A NEW MIXED MODEL BASED ON THE

VELOCITY STRUCTURE FUNCTION

CHRISTOPHE BRUN AND RAINER FRIEDRICH

Fachgebiet Stromungsmechanik
Technische Universitat Munchen
Boltzmannstr. 15, 85748 Garching Germany
AND
CARLOS B. DA SILVA AND OLIVIER ME
TAIS
LEGI/MOST
Institut de M ecanique de Grenoble
B.P. 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 09, France

Abstract. We propose a new mixed model for Large Eddy-Simulation

based on the 3D spatial velocity increment. This approach blends the non-
linear properties of the Increment model (Brun & Friedrich (2001)) with
the eddy viscosity characteristics of the Structure Function model (M etais
& Lesieur (1992)). The behaviour of this subgrid scale model is studied both
via a priori tests of a plane jet at ReH = 3000 and Large Eddy-Simulation
of a round jet at ReD = 25000. This approach allows to describe both
forward and backward energy transfer encountered in transitional shear
ows.

1. Introduction
The velocity increment of order n, U n = (U (~x + ~r) ; U (~x))n between two
points separated by a distance ~r is known to be an important variable for
the characterization of turbulent ows as illustrated in its extensive use in
theoretical, experimental and numerical turbulence studies. In particular,
the Structure function of order n = 2, < U 2 > is directly related to the
kinetic energy transfer between large and small scales within the inertial
range region (Frisch (1995)). This fact suggests the use of this quantity for
subgrid-scale (SGS) modeling.
2 CHRISTOPHE BRUN ET AL.
In this article, a new mixed model based on the velocity increment, the
scale similarity and the eddy viscosity concepts is proposed and analysed
both by a-priori and a-posteriori tests. The eddy viscosity concept was
used by M etais & Lesieur (1992) to design the Structure function model.
The scale similartity ideas were employed by Brun & Friedrich (2001) in
the development of the Increment model. The new mixed model presented
here blends these two approaches. This article is organized as follows. The
next section (2) describes brie y the numerical method and the numerical
and physical parameters of the simulations to be reported here. Section 3
details the formalism of the new mixed model proposed here. The results
from a-priori tests made using a Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) of a
turbulent plane jet will be analysed in section 4. Finally, a-posteriori tests
for the new model carried out through Large-Eddy Simulations (LES) of
round jets will be presented in section 5.
2. Numerical simulation details
2.1. NAVIER-STOKES SOLVER
All simulations reported here were performed with the same code. It is a
highly accurate nite dierence, incompressible Navier-Stokes solver which
uses combined pseudo-spectral and 6th order-compact schemes for spatial
discretization. The time advancement is made with an explicit, 3 step, 3rd
order, low storage Runge-Kutta time stepping scheme. Pressure-velocity
coupling is achieved via a fractional step method that insures incompress-
ibility at each sub-step of the Runge-Kutta time advancing scheme. The in-
let condition is made by prescribing a velocity prole at each time step. This
inlet velocity is composed of a mean velocity prole plus a three-component
uctuating velocity with prescribed spectra with statistical characteristics
of isotropic turbulence. The outlet condition is of a non-re ective type. The
high precision of the numerical methods used here implies very low numer-
ical diusion allowing an accurate study of subgrid-scale model eects.
2.2. DIRECT AND LARGE-EDDY SIMULATIONS
The a-priori tests were conducted using a DNS of a turbulent plane jet at
Reynolds number Reh = 3000. The total number of grid points is about 2
million, which allowed for a domain box of 13:3h
12h
3:3h, where h is
the inlet slot-width. This simulation was extensivley validated by da Silva
& M etais (2001a), and accurately represents the ow in the far eld of a
fully turbulent plane jet.
The a-posteriori tests were carried out using two LES of turbulent round
jets at Reynolds number ReD = 25000. The computational domain con-
 A NEW MIXED MODEL 3
tained about 2 million points and had a spatial extent of 12D
6D
6D,
where D is the diameter of the jet inlet nozzle. The rst LES is used as a
reference case and was performed by da Silva & M etais (2001b) using the
Filtered Structure Function model (Lesieur & M etais (1996)). The second
LES was carried out using the new mixed model proposed here.
3. SGS modeling based on the spatial velocity increment
3.1. THE STRUCTURE FUNCTION MODEL
; Basic formulation :
In the framework of the eddy-viscosity concept, a scale analysis yields
the eddy-viscosity t ] =  U ( is the mesh size). M etais & Lesieur
(1992) have adopted this approach to develop the Structure Function
model (SF):
ij = ;t Sij + kk ij
1
3
t = Csf  v (1)
q
v = hk ~v(~x + ~r) ; ~v(~x) k2ik~rk=
where ij = ui uj ; ui uj is the subgrid-scale (SGS) stress tensor, Sij =
@ui @uj
@xj + @xi is the strain rate tensor, Csf is a model constant and vi = ui
represents the ltered velocity eld, explicitly computed in LES.
; Mean shear eect :
A more ecient version of this model is the Filtered Structure Func-
tion model (FSF) (Ducros, Comte & Lesieur (1996)). This variant was
designed to remove large scale eects from the original SF formulation.
da Silva (2001) showed that this works particulary well in the transi-
tion region, as the model succeeds in displaying realistic (almost zero)
values of the turbulent viscosity in the early stages of the transition
region. This is achieved in practice by the use of a high pass lter, in
the form of a three times iterated Laplacian, to lter out the resolved
eld before computing the velocity structure function :
t = Cfsf  3 v
q
3 v = hk r6~v(~x + ~r) ; r6~v(~x) k2ik~rk= (2)
Cfsf = 0:0014 CK
;3=2 CK = 1:4

