR China
*
Corresponding author: Shunxiang Cao, caoshunxiang@sz.tsinghua.edu.cn

Abstract

This study presents an active flow control framework for fluid–structure interaction (FSI) systems involving a flexible plate in the wake of a cylinder, by integrating Koopman-based reduced-order models (ROMs) with model predictive control (MPC). Specifically, a novel switched-system control strategy is developed, wherein kernel dynamic mode decomposition (DMD) and residual DMD are jointly employed to construct accurate ROMs capable of capturing strongly nonlinear FSI dynamics. This approach ensures accurate low-order representations across multiple control inputs, while suppressing spurious modes. The resulting Koopman ROMs provide fast state predictions over a receding horizon, enabling an MPC optimiser to determine real-time actuation. To improve control performance, resolvent analysis is utilised to optimise the actuator–probe placement. Remarkably, only three strategically placed structural probes are sufficient to capture dominant Koopman modes and enable effective closed-loop control. The proposed framework is then applied to regulate synthetic jets on the cylinder to suppress the plate’s flapping. It successfully stabilises large-amplitude (LAF), small-deflection (SDF) and small-amplitude (SAF) flapping regimes within a unified control strategy. By combining Koopman modal decomposition with an analysis of system energy evolution, we elucidate distinct control mechanisms across these regimes. For LAF and SAF cases, control is achieved primarily through local modulation of existing saturated modes, which requires relatively low actuation energy. In contrast, stabilisation of the SDF case involves the emergence of entirely new Koopman modes that disrupt the original symmetry-breaking dynamics, resulting in increased control input. The framework matches the control performance of reinforcement learning while markedly reducing computational cost.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alnæs, M., Blechta, J., Hake, J., Johansson, A., Kehlet, B., Logg, A., Richardson, C., Ring, J., Rognes, M.E. & Wells, G.N. 2015 The FEniCS project version 1.5. Arch. Num. Software 3 (100).Google Scholar
Arbabi, H., Korda, M. & Mezić, I. 2018 A data-driven Koopman model predictive control framework for nonlinear partial differential equations. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 64096414. IEEE.10.1109/CDC.2018.8619720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aris, R. 2012 Vectors, Tensors and the Basic Equations of Fluid Mechanics. Courier Corporation.Google Scholar
Bagheri, S., Mazzino, A. & Bottaro, A. 2012 Spontaneous symmetry breaking of a hinged flapping filament generates lift. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (15), 154502.10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.154502CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brandt, L., Sipp, D., Pralits, J.O. & Marquet, O. 2011 Effect of base-flow variation in noise amplifiers: the flat-plate boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 687, 503528.10.1017/jfm.2011.382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunton, S.L., Brunton, B.W., Proctor, J.L. & Kutz, J.N. 2016 a Koopman invariant subspaces and finite linear representations of nonlinear dynamical systems for control. PloS One 11 (2), e0150171.10.1371/journal.pone.0150171CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunton, S.L., Proctor, J.L. & Kutz, J.N. 2016 b Sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics with control (SINDYc). IFAC-PapersOnLine 49 (18), 710715.10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.10.249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
China, V., Levy, L., Liberzon, A., Elmaliach, T. & Holzman, R. 2017 Hydrodynamic regime determines the feeding success of larval fish through the modulation of strike kinematics. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 284 (1853), 20170235.10.1098/rspb.2017.0235CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, H., Cao, S., Philen, M., Beran, P.S. & Wang, K.G. 2018 CFD–CSD coupled analysis of underwater propulsion using a biomimetic fin-and-joint system. Comput. Fluids 172, 5466.10.1016/j.compfluid.2018.06.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colbrook, M.J., Ayton, L.J. & Szőke, M. 2023 Residual dynamic mode decomposition: robust and verified Koopmanism. J. Fluid Mech. 955, A21.10.1017/jfm.2022.1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, B.S.H. & Yue, D.K.P. 2007 Flapping dynamics of a flag in a uniform stream. J. Fluid Mech. 581, 3367.10.1017/S0022112007005307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowell, E.H. & Hall, K.C. 2001 Modeling of fluid-structure interaction. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 33 (1), 445490.10.1146/annurev.fluid.33.1.445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duan, F. & Wang, J.