summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/macros/latex/contrib/springer/svjour/tcfd/example/example.tex
blob: 3095bdb40cac7ca059feabb471148d96c9c03046 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% An example input file demonstrating the tcfd option of the SVJour      %
% document class for the journal: Theoret. Comput. Fluid Dynamics        %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
\documentclass[tcfd]{svjour}

\usepackage{graphicx}
%%% \usepackage{times}
%%% \usepackage{mathtime}

\sloppy

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Several Macro's for this article programmed by the Author              %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\input{example.sty}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\begin{document}

\title{Subgrid-Scale Models for Compressible Large-Eddy
Simulations\thanks{The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from
the Air Force Off\/ice of Scientific Research, under Grant
Nos. AF/F49620-98-1-0035 (MPM and GVC) and AF/F49620-97-1-0244 (UP),
monitored by D.L.~Sakell. This work was also sponsored by the Army High
Performance Computing Research Center under the auspices of the
Department of the Army, Army Research Laboratory cooperative agreement
number DAAH04-95-2-0003/contract number DAAH04-95-C-0008, the content of
which does not necessarily ref\/lect the position or the policy of the
government, and no off\/icial endorsement should be inferred. A portion
of the computer time was provided by the University of Minnesota
Supercomputing Institute.}}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% You have to protect commands within the "Author"-macro by using the
% \protect-command
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\Author{M. Pino Mart\protect{\'\i}n}
{Department of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, University of Minnesota,\\
110 Union St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA\\
pino@aem.umn.edu}

\Author{Ugo Piomelli}
{Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland,\\
College Park, MD 20742, USA\\
ugo@eng.umd.edu}

\Author{Graham V. Candler}
{Department of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, University of Minnesota,\\
110 Union St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA\\
candler@aem.umn.edu}

\commun{Communicated by M.Y. Hussaini}

\date{Received 12 March 1999 and accepted 11 August 1999}

\abstract{An {\it a priori} study of subgrid-scale (SGS) models for the
unclosed terms in the energy equation is carried out using the f\/low
f\/ield obtained from the direct simulation of homogeneous isotropic
turbulence. Scale-similar models involve multiple f\/iltering operations
to identify the smallest resolved scales that have been shown to be the
most active in the interaction with the unresolved SGSs. In the present
study these models are found to give more accurate prediction of the SGS
stresses and heat f\/luxes than eddy-viscosity and eddy-diffusivity
models, as well as improved predictions of the SGS turbulent diffusion,
SGS viscous dissipation, and SGS viscous diffusion.}


\authorrunning{M.P. Mart\protect{\'\i}n, U. Piomelli, and G.V. Candler}
\maketitle

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Section 1 %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:1}

Large-eddy simulation (LES) is a technique intermediate between the
direct numerical simulation (DNS) of turbulent f\/lows and the solution of the
Reynolds-averaged equations. In LES the contribution of the large,
energy-carrying structures to momentum and energy transfer is computed
exactly, and only the effect of the smallest scales of turbulence is
modeled. Since the small scales tend to be more homogeneous and
universal, and less affected by the boundary conditions, than the
large ones, there is hope that their models can be simpler and require
fewer adjustments when applied to different f\/lows than similar models
for the Reynolds-averaged Navier--Stokes equations.

While a substantial amount of research has been carried out into
modeling for the LES of incompressible f\/lows, applications to
compressible f\/lows have been signif\/icantly fewer, due to the increased
complexity introduced by the need to solve an energy equation, which
introduces extra unclosed terms in addition to the subgrid-scale (SGS)
stresses that must be modeled in incompressible f\/lows. Furthermore,
the form of the unclosed terms depends on the energy equation chosen
(internal or total energy, total energy of the resolved f\/ield, or
enthalpy).

Early applications of LES to compressible f\/lows used a transport
equation for the internal energy per unit mass $\varepsilon$
\citep{moi91,elh94} or for the enthalpy per unit mass $h$
\citep{spe88,erl92}. In these equations the SGS heat f\/lux was modeled
in a manner similar to that used for the SGS stresses, while two
additional terms, the SGS pressure-dilatation $\Pi_{\rm dil}$ and the
SGS contribution to the viscous dissipation $\varepsilon_{\rm v}$, were
neglected.

\citet[b]{vre95a} performed {\it a priori} tests using DNS data obtained
from the calculation of a mixing layer at Mach numbers from 0.2 to 0.6.
They found that the SGS pressure-dilatation $\pi_{\rm dil}$ and SGS
viscous dissipation $\varepsilon_{\rm v}$ are of the same order as the
divergence of the SGS heat f\/lux $Q_j$, and that modeling
$\varepsilon_{\rm v}$ improves the results, especially at moderate or
high Mach numbers. They also proposed the use of a transport equation
for the total energy of the f\/iltered f\/ield, rather than either the
enthalpy or the internal energy equations; the same unclosed terms that
appear in the internal energy and enthalpy equations are also present in
this equation.

Very few calculations have been carried out using the transport equation
for the total energy, despite the desirable feature that it is a
conserved quantity, and that all the SGS terms in this equation can be
cast in conservative form. This equation has a different set of unclosed
terms, whose modeling is not very advanced yet. \citet{nor92} performed
calculations of a transitional boundary layer, and modeled only the SGS
heat f\/lux, neglecting all the other terms. \citet{kni98} performed the
LES of isotropic homogeneous turbulence on unstructured grids and
compared the results obtained with the \citet{sma63} model with those
obtained when the energy dissipation was provided only by the
dissipation inherent in the numerical algorithm. They modeled the SGS
heat f\/lux and an SGS turbulent diffusion term, and neglected the SGS
viscous diffusion. \citet{com98} proposed the use of an eddy-diffusivity
model for the sum of the SGS heat f\/lux and SGS turbulent diffusion,
neglecting the SGS viscous diffusion.

In this paper the f\/low f\/ield obtained from a DNS of homogeneous
isotropic turbulence is used to compute the terms in the energy
equations, and evaluate eddy-viscosity and scale-similar models for
their parametrization. We place emphasis on the total energy equation,
both because of the lack of previous studies in the terms that appear in
it, and because of the desirability of solving a transport equation for
a conserved quantity. In the remainder of the paper the governing
equations are presented and the unclosed terms are def\/ined. The DNS
database used for the {\it a priori} tests is described. Finally,
several models for the unclosed terms are presented and tested.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Section 2 %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\section{Governing Equations}
\label{sec:2}

To obtain the equations governing the motion of the resolved eddies,
we must separate the large from the small scales. LES is based on the
def\/inition of a f\/iltering operation: a resolved variable, denoted by
an overbar, is def\/ined as \citep{leo74}
\begin{equation}
 \overline{f}({\bf x}) = \int_D f({\bf x'})
 G({\bf x},{\bf x'};\delbar)
 \D{\bf x'},
 \label{eq:filtering}
\end{equation}
where $D$ is the entire domain, $G$ is the f\/ilter function, and
$\delbar$ is the f\/ilter-width associated with the wavelength of the
smallest scale retained by the f\/iltering operation. Thus, the f\/ilter
function determines the size and structure of the small scales.

