We investigate model order reduction (MOR) strategies for simulating unsteady hemodynamics within cerebrovascular systems, contrasting a physics-based intrusive approach with a data-driven non-intrusive framework. High-fidelity 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) snapshots of an idealised basilar artery bifurcation are first compressed into a low-dimensional latent space using Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD). We evaluate the performance of a POD–Galerkin (POD–G) model, which projects the Navier–Stokes equations onto the reduced basis, against a POD–Reservoir Computing (POD–RC) model that learns the temporal evolution of coefficients through a recurrent architecture. In the present work, the introduction of a multi-harmonic and multi-amplitude training signal eliminates the requirement of multiple training signals with different amplitudes and frequencies, and thereby expedites the training process. Both methodologies achieve computational speed-ups on the order of 10^2 to 10^3 compared to full-order simulations, highlighting their potential as robust, efficient surrogates for real-time and accurate prediction of crucial flow properties such as wall shear stress (WSS), even adjacent to the bifurcation zones.
1- Schematic of the surrogate workflow. The Offline Phase (gray) consists of FOM data generation and POD basis extraction. In the Online Phase (blue), the temporal coefficients are predicted either by an intrusive POD--Galerkin ROM or by a non-intrusive POD-RC surrogate; reconstructed fields are then evaluated against the FOM reference.
2-Layers of Reservoir Computing Architecture, first Layer is the input layer, second one is fixed and randomly initialized, and only the final output layer is trainable.
3- First six POD modes of the velocity magnitude field for the cerebrovascular bifurcation geometry. The modes are ordered according to decreasing energetic contribution with the first mode representing the dominant flow structure.
4-First six POD modes of the pressure field for the cerebrovascular bifurcation geometry. The modes are ordered according to decreasing energetic contribution, with the first mode representing the dominant pressure distribution.
5. Comparison of the evolution of P given by the FOM (first column) and the POD–Galerkin ROM (second column), and their differences in absolute value (third column).
6-Comparison of the evolution of U given by the FOM (first column) and the POD–Galerkin ROM (second column) and their differences in absolute value (third column).
7-Comparison of the evolution of WSS given by the FOM (first column) and the POD–Galerkin ROM (second column) and their differences in absolute value (third column).
8-Comparison of the evolution of p given by the FOM (first column) and the POD–Reservoir Computing ROM (second column) and their differences in absolute value (third column).
9-Comparison of the evolution of U given by the FOM (first column) and the POD–Reservoir Computing ROM (second column) and their differences in absolute value (third column).
10-Comparison of the evolution of WSS given by the FOM (first column) and the POD–Reservoir Computing ROM (second column) and their differences in absolute value (third column).