-J. 2024 Passive bionic motion of a flexible film in the wake of a circular cylinder: chaos and periodicity, flow–structure interactions and energy evolution. J. Fluid Mech. 986, A29.10.1017/jfm.2024.327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Failer, L. & Richter, T. 2021 A Newton multigrid framework for optimal control of fluid–structure interactions. Optim. Engng 22 (4), 20092037.10.1007/s11081-020-09498-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonzi, N., Brunton, S.L. & Fasel, U. 2020 Data-driven nonlinear aeroelastic models of morphing wings for control. Proc. R. Soc. A 476 (2239), 20200079.10.1098/rspa.2020.0079CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furquan, M. & Mittal, S. 2021 Multiple lock-ins in vortex-induced vibration of a filament. J. Fluid Mech. 916, R1.10.1017/jfm.2021.209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goza, A. & Colonius, T. 2018 Modal decomposition of fluid–structure interaction with application to flag flapping. J. Fluid. Struct. 81, 728737.10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2018.06.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goza, A., Colonius, T. & Sader, J.E. 2018 Global modes and nonlinear analysis of inverted-flag flapping. J. Fluid Mech. 857, 312344.10.1017/jfm.2018.728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, A., Marks, C. & Sondergaard, R. 2024 Laminar separation control for eppler 387 airfoil based on resolvent analysis. AIAA J. 62 (4), 14871502.10.2514/1.J063492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grüne, L., Pannek, J., Grüne, L. & Pannek, J. 2017 Nonlinear Model Predictive Control. Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-46024-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güner, H., Thomas, D., Dimitriadis, G. & Terrapon, V.E. 2019 Unsteady aerodynamic modeling methodology based on dynamic mode interpolation for transonic flutter calculations. J. Fluid. Struct. 84, 218232.10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2018.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ham, J., Lee, D.D., Mika, S. & Schölkopf, B. 2004 A kernel view of the dimensionality reduction of manifolds. In Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on Machine learning, p. 47.Google Scholar
Hao, Y., Jiaqing, K. & Weiwei, Z. 2024 Research progress of resolvent analysis in fluid mechanics. Chin. J. Theor. Appl. Mech. 56 (10), 116.Google Scholar
Helenbrook, B.T. 2003 Mesh deformation using the biharmonic operator. Intl J. Numer. Meth. Engng 56 (7), 10071021.10.1002/nme.595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, B., Baddoo, P.J., Semaan, R., Brunton, S.L. & McKeon, B.J. 2021 Data-driven resolvent analysis. J. Fluid Mech. 918, A10.10.1017/jfm.2021.337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hou, G., Wang, J. & Layton, A. 2012 Numerical methods for fluid-structure interaction – a review. Commun. Comput. Phys. 12 (2), 337377.10.4208/cicp.291210.290411sCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jia, W. & Xu, H. 2024 Optimal parallelization strategies for active flow control in deep reinforcement learning-based computational fluid dynamics. Phys. Fluids 36 (4).Google Scholar
Jia, W. & Xu, H. 2025 Strategies for energy-efficient flow control leveraging deep reinforcement learning. Engng Appl. Artif. Intel. 156, 111125.10.1016/j.engappai.2025.111125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, H. & Cao, S. 2023 Reinforcement learning-based active flow control of oscillating cylinder for drag reduction. Phys. Fluids 35 (10).10.1063/5.0172081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, H. & Cao, S. 2024 Balanced proper-orthogonal-decomposition-based feedback control of vortex-induced vibration. Phys. Rev. Fluids 9 (7), 073901.10.1103/PhysRevFluids.9.073901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, H., Pfister, J.-L., Huang, D.Z. & Cao, S. 2025 a Koopman reduced-order modeling and analysis of flag flapping in the wake of a cylinder. Phys. Rev. E 111 (4), 045101.10.1103/PhysRevE.111.045101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiang, H., Zhao, Y. & Cao, S. 2025 b Onset instability of inverted flags clamped by a cylinder. J. Fluid. Struct. 137, 104373.10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2025.104373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, H.-K., Luo, K., Zhang, Z.-Y., Wu, J. & Yi, H.-L. 2022 Global linear instability analysis of thermal convective flow using the linearized lattice Boltzmann method. J. Fluid Mech. 944, A31.10.1017/jfm.2022.497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jovanović, M.R., Schmid, P.J. & Nichols, J.W. 2014 Sparsity-promoting dynamic mode decomposition. Phys. Fluids 26 (2), 024103.10.1063/1.4863670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamb, M., Kaiser, E., Brunton, S.L. & Kutz, J.N. 2020 Time-delay observables for Koopman: theory and applications. SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 19 (2), 886917.10.1137/18M1216572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korda, M. & Mezić, I. 2018 Linear predictors for nonlinear dynamical systems: Koopman operator meets model predictive control. Automatica 93, 149160.10.1016/j.automatica.2018.03.046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lācis, U., Brosse, N., Ingremeau, F., Mazzino, A., Lundell, F., Kellay, H. & Bagheri, S. 2014 Passive appendages generate drift through symmetry breaking. Nat. Commun. 