In compressible f\/lows it is convenient to use Favre-f\/iltering
\citep[b]{fav65a} to avoid the introduction of SGS
terms in the equation of conservation of mass. A Favre-f\/iltered
variable is def\/ined as $\widetilde{f}=\overline{\rho
f}/\overline{\rho}$. In addition to the mass and momentum
equations, one can choose solving an equation for the internal energy,
enthalpy, or total energy. Applying the Favre-f\/iltering operation, we
obtain the resolved transport equations
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:mass-ff}
 \frac{\partial\rhob}{\partial t}
 + \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}} \left(\rhob\util_j\right)
 = 0 ,
\end{equation}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:mom-ff}
 \frac{\partial\rhob\,\util_i}{\partial t}
 + \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}}\left(\rhob\util_i\util_j
 + \pb \delta_{ij} - \widetilde{\sigma}_{ji} \right)
 = - \frac{\partial\tau_{ji}}{\partial x_{j}} ,
\end{equation}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:int-en-ff}
 \frac{\partial (\rhob\,\widetilde{\varepsilon}\,)}{\partial t}
 + \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}}
 \left(\rhob\util_j\widetilde\varepsilon\right)
 + \frac{\partial\widetilde{q}_j}{\partial x_j}
 + \pb\Stkk - \widetilde{\sigma}_{ji}\Stij
 = - C_{\rm v}\frac{\partial Q_j}{\partial x_{j}} - \Pi_{\rm dil} +
 \varepsilon_{\rm v} ,
\end{equation}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:enth-ff}
 \frac{\partial (\rhob\,\widetilde{h})}{\partial t}
 + \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}\left(\rhob\util_j\htil\right)
 + \frac{\partial\widetilde{q}_j}{\partial x_j}
 - \frac{\partial\pb}{\partial t}
 - \util_j\frac{\partial\pb}{\partial x_j}
 - \widetilde{\sigma}_{ji}\Stij =
 - C_{\rm v}\frac{\partial Q_j}{\partial x_j}
 - \Pi_{\rm dil}
 + \varepsilon_{\rm v} ,
\end{equation}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:tot-en-ff}
 \frac{\partial}{\partial t} (\rhob\,\Etil)
 + \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}
 \left[(\rhob\,\Etil + \pb)\util_j + \widetilde{q}_j
 - \widetilde{\sigma}_{ij}\util_i \right] =
 - \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}\left(\gamma C_{\rm v}Q_j
 + {\textstyle\half}{\cal J}_j
 - {\cal D}_j \right) .
\end{equation}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Here $\rho$ is the density, $u_j$ is the velocity in the $x_j$ direction,
$p$ is the pressure, $\varepsilon=c_{\rm v} T$ is the internal energy
per unit mass, $T$ is the temperature; $h=\varepsilon + p/\rho$ is the
enthalpy per unit mass; $E=\varepsilon +u_iu_i/2$ is the total energy per
unit mass, and the diffusive f\/luxes are given by
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:sig-hat}
 \widetilde{\sigma}_{ij} = 2\widetilde{\mu} \Stij
 - {\textstyle\frac{2}{3}}\widetilde{\mu} \delta_{ij}\Stkk, \qquad
 \widetilde{q}_j = - \widetilde{k}\frac{\partial\Ttil}{\partial x_j} ,
\end{equation}
where $S_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}
(\partial u_i/\partial x_i + \partial u_j/\partial x_i)$ is
the strain rate tensor, and $\widetilde{\mu}$ and $\widetilde{k}$ are the
viscosity and thermal conductivity corresponding to the f\/iltered temperature
$\Ttil$.

The effect of the SGSs appears on the right-hand side of the governing
equations through the SGS stresses $\tij$; SGS heat f\/lux $Q_j$; SGS
pressure-dilatation $\Pi_{\rm dil}$; SGS viscous dissipation $\varepsilon_{\rm v}$;
SGS turbulent diffusion $\partial{\cal J}_j/\partial x_j$; and SGS viscous
diffusion $\partial{\cal D}_j/\partial x_j$. These quantities are
def\/ined as
\begin{eqnarray}
 \label{eq:tauij}
 \tij & = & \rhob(\widetilde{u_iu_j}-\util_i\util_j), \\
 \label{eq:qj}
 Q_j & = & \rhob \left(\widetilde{u_j T}-\util_j\widetilde{T}\right), \\
 \label{eq:pdil}
 \Pi_{\rm dil} & = & \overline{p\Skk}-\pb\Stkk, \\
 \label{eq:vdiss}
 \varepsilon_{\rm v} & = & \overline{\sigma_{ji}\Sij}
 - \widetilde{\sigma}_{ji}\Stij,\\
 \label{eq:tdiff}
 {\cal J}_j & = & \rhob\left(\widetilde{u_ju_ku_k} -
 \util_j\widetilde{u_ku_k} \right), \\
 \label{eq:vdiff}
 {\cal D}_j & = & \overline{\sigma_{ij}u_i}
 -\widetilde{\sigma}_{ij}\util_i .
\end{eqnarray}
The equation of state has been used to express pressure-gradient and
pressure-diffusion correlations in terms of $Q_j$ and $\Pi_{\rm dil}$. It
is also assumed that $\overline{\mu(T)\Sij} \simeq \mu(\Ttil)\Stij$,
and that an equivalent equality involving the thermal conductivity
applies. \citet{vre95b} performed {\it a priori}
tests using DNS data obtained from the calculation of a mixing layer
at Mach numbers in the range 0.2--0.6, and concluded that neglecting
the nonlinearities of the diffusion terms in the momentum and energy
equations is acceptable.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Section 3 %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\section{{\em A priori} Test}
\label{sec:3}

One method to evaluate the performance of models for LES or RANS
calculations is the {\it a priori} test, in which the velocity
f\/ields obtained from a direct simulation are f\/iltered to yield the
exact SGS terms, and the f\/iltered quantities are used to assess the
accuracy of the parametrization. The database used in this study was
obtained from the calculation of homogeneous isotropic turbulence
decay.

The Navier--Stokes equations were integrated in time using a
fourth-order Runge--Kutta method.\break The spatial derivatives were
computed using an eighth-order accurate central f\/inite-difference
scheme. The\pagebreak\ results have been validated by comparison with the
DNS data of \citet[1999]{mar98}. The simulations were performed
on grids with 256$^3$ points. The computational domain is a periodic
box with length 2$\pi$ in each dimension. The f\/luctuating f\/ields were
initialized as in \citet{ris97}.

The calculation was performed at a Reynolds number
$Re_{\lambda}=u'\lambda/\nu=50$, where
$\lambda=\langle u^2\rangle^{1/2}/$\break
$\langle{(\partial u/\partial x)^2}\rangle^{1/2}$ is the Taylor
microscale and $u'=(u_iu_i)^{1/2}$ is the turbulence intensity, and
at a turbulent Mach number $M_t=u'/a=0.52$, where $a$ is the speed
of sound. The initial f\/low f\/ield is allowed to evolve for four
dimensionless time units $\tau_t=\lambda/u'$, so that the energy
spectrum may develop an inertial range that decays as $k^{-5/3}$,
where $k$ is the nondimensional wave number.

The f\/iltered f\/ields were obtained using a top-hat f\/ilter, which is
def\/ined in one dimension as
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:tophat}
 \overline{f}_i = \frac{1}{2n}
 \left( f_{i-{n}/{2}}+2\sum_{i-{n}/{2}+1}^{i+{n}/{2}-1}f_{i}+f_{i+{n}/{2}}\right) .
\end{equation}
Various f\/ilter-widths $\delbar=n\Delta$ (where $\Delta$ is the grid
size and $n=4$, 8, 16, and 32) were used. Note that the grid
resolution is high enough that $n=2$ would correspond to a DNS. The
location of the various f\/ilter cutoffs along the energy spectrum at
$t/\tau_t=6.5$ are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fig01}; they cover the decaying range of
the spectrum ($n=4$), the inertial range ($n=8$ and 16), and the
energy-containing range ($n=32$). With the f\/ilters used,
respectively, 5\%, 15\%, 40\%, and 70\% of the total turbulent kinetic
energy resides in the SGSs. The two intermediate values are
representative of actual LES calculations, in which the SGS kinetic energy\break
is typically between 15\% and 30\% of the total energy. A higher
percentage of SGS energy in general indicates an under-resolved
calculation. In the following, results will be shown for
$\delbar=8\Delta$, except when evaluating the effect of f\/ilter-width.

The accuracy of a model is evaluated by computing the exact term $R$
and its model representation $M$ and comparing the two using the
correlation coeff\/icient $C(R)$ and the root-mean-square (rms) amplitudes
$\langle (R-\langle R\rangle)^2\rangle^{1/2}$ and $\langle(M-\langle
M\rangle)^2\rangle^{1/2}$. The correlation coeff\/icient is given by
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:corr-coeff}
 C(R) = \frac{ \langle(R-\langle R \rangle) (M-\langle M \rangle) \rangle}
 {\left(\langle (R-\langle R \rangle)^2 \rangle
 \langle(M-\langle M \rangle)^2 \rangle\right)^{1/2}} ,
\end{equation}
where the brackets $\langle\cdot\rangle$ denote averaging over the
computational volume. A ``perfect'' model would give a correlation
coeff\/icient of 1. In the following, the quantities plotted are made
nondimensional using the initial values of $\rho$, $u'$, and
$\lambda$.

\begin{figure}[t]
%\centering
%\includegraphics[height=51mm]{01fig.eps}
\vspace{51mm}% to simulate the figure
\caption{Energy spectrum; \diam, location of the f\/ilter-widths used
in the {\it a priori} test; \solid $k^{-5/3}$ slope; \dotted, DNS. $q^2 = u_iu_i$, and $\eta$ is
the Kolmogorov length scale.}
\label{fig:fig01}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Section 4 %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\section{Models for the Momentum Equation}
\label{sec:4}

The SGS stresses (\ref{eq:tauij}) are the only unclosed term that
appears in the momentum equation. Various types of models have been
devised to represent the SGS stresses. Eddy-viscosity models
try to reproduce the global exchange of energy between the resolved
and unresolved stresses by mimicking the drain of energy associated
with the turbulence energy cascade. Yoshizawa (1986)
proposed an eddy-viscosity model for weakly compressible turbulent
f\/lows using a multiscale direct-interaction approximation method.
The anisotropic part of the SGS stresses is parametrized using the
\citet{sma63} model, while the SGS energy $\tkk$ is
modeled separately:
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:tauij-yoshi}
 \tij - \frac{\delta_{ij}}{3}\qsgs =
 - C_s^22\delbar^2\rhob|\St|\left(\Stij
 -\frac{\delta_{ij}}{3}\Stkk\right) = C_s^2\aij
 , \qquad
 \qsgs = C_I 2\rhob\delbar^2|\St|^2 = C_I \alpha,
\end{equation}
with $C_s=0.16$, $C_I=0.09$, and $|\St|=(2 \St_{ij}\St_{ij})^{1/2}$.

\citet{moi91} proposed a modif\/ication of the
eddy-viscosity model (\ref{eq:tauij-yoshi}) in which the two model
coeff\/icients were determined dynamically, rather than input {\it a
priori}, using the Germano identity $\Lij = T_{ij} -
\widehat{\tau_{ij}}$ \citep{ger92}, which relates the SGS
stresses $\tij$ to the ``resolved turbulent stresses''
$\Lij=\left(\widehat{\overline{\rho u_i}\,\overline{\rho
 u_j}/\rhob}\right) - \widehat{\overline{ \rho u_i }}\,
\widehat{\overline{ \rho u_j}}/\rhobh$, and the subtest stresses
$\Tij=\rhobh\breve{\widetilde{u_iu_j}} - \rhobh\utbi\utbj$
(where $\breve{\widetilde{f}}=\widehat{\overline{\rho f}}/\rhobh$, and the
hat represents the application of the test f\/ilter $\widehat{{G}}$ of
characteristic width $\delhat=2\delbar$)
that appear if the f\/ilter $\widehat{{G}}$ is applied to (\ref{eq:mom-ff}).
\citet{moi91} determined the model coeff\/icients by
substituting (\ref{eq:tauij-yoshi}) into the Germano identity and
contracting with $\Stij$. In the present paper the contraction
proposed by \citet{lil92} to minimize the error in a
least-squares sense are used instead. Accordingly, the two model
coeff\/icients for the dynamic eddy-viscosity (DEV) model will be given
by
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:coeff_dsm}
 C = C_s^2 = \frac{ \langle {\cal L}_{ij}M_{ij}\rangle }
 { \langle M_{kl}M_{kl}\rangle } , \qquad
 C_I = \frac{ \langle {\cal L}_{kk}\rangle }
 { \langle\beta-\widehat{\alpha}\rangle } ,
\end{equation}
where $\beta_{ij} = -2\delhat^2\rhobh|\Stb|
(\Stbij-\delta_{ij}\Stbkk/3)$, $\Mij=\bij-\widehat{\aij}$, and
$\beta=2\delhat^2 \rhobh|\Stb\,|^2$.

Scale-similar models are based on the assumption that the most active
SGSs are those closer to the cutoff, and that the scales
with which they interact are those immediately above the cutoff wave number
\citep{bar80}. Thus, scale-similar models employ
multiple operations to identify the smallest resolved scales and use
the smallest ``resolved'' stresses to represent the SGS stresses.
Although these models account for the local energy events, they
underestimate the dissipation.

\citet{spe88} proposed the addition of a scale-similar
part to the eddy-viscosity model of \citet{yos86}
introducing the mixed model. In this way, the eddy-viscosity
contribution provides the dissipation that is underestimated by purely
scale-similar models. This mixed model was also used by \citet{erl92}
and \citet{zan92}, and is given by
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:tauij-sezhu}
 \tij - \frac{\delta_{ij}}{3}\qsgs = C_s\aij + \Aij
 - \frac{\delta_{ij}}{3} \Akk , \qquad
 \qsgs = C_I \alpha + \Akk,
\end{equation}
where $\Aij=\rhob(\widetilde{\uti\util}_j-\utti\uttj)$.

\citet{erl92} tested the constant
coeff\/icient model {\it a priori} by comparing DNS and LES
results of compressible isotropic turbulence and found good agreement
in the dilatational statistics of the f\/low, as well as high
correlation between the exact and the modeled stresses.
\citet{zan92} compared the DNS and LES results of isotropic
turbulence with various initial ratios of compressible to total
kinetic energy. They obtained good agreement for the evolution of
quantities such as compressible kinetic energy and f\/luctuations of the
thermodynamic variables.

Dynamic model adjustment can be also applied to the mixed model
(\ref{eq:tauij-sezhu}), to yield the dynamic mixed model (DMM)
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:c-dmm}
 C = \frac{\langle\Lij\Mij\rangle - \langle\Nij\Mij\rangle}
 {\langle\Mlk\Mlk\rangle} , \qquad
 C_I = \frac{\langle\Lkk-\Nkk\rangle}
 {\langle \beta-\widehat{\alpha}\rangle},
\end{equation}
with $\Bij=\rhobh(\breve{\widetilde{\utbi\utbj}} - \utbtbi\utbtbj)$,
and $\Nij=\Bij-\widehat{\Aij}$.