5 (1), 5310.10.1038/ncomms6310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, J. & You, D. 2013 Study of vortex-shedding-induced vibration of a flexible splitter plate behind a cylinder. Phys. Fluids 25 (11), 110811.10.1063/1.4819346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J.H. 2011 Model predictive control: review of the three decades of development. Intl J. Control Autom. Syst. 9, 415424.10.1007/s12555-011-0300-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehoucq, R.B., Sorensen, D.C. & Yang, C. 1998 ARPACK Users’ Guide: Solution of Large-Scale Eigenvalue Problems with Implicitly Restarted Arnoldi Methods. SIAM.10.1137/1.9780898719628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, G., Kemp, G., Jaiman, R.K. & Khoo, B.C. 2021 A high-fidelity numerical study on the propulsive performance of pitching flexible plates. Phys. Fluids 33 (5), 051901.10.1063/5.0049217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J. & Zhang, M. 2022 Reinforcement-learning-based control of confined cylinder wakes with stability analyses. J. Fluid Mech. 932, A44.10.1017/jfm.2021.1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liao, J.C. 2007 A review of fish swimming mechanics and behaviour in altered flows. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 362 (1487), 19731993.10.1098/rstb.2007.2082CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, X. & MacArt, J.F. 2024 Adjoint-based machine learning for active flow control. Phys. Rev. Fluids 9 (1), 013901.10.1103/PhysRevFluids.9.013901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, F., Gao, C. & Zhang, W. 2022 The key to suppress vortex-induced vibration: stability of the structural mode. J. Fluid. Struct. 113, 103692.10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2022.103692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, K., Jiang, H.-K., Wu, J., Zhang, M. & Yi, H.-L. 2023 Stability and bifurcation of annular electro-thermo-convection. J. Fluid Mech. 966, A13.10.1017/jfm.2023.353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marra, L., Meilán-Vila, A. & Discetti, S. 2024 Self-tuning model predictive control for wake flows. J. Fluid Mech. 983, A26.10.1017/jfm.2024.47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHenry, M.J., Azizi, E. & Strother, J.A. 2003 The hydrodynamics of locomotion at intermediate Reynolds numbers: undulatory swimming in ascidian larvae (botrylloides sp.). J. Exp. Biol. 206 (2), 327343.10.1242/jeb.00069CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nocedal, J. & Wright, S.J. 1999 Numerical Optimization. Springer.10.1007/b98874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R.W. 1997 Non-Linear Elastic Deformations. Courier Corporation.Google Scholar
Otto, S.E. & Rowley, C.W. 2019 Linearly recurrent autoencoder networks for learning dynamics. SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 18 (1), 558593.10.1137/18M1177846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, S., Arnold-Medabalimi, N. & Duraisamy, K. 2021 Sparsity-promoting algorithms for the discovery of informative Koopman-invariant subspaces. J. Fluid Mech. 917, A18.10.1017/jfm.2021.271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paris, R., Beneddine, S. & Dandois, J. 2021 Robust flow control and optimal sensor placement using deep reinforcement learning. J. Fluid Mech. 913, A25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peitz, S. & Klus, S. 2019 Koopman operator-based model reduction for switched-system control of pdes. Automatica 106, 184191.10.1016/j.automatica.2019.05.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peitz, S. & Klus, S. 2020 Feedback control of nonlinear PDEs using data-efficient reduced order models based on the Koopman operator. In The Koopman Operator in Systems and Control: Concepts, Methodologies, and Applications, pp. 257282.Google Scholar
Peitz, S., Otto, S.E. & Rowley, C.W. 2020 Data-driven model predictive control using interpolated Koopman generators. SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 19 (3), 21622193.10.1137/20M1325678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfister, J.-L. 2019 Instabilities and optimization of elastic structures interacting with laminar flows. PhD thesis, Université Paris-Saclay.Google Scholar