An issue that requires some attention is the necessity to model
separately the trace of the SGS stresses $\qsgs$. \citet{yos86},
\citet{moi91}, and \citet{spe88} proposed a separate model
for this term. \citet{erl92} conjectured that, for
turbulent Mach numbers $M_t<0.4$ this term is negligible; their DNS of
isotropic turbulence conf\/irm this conjecture. \citet{zan92}
conf\/irmed these results {\it a posteriori}:
they ran calculations with $0\leq C_I\leq0.066$ (the latter value is ten
times higher than that predicted by the theory) and observed little
difference in the results.

\citet{com98} proposed incorporating this term into a
modif\/ied pressure ${\cal P}$. This leads to the presence of an
additional term in the equation of state, which takes the form
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:cl-state}
 {\cal P} = \rhob R\Ttil + \frac{3\gamma-5}{6}\qsgs ;
\end{equation}
for $\gamma=\frac{5}{3}$ the additional term is zero, and for $\gamma=\frac{7}{5}$ it
might be negligible, unless $M_t$ is very large. This observation can
be used to explain {\it a posteriori} the insensitivity of the LES
results to the value of $C_I$ discussed by \citet{zan92}:
the SGS stress trace can be approximately incorporated in the pressure
with no modif\/ication to the equation of state. Another factor may be
that both the calculations by \citet{erl92} and those by \citet{zan92}
used mixed models, in which the
scale-similar part gave a contribution to the normal SGS stresses.
Thus, $\qsgs$ is taken into account, at least partially, by the
scale-similar contribution.

If the mixed model is used, the trace of the SGS stresses can be
parameterized without requiring a separate term. A one-coeff\/icient
dynamic mixed model (DMM-1) would be of the form
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:tauij-dmm-oc}
 \tij = C \aij + \Aij ,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:c-dmm-oc}
 C = \frac{\langle\Lij\Mij\rangle - \langle\Nij\Mij\rangle}
 {\langle\Mlk\Mlk\rangle}.
\end{equation}

\begin{figure}[b]
%\centering
%\includegraphics[height=84mm]{02fig.eps}
\vspace{84mm}% to simulate the figure
\caption{{\it A priori} comparison of the normal SGS stresses
$\tau_{11}$. (a) Correlation coeff\/icient and (b) nondimensional rms magnitude. \solid,
Eddy-viscosity model DEV (\protect\ref{eq:tauij-yoshi})--(\protect\ref{eq:coeff_dsm});
\dashed, two-coeff\/icient mixed model DMM
(\protect\ref{eq:tauij-sezhu})--(\protect\ref{eq:c-dmm}); \chndot, one-coeff\/icient mixed model
DMM-1 (\protect\ref{eq:tauij-dmm-oc})--(\protect\ref{eq:c-dmm-oc}); \trian, DNS.}
\label{fig:fig02}
\end{figure}

The models DEV (\ref{eq:tauij-yoshi})--(\ref{eq:coeff_dsm}), DMM
(\ref{eq:tauij-sezhu})--(\ref{eq:c-dmm}), and DMM-1
(\ref{eq:tauij-dmm-oc})--(\ref{eq:c-dmm-oc}) are evaluated in
Figures~\ref{fig:fig02}--\ref{fig:fig04}. Figure~\ref{fig:fig02}(a) shows that the DMM-1 model gives the highest
correlation for the diagonal components of the SGS stress tensor;
Figure~\ref{fig:fig02}(b) shows that neither the eddy-viscosity model nor the
two-coeff\/icient mixed model DMM predict the rms of the SGS stresses
accurately. The DMM-1 model gives the most accurate prediction among
those tested.

\begin{figure}[t]
%\centering
%\includegraphics[height=86mm]{03fig.eps}
\vspace{86mm}% to simulate the figure
\caption{{\it A priori} comparison of the off-diagonal SGS stresses
$\tau_{12}$. (a) Correlation coeff\/icient and (b) nondimensional rms magnitude. \solid,
Eddy-viscosity model DEV (\protect\ref{eq:tauij-yoshi})--(\protect\ref{eq:coeff_dsm}); \dashed,
two-coeff\/icient mixed model DMM (\protect\ref{eq:tauij-sezhu})--(\protect\ref{eq:c-dmm}) and
one-coeff\/icient mixed model DMM-1 (\protect\ref{eq:tauij-dmm-oc})--(\protect\ref{eq:c-dmm-oc});
\trian, DNS.}
\label{fig:fig03}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig:fig03}(a) shows the correlation coeff\/icient for the off-diagonal
components of the SGS stress. As in incompressible f\/lows, the
eddy-viscosity model gives very poor correlation (near 0.2), while much
improved results are obtained with the mixed models. Note that the
correlation coeff\/icient for DMM and DMM-1 overlap in the f\/igure.
Figure~\ref{fig:fig03}(b) shows the rms of $\tau_{12}$. DEV underpredicts the rms
magnitude of the exact term, while DMM and DMM-1 slightly overpredict it.

The coeff\/icient $C_s$ remained nearly constant at a value of 0.15
throughout the calculation, consistent with the theoretical arguments
\citep{yos86}. The coeff\/icient of the SGS energy, $C_I$, on the
other hand, has a value three times higher than predicted by the
theory, consistent with the results of \citet{moi91}.

\begin{figure}[t]
%\centering
%\includegraphics[height=46mm]{04fig.eps}
\vspace{46mm}% to simulate the figure
\caption{Nondimensional rms magnitude of $\tau_{11}$ versus
f\/ilter-width at $t/\tau_t=6.5$. \solid, Eddy-viscosity model DEV
(\protect\ref{eq:tauij-yoshi})--(\protect\ref{eq:coeff_dsm}); \dashed, two-coeff\/icient mixed
model DMM (\protect\ref{eq:tauij-sezhu})--(\protect\ref{eq:c-dmm}); \chndot, one-coeff\/icient
mixed model DMM-1 (\protect\ref{eq:tauij-dmm-oc})--(\protect\ref{eq:c-dmm-oc}); \trian,
DNS.}
\label{fig:fig04}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig:fig04} shows the rms magnitude of $\tau_{11}$ versus the
f\/ilter-width, at time $t/\tau_t=6.5$. For very small f\/ilter-widths
($\delbar/\Delta=4$), all the models are accurate, ref\/lecting the
capability of dynamic models to turn off the model contribution when
the grid becomes suff\/iciently f\/ine to resolve all the turbulent
structures (models with constants assigned {\it a priori}, such as
the \citet{sma63} model, do not have this characteristic). For
$\delbar/\Delta=8$, consistent with the results shown above, the
one-coeff\/icient mixed model DMM gives the most accurate predictions.
For intermediate f\/ilter-widths, up to $\delbar/\Delta=16$, the best
prediction is given by the DMM-1 model; when this f\/ilter-width is used
the unresolved scales contain a considerable amount of energy, 40\%.
For $\delbar/\Delta=32$, it appears that the DMM model predicts the
rms magnitude accurately. However, since the DMM model overpredicts
the rms signif\/icantly for $\delbar/\Delta=8$ and 16, the accurate
prediction given by DMM for $\delbar/\Delta=32$ is a coincidence.
When $\delbar/\Delta=32$ the SGSs contain a large contribution
from the energy-containing eddies (70\% of the energy is in the SGS);
since $\delbar/\Delta=32$ is not in the inertial range the
assumptions on which LES modeling is based fail. The same results are found
for $\tau_{12}$ (not shown).

\begin{figure}[t]
%\centering
%\includegraphics[height=90mm]{05fig.eps}
\vspace{90mm}% to simulate the figure
\caption{Comparison of unclosed terms in the energy equations. (a)
Nondimensional terms in the internal energy or enthalpy equations and (b) nondimensional terms
in the total energy equation. \solid, Divergence of the SGS heat f\/lux, $C_{\rm v}\ \partial
Q_j/\partial x_j$; \chndot, SGS viscous dissipation $\varepsilon_{\rm v}$; \dashed, pressure
dilatation $\Pi_{\rm dil}$; \chndotdot, divergence of the SGS heat f\/lux, $\gamma C_{\rm
v}\ \partial Q_j/\partial x_j$; \dotted, SGS turbulent diffusion $\partial{\cal J}_j/\partial
x_j$; \ldash, SGS viscous diffusion $\partial{\cal D}_j/\partial x_j$.}
\label{fig:fig05}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Section 5 %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\section{Models for the Energy Equations}
\label{sec:5}

Figure~\ref{fig:fig05} compares the magnitude of the unclosed terms
appearing in the internal-energy and enthalpy equations
(\ref{eq:int-en-ff}) and (\ref{eq:enth-ff}), respectively (Figure~\ref{fig:fig05}(a)) and
in the total energy equation (Figure~\ref{fig:fig05}(b)). Unlike in the mixing layer
studied by \citet{vre95b}, in this f\/low the pressure
dilatation $\Pi_{\rm dil}$ is negligible, and the viscous dissipation
$\varepsilon_{\rm v}$ is one order of magnitude smaller than the divergence of
the SGS heat f\/lux. In the total energy equation (\ref{eq:tot-en-ff}),
the SGS turbulent diffusion $\partial{\cal J}_j/\partial x_j$ is
comparable with the divergence of the SGS heat f\/lux and the SGS viscous
diffusion is one order of magnitude smaller than the other terms. In
this section several models for the more signif\/icant terms are examined.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Subsection 5.1 %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\subsection{SGS Heat Flux}
\label{sec:5.1}

The simplest approach to modeling the SGS heat f\/lux $Q_j$ is to use an
eddy-diffusivity model of the form
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:eddy-diff}
 Q_j = -\frac{\rhob\nu_{\rm T}}{\prt}\frac{\partial \Tt}{\partial x_j}
 = -C \frac{\delbar^2\rhob|\St|}{\prt}\frac{\partial \Tt}{\partial x_j},
\end{equation}
where $C$ is the eddy-viscosity coeff\/icient that can be either
assigned if a model of the form (\ref{eq:tauij-yoshi}) is used, or
computed dynamically as in (\ref{eq:coeff_dsm}). The turbulent
Prandtl number $\prt$ can be also f\/ixed or calculated dynamically
according to\pagebreak
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:prt-dev}
 \prt = \frac{C\langle T_kT_k\rangle}{\langle\Kj T_j\rangle},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
 T_j= -\delhat^2\rhobh|\Stb|\frac{\partial\Ttb}{\partial x_j}
 +\delbar^2\widehat{\rhob|\St|\frac{\partial\Tt}{\partial x_j}}
 ,\qquad
 \Kj = \left(\frac{\widehat{\overline{\rho u_j}
 \,\overline{\rho T}}}{\rhob} \right)
 - \frac{\widehat{\overline{ \rho u_j }}\,
 \widehat{\overline{ \rho T }}}{\rhobh}.
\end{equation}

A mixed model of the form
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:qj-dmm}
 Q_j = -C\frac{\delbar^2\rhob|\St|}{\prt}\frac{\partial\Tt}{\partial x_j}
 +\rhob \left(\widetilde{\utj\Tt} - \uttj\Ttt\right)
\end{equation}
was proposed by \citet{spe88}. The model coeff\/icients
$C$ and $\prt$ can again be assigned or adjusted dynamically
according to (\ref{eq:c-dmm}) and
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:prt-dmm}
 \prt = C \frac{\langle T_kT_k\rangle}
 {\langle\Kj T_j\rangle-\langle V_jT_j\rangle } ,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
 V_j = \rhobh\left(\breve{\widetilde{\utbj\Ttb}}
 - \utbtbj\Ttbtb \right) -
 \widehat{\rhob \left(\widetilde{\utj\Tt} - \uttj\Ttt\right)}.
\end{equation}

\begin{figure}[t]
%\centering
%\includegraphics[height=85mm]{06fig.eps}
\vspace{85mm}% to simulate the figure
\caption{{\it A priori} comparison of the SGS heat f\/lux $Q_j$. (a)
Correlation coeff\/icient and (b) nondimensional rms magnitude. \solid, Eddy-diffusivity model
(\protect\ref{eq:eddy-diff}), $Pr_{\rm T}=0.7$; \dashed, eddy-diffusivity model
(\protect\ref{eq:eddy-diff}), Prandtl number adjusted according to (\protect\ref{eq:prt-dev});
\chndot, mixed model (\protect\ref{eq:qj-dmm})--(\protect\ref{eq:prt-dmm}); \trian$\!$,\ $\,$
DNS.}
\label{fig:fig06}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig:fig06}(a) shows the correlation coeff\/icient for the three models
described above. Both eddy-viscosity models overlap on the plot
giving a poor correlation factor, roughly 0.2, whereas the mixed model
gives a correlation above 0.6. Both eddy viscosity models
under-predict the rms of the exact $Q_j$, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fig06}(b), while the
mixed model is more accurate.
The mixed model maintains accuracy for all f\/ilter-widths
$\delbar/\Delta\leq16$ (Figure~\ref{fig:fig07}).

\begin{figure}[t]
%\centering
%\includegraphics[height=45mm]{07fig.eps}
\vspace{45mm}% to simulate the figure
\caption{Nondimensional rms magnitude of $Q_j$ versus f\/ilter-width
at $t/\tau_t=6.5$. \solid, eddy-diffusivity model (\protect\ref{eq:eddy-diff}), $Pr_{\rm
T}=0.7$; \dashed, eddy-diffusivity model (\protect\ref{eq:eddy-diff}), Prandtl number adjusted
according to (\protect\ref{eq:prt-dev}); \chndot, mixed model
(\protect\ref{eq:qj-dmm})--(\protect\ref{eq:prt-dmm}); \trian, DNS.}
\label{fig:fig07}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Subsection 5.2 %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\subsection{SGS Viscous Dissipation}
\label{sec:5.2}