Pfister, J.-L. & Marquet, O. 2020 Fluid–structure stability analyses and nonlinear dynamics of flexible splitter plates interacting with a circular cylinder flow. J. Fluid Mech. 896, A24.10.1017/jfm.2020.284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proctor, J.L., Brunton, S.L. & Kutz, J.N. 2016 Dynamic mode decomposition with control. SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 15 (1), 142161.10.1137/15M1013857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabault, J., Kuchta, M., Jensen, A., Réglade, U. & Cerardi, N. 2019 Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control. J. Fluid Mech. 865, 281302.10.1017/jfm.2019.62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-López, E., Carter, D.W. & Ganapathisubramani, B. 2021 Dynamic mode decomposition-based reconstructions for fluid–structure interactions: an application to membrane wings. J. Fluid. Struct. 104, 103315.10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2021.103315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolandi, L.V., Ribeiro, J.H.M., Yeh, C.-A. & Taira, K. 2024 An invitation to resolvent analysis. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 38 (5), 603639.10.1007/s00162-024-00717-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowley, C.W., Mezić, I., Bagheri, S., Schlatter, P. & Henningson, D.S. 2009 Spectral analysis of nonlinear flows. J. Fluid Mech. 641, 115127.10.1017/S0022112009992059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sader, J.E., Cossé, J., Kim, D., Fan, B. & Gharib, M. 2016 Large-amplitude flapping of an inverted flag in a uniform steady flow–a vortex-induced vibration. J. Fluid Mech. 793, 524555.10.1017/jfm.2016.139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sahu, T.R., Furquan, M. & Mittal, S. 2019 Numerical study of flow-induced vibration of a circular cylinder with attached flexible splitter plate at low. J. Fluid Mech. 880, 551593.10.1017/jfm.2019.699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford, A. & Klimov, O. 2017 Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1707.06347.Google Scholar
Turek, S. & Hron, J. 2006 Proposal for numerical benchmarking of fluid-structure interaction between an elastic object and laminar incompressible flow. In Fluid-Structure Interaction, pp. 371385. Springer.10.1007/3-540-34596-5_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vignon, C., Rabault, J. & Vinuesa, R. 2023 Recent advances in applying deep reinforcement learning for flow control: perspectives and future directions. Phys. Fluids 35 (3), 031301.10.1063/5.0143913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, J.-S. & Wang, J.-J. 2021 Wake-induced transition in the low-Reynolds-number flow over a multi-element airfoil. J. Fluid Mech. 915, A28.10.1017/jfm.2021.20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, T.-K. & Shoele, K. 2024 Koopman-based model predictive control with morphing surface: regulating the flutter response of a foil with an active flap. Phys. Rev. Fluids 9 (1), 014702.10.1103/PhysRevFluids.9.014702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y. 2022 A monolithic one-velocity-field optimal control formulation for fluid–structure interaction problems with large solid deformation. J. Fluid. Struct. 111, 103577.10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2022.103577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y., Jimack, P.K., Walkley, M.A., Yang, D. & Thompson, H.M. 2021 An optimal control method for time-dependent fluid-structure interaction problems. Struct. Multidiscip. Optimiza. 64 (4), 19391962.10.1007/s00158-021-02956-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wick, T. 2012 Stability estimates and numerical comparison of second order time-stepping schemes for fluid-structure interactions. In Numerical Mathematics and Advanced Applications 2011: Proceedings of ENUMATH. 2011, the 9th European Conference on Numerical Mathematics and Advanced Applications, pp. 625632. Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-33134-3_66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M.O., Kevrekidis, I.G. & Rowley, C.W. 2015 A data–driven approximation of the Koopman operator: extending dynamic mode decomposition. J. Nonlinear Sci. 25, 13071346.10.1007/s00332-015-9258-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M.O., Rowley, C.W. & Kevrekidis, I.G. 2016 A kernel-based method for data-driven Koopman spectral analysis. J. Comput. Dyn. 2 (2), 247265.10.3934/jcd.2015005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, J., Qiu, Y.L., Shu, C. & Zhao, N. 2014 Flow control of a circular cylinder by using an attached flexible filament. Phys. Fluids 26 (10).10.1063/1.4896942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yao, W. & Jaiman, R.K. 2017 Feedback control of unstable flow and vortex-induced vibration using the eigensystem realization algorithm. J. Fluid Mech. 827, 394414.10.1017/jfm.2017.470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Y., Zhou, K., Zhou, W., Wen, X. & Liu, Y. 2021 Flow prediction using dynamic mode decomposition with time-delay embedding based on local measurement. Phys. Fluids 33 (9), 095109.10.1063/5.0064867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, H., Rowley, C.W., Deem, E.A. & Cattafesta, L.N. 2019 Online dynamic mode decomposition for time-varying systems. SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 18 (3), 15861609.10.1137/18M1192329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Y., Jiang, H., Li, J. & Cao, S. 2025 Comparative study of reinforcement learning and reduced-order model-based control for mitigating vortex-induced vibration. Phys. Fluids 37 (4), 047125.10.1063/5.0266100CrossRefGoogle Scholar