The other term in the enthalpy or internal energy equations that was
found to be signif\/icant in the present f\/low is the viscous dissipation
$\varepsilon_{\rm v}$. In this section the three models proposed by
\citet{vre95b} are tested:\pagebreak
\begin{eqnarray}
 \label{eq:ev-dss}
 \varepsilon_{\rm v}^{(1)} & = &
 C_{\varepsilon1} \left(\widetilde{\widetilde{\sigma}_{ji}\Stij}
 -\widetilde{\widetilde{\sigma}}_{ij}\Sttij
 \right) ;\\
 \label{eq:ev-dtone}
 \varepsilon_{\rm v}^{(2)} & = & C_{\varepsilon2}\rhob \widetilde{q}^3/\delbar ,
 \qquad \widetilde{q}^2 \sim\delbar^2|\St|^2 ; \\
 \label{eq:ev-dttwo}
 \varepsilon_{\rm v}^{(3)} & = & C_{\varepsilon3}\rhob \widetilde{q}^3\delbar ,
 \qquad \widetilde{q}^2 \sim \widetilde{\utk\util}_k-\uttk\uttk .
\end{eqnarray}
The f\/irst is a scale-similar model; the second and third represent the
SGS dissipation as the ratio between the cube of the SGS velocity
scale, $\widetilde{q}$, and the length scale. The velocity scale can
be obtained using either the \citet{yos86} model, as in
(\ref{eq:ev-dtone}), or the scale-similar model as in
(\ref{eq:ev-dttwo}). \citet{vre95b} f\/ixed the values
of the coeff\/icients by matching the rms magnitude of the modeled and
exact terms obtained from the {\it a priori} test, and obtained
$C_{\varepsilon1}=8$, $C_{\varepsilon2}=1.6$, and $C_{\varepsilon3}=0.6$. In
the present study the dynamic procedure will be used instead to
determine the coeff\/icients. The analog of the Germano identity for
this term reads
\begin{equation}
 \left\langle\widehat{\widetilde\sigma_{ji}\Stij}
 - \widehat{\overline{\rho\sigma_{ij}}}\,
 \widehat{\overline{\rho\Sij}}/\rhobh^2\right\rangle =
 \left\langle E_{\rm v}^{(n)}-\widehat{\varepsilon_{\rm v}^{(n)}}\right\rangle,
\end{equation}
and the modeled terms $\varepsilon_{\rm v}^{(n)}$ can be given
respectively by (\ref{eq:ev-dss})--(\ref{eq:ev-dttwo}), while the
$E_{\rm v}^{(n)}$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
 E_{\rm v}^{(1)} & = &
 C_{\varepsilon1}
 \left(\breve{\widetilde{\breve{\widetilde{\sigma}}_{ji}\Stbij}}
 -\breve{\widetilde{\breve{\widetilde{\sigma}}}}_{ij}\Stbtbij
 \right) ;\\
 E_{\rm v}^{(2)} & = & C_{\varepsilon2} \rhobh \breve{\widetilde{q}}^3/\delhat ,
 \qquad \breve{\widetilde{q}}^2 \sim\delhat^2|\Stb|^2 ; \\
 E_{\rm v}^{(3)} & = & C_{\varepsilon3} \rhobh \breve{\widetilde{q}}^3/\delhat ,
 \qquad \breve{\widetilde{q}}^2 \sim \breve{\widetilde{\utbi\utbj}} -
 \utbtbi\utbtbj.
\end{eqnarray}

\begin{figure}[t]
%\centering
%\includegraphics[height=85mm]{08fig.eps}
\vspace{85mm}% to simulate the figure
\caption{{\it A priori} comparison of the SGS viscous dissipation
$\varepsilon_{\rm v}$. (a) Correlation coeff\/icient and (b) nondimensional rms magnitude.
\solid, scale-similar model (33); \dashed, dynamic model (34); \chndot, dynamic model (35);
\trian, DNS.}
\label{fig:fig08}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig:fig08}(a) shows the correlation coeff\/icient for the three models.
The scale-similar model gives the highest correlation. The use of a
velocity scale obtained from the scale-similar assumption, however,
results in improved prediction of the rms magnitude; using
$q\sim\delbar|\St|$ yields a signif\/icant overprediction of the rms.
The values of the coeff\/icients obtained from the dynamic adjustment in
this f\/low are signif\/icantly lower than those obtained in the mixing
layer by \citet{vre95b}. For the particular
f\/ilter-width shown, we obtained $C_{\varepsilon 1}=2.4$, and $C_{\varepsilon
 2}=0.03$, while $C_{\varepsilon3}$ increased monotonically in time from
0.25 to 0.4. The fact that with these values the f\/irst and third
models match the rms magnitude of the exact term indicates a lack of
universality of these constants. Dynamic adjustment of the model
coeff\/icient appears to be benef\/icial for this term.

\begin{figure}[t]
%\centering
%\includegraphics[height=45mm]{09fig.eps}
\vspace{45mm}% to simulate the figure
\caption{Nondimensional rms magnitude of $\varepsilon_{\rm v}$
versus f\/ilter-width at $t/\tau_t=6.5$. \solid, scale-similar model (33); \dashed, dynamic
model (34); \chndot, dynamic model (35); \trian, DNS.}
\label{fig:fig09}
\end{figure}

The modeling of the viscous dissipation is more sensitive than the
other terms to the f\/ilter-width. The prediction accuracy deteriorates
with increasing f\/ilter-width, and in this case even for
$\delbar/\Delta=16$ none of the models is particularly accurate
(Figure~\ref{fig:fig09}).
\pagebreak

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Subsection 5.3 %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\subsection{SGS Turbulent Diffusion}
\label{sec:5.3}

The SGS turbulent diffusion $\partial{\cal J}_j/\partial x_j$ appears
in the total energy equation (\ref{eq:tot-en-ff}). Comte and Lesieur (1998)
did not model this term explicitly, but added it to
the SGS heat f\/lux by using an eddy-diffusivity model to parametrize
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:comtel-qj}
 \left( \widetilde{\rho Eu_j} +\widetilde{pu_j} \right) -
 \left(\rhob \widetilde{E}\util_j+\pb\util_j\right)
 = \gamma \rhob \left(\widetilde{u_j T}-\util_j\widetilde{T}\right)
 + {\cal J}_j
 \simeq -\frac{\nu_{\rm T}}{\prt}
 \frac{\partial\widetilde{T}}{\partial x_j};
\end{equation}
with this model, however, the SGS turbulent diffusion ${\cal J}_j$,
which depends mostly on the unresolved velocity f\/luctuations, is
modeled in terms of the temperature gradient. In an isothermal f\/low,
${\cal J}_j$ may be nonzero, and, even if the temperature is
not constant, there is no reason to couple a term due to mechanical
energy gradients to the temperature. A model of the form
(\ref{eq:comtel-qj}) effectively neglects ${\cal J}_j$.

The only attempt to model the SGS turbulent diffusion was that by
\citet{kni98}. They argue that $\uti\simeq\utti$ and
propose a model of the form
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:tdif-knight}
 {\cal J}_j \simeq \utk\tau_{jk}.
\end{equation}

A dynamic scale-similar model can be obtained using the generalized
central moments \citep{ger92}
\begin{eqnarray}
 \label{eq:gcm1}
 \tau(u_i,u_j) & = & \rhob\left[\widetilde{u_iu_j} - \uti\utj\right], \\
 \label{eq:gcm2}
 \tau(u_i,u_j,u_k) & = & \rhob\widetilde{u_iu_ju_k}
 - \uti\tau(u_j,u_k) - \utj\tau(u_i,u_k)
 - \utk\tau(u_i,u_j) - \rhob\uti\utj\utk.
\end{eqnarray}
Using this notation the turbulent diffusion term can be written as
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:tdiff2}
 2 {\cal J}_j = \tau(u_j,u_k,u_k) + 2\utk\tau(u_j,u_k) ,
\end{equation}
since $\tau(u_j,u_k)=\tau_{jk}$. Using this formalism, scale-similar
models can be derived by approximating the quadratic terms using the
f\/iltered velocities $\util_j$ to replace the velocities $u_j$; for
instance, one can write
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:gcm_ss1}
 \tau(u_i,u_j) \sim \tau(\uti,\utj) \quad \Rightarrow \quad
 \rhob\left(\widetilde{u_iu_j}-\uti\utj\right) \sim
 \rhob\left(\widetilde{\uti\utj}-\utti\uttj\right) .
\end{equation}
If the proportionality constant in (\ref{eq:gcm_ss1}) is set to one,
the scale-similar part of the mixed model (\ref{eq:tauij-sezhu})
is obtained. Analogously, the triple product can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
 \label{eq:tdiff_mod}
 2{\cal J}_j & = & \tau(u_j,u_k,u_k) + 2\utk\tau(u_j,u_k) \nonumber \\
 & \simeq & C_{J}\tau(\utj,\utk,\utk) + 2\utk\tau(u_j,u_k) \nonumber \\
 & = & C_{J} \left[ \rhob\widetilde{\utj\utk\utk}
 - \rhob\uttj\uttk\uttk
 - \uttj\Akk - 2\uttk\Ajk \right]
 + 2\utk\tau_{jk} ,
\end{eqnarray}
the last term is parametrized by the same model used in the momentum
equation. The coeff\/icient $C_J$ can be set using the identity
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\rhob\utj\utk\utk} - \rhobh\utbj\utbk\utbk
 = 2 J_j - 2 \widehat{ {\cal J}_j} ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
 2 J_j & = & C_{J} \left[ \rhobh\breve{\widetilde{\utbj\utbk\utbk}}
 - \rhobh\utbtbj\utbtbk\utbtbk
 - \utbtbj\Bkk - 2\utbtbk\Bjk \right]
 + 2\utbk T_{jk}, \nonumber \\
\Bjk & = & \rhobh\left(\breve{\widetilde{\utbj\utbk}}
 - \utbtbj\utbtbk\right),
\end{eqnarray}
to yield
\begin{equation}
 C_J = \frac{\left\langle \left(\widehat{\rhob\utj\utk\utk} -
 \rhobh\utbj\utbk\utbk\right) {\cal P}_j
 -{\cal Q}_j{\cal P}_j\right\rangle}
 {\langle{\cal P}_k{\cal P}_k\rangle},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
 {\cal P}_j & = & \left[ \rhobh\breve{\widetilde{\utbj\utbk\utbk}}
 - \rhobh\utbtbj\utbtbk\utbtbk
 - \utbtbj\Bkk - 2\utbtbk\Bjk \right]
 \nonumber \\
 & - & \left[ \widehat{\rhob\widetilde{\utj\utk\utk}}
 -\widehat{\rhob\uttj\uttk\uttk}
 - \widehat{\uttj\Akk} - 2\widehat{\uttk\Ajk}
 \right], \\
 {\cal Q}_j & = & 2 \left( \utbk T_{jk} - \widehat{\utk\tau_{jk}}
 \right) .
\end{eqnarray}

\begin{figure}[t]
%\centering
%\includegraphics[height=86mm]{10fig.eps}
\vspace{86mm}% to simulate the figure
\caption{{\it A priori} comparison of the SGS turbulent diffusion
${\cal J}_j$. (a) Correlation coeff\/icient and (b) nondimensional rms magnitude. \solid, knight
\etal (1998); \dashed, scale-similar, one-coeff\/icient model; \trian, DNS.}
\label{fig:fig10}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig:fig10}(a) shows the correlation coeff\/icient for the two models
(\ref{eq:tdif-knight}) and (\ref{eq:tdiff_mod}) and using (21)--(22) to
model $\tau_{jk}$. The correlation factor is greater than 0.7 for
both models, and both models overpredict slightly the rms magnitude
of ${\cal J}_j$ (Figure~\ref{fig:fig10}(b)). When the one-coeff\/icient, scale-similar
model is used this overprediction is signif\/icantly reduced. Both
models perform equally well for $\delbar/\Delta\leq16$, while neither
is accurate for $\delbar/\Delta=32$.
\pagebreak

\begin{figure}[t]
%\centering
%\includegraphics[height=86mm]{11fig.eps}
\vspace{86mm}% to simulate the figure
\caption{{\it A priori} comparison of the SGS viscous diffusion
${\cal D}_j$. (a) Correlation coeff\/icient and (b) nondimensional rms magnitude. \solid,
scale-similar model; \trian, DNS.}
\label{fig:fig11}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Subsection 5.4 %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\subsection{SGS Viscous Diffusion}
\label{sec:5.4}

The SGS viscous diffusion $\partial{\cal D}_j/\partial x_j$ is the
smallest of the terms in the total energy equation, and is about 5\%
of the divergence of $Q_j$. No model for this term has been proposed
in the literature to date. One possibility is to parametrize it
using a scale-similar model of the form\pagebreak
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:vdif}
 {\cal D}_j = C_D ( \widetilde{\widetilde{\sigma}_{ij}\uti}
 - \widetilde{\widetilde{\sigma}}_{ij}\utti ) ,
\end{equation}
in which the coeff\/icient can be obtained from
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:cd}
 C_D = \frac{\left\langle\left[
 \widehat{{\overline{\rho\sigma_{ij}}\,\overline{\rho u_i}}/
 {\rhob^2}}
 - {\widehat{\overline{\rho\sigma_{ij}}}\,
 \widehat{\overline{\rho u_i}}}/
 {\rhobh^2}
 \right] {\cal R}_j \right\rangle}
 { \left\langle{\cal R}_k{\cal R}_k\right\rangle } ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
 {\cal R}_l =
 \left(\breve{\widetilde{ \breve{\widetilde{\sigma}}_{lk}\utbk}}
 -\breve{\widetilde{\breve{\widetilde{\sigma}}}}_{lk}\utbtbk \right)
 - \left(\widehat{\widetilde{\widetilde{\sigma}_{lk}\utk}}
 -\widehat{\widetilde{\widetilde{\sigma}}_{lk}\uttk} \right) .
\end{equation}
As can be seen from Figure~\ref{fig:fig11}, this model gives a poor correlation and poor
agreement for the prediction of the rms magnitude. However, since
the viscous diffusion is relatively small, its contribution to
the total energy spectrum does not go to the inertial range, but rather
to the decaying range. In this situation the accuracy of the model
is degraded, as shown by \citet{men97}. Thus, the scale-similar
approach may still give good predictions when this term is signif\/icant.
In this particular f\/low, the error given by the model (or by not using
a model) may be tolerable given the small contribution that the term
gives to the energy budget.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Subsection 5.5 %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\subsection{General Considerations}
\label{sec:5.5}

In addition to the term-by-term comparisons shown before, it is
possible to evaluate the global accuracy of the models by comparing
the sum of the exact SGS terms and the modeled quantity, namely,
\begin{equation}
 \label{eq:global}
 E_{SGS}=\gamma C_{\rm v}Q_j + {\textstyle\half}{\cal J}_j - {\cal D}_j.
\end{equation}

\begin{figure}[t]
%\centering
%\includegraphics[height=85mm]{12fig.eps}
\vspace{85mm}% to simulate the figure
\caption{{\it A priori} comparison of the sum of the SGS terms in
the total energy equation (\ref{eq:tot-en-ff}). (a) Correlation coeff\/icient and (b)
nondimensional rms magnitude. \solid, Model; \trian, DNS.}
\label{fig:fig12}
\end{figure}

The mixed model (26)--(27) was used for the SGS heat f\/lux, the
scale-similar model (44)--(45) for the SGS turbulent diffusion, and the SGS
viscous diffusion has been neglected. Figure~\ref{fig:fig12}(a) shows the correlation
coeff\/icient for the exact and modeled quantities. While the
individual correlations were roughly 0.6 and 0.7 for the SGS heat f\/lux
model and the SGS turbulent diffusion, respectively, the global
correlation drops just below 0.6 when considering the sum of the
terms. Figure~\ref{fig:fig12}(b) shows the rms for both quantities.
The agreement between the exact and modeled quantities is slightly
less\pagebreak\ accurate than for the SGS heat f\/lux alone, Figure~\ref{fig:fig06}(b), but more
accurate than for the SGS turbulent diffusion alone, Figure~\ref{fig:fig10}(b).
Figure~\ref{fig:fig12} shows that the overall performance is very good.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Section 6 %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:6}

Several mixed and eddy-viscosity models for the momentum and energy
equations have been tested. The velocity, pressure, density, and
temperature f\/ields obtained from the DNS of homogeneous isotropic
turbulence at $Re_\lambda=50$, $M_t=0.52$ were f\/iltered and the
unclosed terms in the momentum, internal energy, and total energy
equations were computed.

In the momentum equation, mixed models were found to give better
prediction, in terms of both correlation and {\rm rms} amplitude,
than the pure eddy-viscosity models. The dynamic adjustment of the
model coeff\/icient was benef\/icial, as already observed by
\citet{moi91}.

In the internal energy and enthalpy equations only the divergence of
the SGS heat f\/lux was signif\/icant in this f\/low; the SGS pressure
dilatation $\Pi_{\rm dil}$ and viscous dissipation $\varepsilon_{\rm v}$,
which were signif\/icant in the mixing layer studied by \citet{vre95b},
were found to be negligible here. Once again, mixed dynamic models
gave the most accurate results.

In the total energy equation two additional terms are present, one of
which, the turbulent diffusion $\partial{\cal J}_j/\partial x_j$, is
signif\/icant. The model proposed by \citet{kni98} and a new
scale-similar model proposed here correlate well with the actual SGS
turbulent diffusion, and predict the correct {\rm rms} amplitude.
However, the new scale-similar model was found to be more accurate. A
mixed model for the SGS viscous diffusion was also proposed and
tested, although this term is much smaller than the others. The
accuracy of the models for the sum of the terms was also evaluated,
and it was found that the models proposed still predict nearly the
correct {\rm rms} amplitude, and an acceptable value of the
correlation coeff\/icient.

The results obtained in this investigation are promising and indicate
that it is possible to model accurately the terms in the energy
equations. Further work may extend these results to cases in which the
pressure-dilatation is signif\/icant, as well as to inhomogeneous
f\/lows, and evaluate these models {\it a posteriori}.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% References %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\begin{thebibliography}{}

\bibitem[Bardina \etal(1980)]{bar80} Bardina, J., Ferziger, J.H., and Reynolds, W.C. (1980). Improved subgrid-scale models
for large eddy simulation. AIAA Paper 80-1357.

\bibitem[Comte and Lesieur(1998)]{com98} Comte, P., and Lesieur, M. (1998). Large-eddy simulation of compressible turbulent
f\/lows. In: {\it Advances in Turbulence Modeling}, edited by D.~Olivari. Von Karman Institute
for Fluid Dynamics, Rhode-Ste-Gen\`ese, 4:1--4:133.

\bibitem[El-Hady \etal(1994)]{elh94} El-Hady, N., Zang, T.A. , and Piomelli, U. (1994). Application of the dynamic
subgrid-scale model to axisymmetric transitional boundary layer at high speed. \pofa{6},
1299--1309.

\bibitem[Erlebacher \etal(1992)]{erl92} Erlebacher, G., Hussaini, M.Y., Speziale, C.G., and Zang, T.A. (1992). Toward the
large-eddy simulation of compressible turbulent f\/lows. \jfm{238}, 155--185.

\bibitem[Favre(1965a)]{fav65a} Favre, A. (1965a). \'{E}quations des gaz turbulents compressible. I. Formes
g\'{e}n\'{e}rales. {\it J. M\'ec.}, {\bf 4}, 361--390.

\bibitem[Favre(1965b)]{fav65b} Favre, A. (1965b). \'{E}quations des gaz turbulents compressible. II. M\'{e}thode des
vitesses moyennes; m\'{e}thode des vitesses macroscopiques pond\'{e}r\'{e}es par la masse
volumique. {\it J. M\'ec.}, {\bf 4}, 391--421.

\bibitem[Germano(1992)]{ger92} Germano, M. (1992). Turbulence: the f\/iltering approach. \jfm{238}, 325--336.

\bibitem[Knight \etal(1998)]{kni98} Knight, D., Zhou, G., Okong'o, N., and Shukla, V. (1998). Compressible large eddy
simulation using unstructured grids. AIAA Paper 98-0535.

\bibitem[Leonard(1974)]{leo74} Leonard, A. (1974). Energy cascade in large-eddy simulations of turbulent f\/luid f\/lows.
{\it Adv. Geophys.}, {\bf 18A}, 237--248.

\bibitem[Lilly(1992)]{lil92} Lilly, D.K. (1992). A proposed modif\/ication of the Germano subgrid-scale closure
method. \pofa{4}, 633--635.

\bibitem[Mart\protect{\'\i}n and Candler(1998)]{mar98} Mart\'{\i}n, M.P., and Candler, G.V. (1998). Effect of chemical reactions on decaying
isotropic turbulence. {\it Phys.\ Fluids}, {\bf 10}, 1715--1724.

\bibitem[Mart\protect{\'\i}n and Candler(1999)]{mar99} Mart\'{\i}n, M.P., and Candler, G.V. (1999). Subgrid-scale model for the temperature
f\/luctuations in reacting hypersonic turbulent f\/lows. {\it Phys.\ Fluids}, {\bf 11},
2765--2771.

\bibitem[Meneveau and Lund(1997)]{men97} Meneveau, C., and Lund, T.S. (1997). The dynamic Smagorinsky model and
scale-dependent coeff\/icients in the viscous range of turbulence. {\it Phys.\ Fluids}, {\bf 9},
3932--3934.

\bibitem[Moin \etal(1991)]{moi91} Moin, P., Squires, K.D., Cabot, W.H., and Lee, S. (1991). A dynamic subgrid-scale
model for compressible turbulence and scalar transport. \pofa{3}, 2746--2757.

\bibitem[Normand and Lesieur(1992)]{nor92} Normand, X., and Lesieur, M. (1992). Direct and large-eddy simulation of laminar
breakdown in high-speed axisymmetric boundary layers. {\it Theoret.\ Comput.\ Fluid Dynamics},
{\bf 3}, 231--252.

\bibitem[Ristorcelli and Blaisdell(1997)]{ris97} Ristorcelli, J.R., and Blaisdell, G.A. (1997). Consistent initial conditions for the
DNS of compressible turbulence. {\it Phys.~Fluids}, {\bf 9}, 4--6.

\bibitem[Smagorinsky(1963)]{sma63} Smagorinsky, J. (1963). General circulation experiments with the primitive equations.
I.~The basic experiment. {\it Mon. Weather Rev.} {\bf 91}, 99--164.

\bibitem[Speciale \etal(1988)]{spe88} Speziale, C.G., Erlebacher, G., Zang, T.A., and Hussaini, M.Y. (1988) The
subgrid-scale modeling of compressible turbulence. \pofa{31}, 940--942.

\bibitem[Vreman \etal(1995a)]{vre95a} Vreman, B., Geurts, B., and Kuerten, H. (1995a). A priori tests of large eddy
simulation of the compressible mixing layer. {\it J. Engrg.\ Math.}, {\bf 29}, 299--327.

\bibitem[Vreman \etal(1995b)]{vre95b} Vreman, B., Geurts, B., and Kuerten, H. (1995b). Subgrid-modeling in LES of
compressible f\/low. {\it Appl. Sci.\ Res.}, {\bf 54}, 191--203.

\bibitem[Yoshizawa(1986)]{yos86} Yoshizawa, A. (1986). Statistical theory for compressible turbulent shear f\/lows, with
the application to subgrid modeling. \pofa{29}, 2152--2164.

\bibitem[Zang \etal(1992)]{zan92} Zang, T.A., Dahlburg, R.B., and Dahlburg, J.P. (1992). Direct and large-eddy
simulations of three-dimensional compressible Navier--Stokes turbulence. \pofa{4}, 127--140.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}