; low Reynolds number eects :

In order to take into account low Reynolds number eects we propose
to integrate the molecular viscosity eect that has been neglected in the
4 CHRISTOPHE BRUN ET AL.
original formulation of the eddy-viscosity by M etais & Lesieur (1992).
In spectral space the eddy-viscosity is written as :
Z 1

t1 =
1 @E
15 kc 0pp 5E (p) + p @p dp (3)
where E (k) is the three-dimensional energy spectrum in isotropic tur-
bulence and kpq is the relaxation time given by the EDQNM theory
(Lesieur (1997)) :
kpq =
1 (4)
(k) + (p) + (q ) +  (k2 + p2 + q 2 )

In equation (4) the role of the molecular viscosity terms k2 is to

partially inhibit the nonlinear terms (k). In physical space this results
in a damping eect that we account for in a `viscous' structure function
model (VSF) (see Brun et al. (1997), for details). The nal turbulent
viscosity is given by,


vsf sf 1
=  1 ; ln(1 + X ) (5)
t t X
sf
with X = Cvsf t and Cvsf = 1:1736 CK;3=2. Note that this damping
is not an ad hoc function as in the case of the Smagorinsky-Van sf
Driest
model. In the low-Reynolds number asymptotic case X / t << 1 
one gets the eddy-viscosity,
vsf = C 2 v v= (6)
t vsf
This adjustment is expected to be of critical importance in transitional
ows, for which the energy spectrum has a slope steeper than the clas-
sical k;5=3 value. This formulation constitutes a hybrid model between
the eddy-viscosity structure function concept (equation (1)) and the
nonlinear Increment concept (equation (8)) presented below, since the
complete SGS model, approximated by equation (6) is written in the
low Reynolds number limit as,
= ;C  Sij v v
2
 ij vsf (7)


3.2. THE INCREMENT MODEL

A scale similarity approach based on the velocity increment yields the fol-
lowing anisotropic nonlinear formulation, referred to hereafter as the Incre-
ment model (INC) (Brun & Friedrich (2001)):
ij = Cinc vi vj (8)
 A NEW MIXED MODEL 5
3
X
vi = vi (xk + xk =2) ; vi (xk ; xk =2)] (9)
k=1
An interesting aspect of the Increment model is that it has a similar struc-
tural form as the SGS tensor developed through a Taylor expansion. One
may write any ltered variable h as a 1D expansion of its unltered value h
(Leonard (1974) Pruett & Adams (1998) Winckelmans, Wray & Vasilyev
(1998) Brun & Friedrich (2001)). The fourth order expansion is :
2 3 4  
h = h + a  @h
@x
+ @ h
@x
@ h
@x
@ h
b 2 2 + c 3 3 + d 4 4 + o 4
@x
(10)
where a , b 2, c 3 and d 4 are respectively the 1st , 2nd , 3rd and 4th
moments of the lter F . Introducing the expansion above into the SGS
stress tensor yields :
ij = ui uj ; ui uj
 
= 2b ; a2 2 @u i @uj
(11)
@x  @x !
@ui @ 2uj j @ 2ui
+ (3c ; ab) 3 @x @x2
+ @u
@x @x2
  2 @ 2uj
+ 6d ; b2 4 @@xu2i @x2
 !
@ui @ 3uj @uj @ 3ui  
+ (4d ; ac)  4
@x @x3
+ @x @x3
+ o 4

The leading term of equation (11) is of second order with respect to 

(Pruett & Adams (1998)). The lower order terms vanish because of the
Galilean invariance of ij . A truncated Taylor expansion can be used to
express the gradient of the velocity eld ui through the increment of ui in
the interval  :
@ui ui
@x
=  + o (1) (12)
where the maximal error is o(1). Combining relations (11) and (12) we get
the nal approximation for the SGS tensor :
   
ij = 2b ; a2 ui uj + o 2 (13)
This expression is exact in the limit  ! 0, which corresponds to the case
of a well resolved DNS. The use of a coarse grid, as it is common in LES,
increases the contribution of the higher order terms in equation (13), but
6 CHRISTOPHE BRUN ET AL.
preserves the increment form of the SGS stress tensor which is therefore a
strong basis for SGS modeling.
3.3. PROPOSAL OF A MIXED MODEL
Following the previous discussion, it is proposed here to blend the two
concepts described above. This is achieved through a new mixed model the
form of which will now be detailed. We propose to model the SGS stress
tensor as,
inc ; 1  inc = ;C  v S + C (14)
ij
3 kk sf ij inc vi vj
This approach is justied by the work of Shao, Sarkar & Pantano (1999).
They applied the Reynolds decomposition to the SGS tensor and showed
that this quantity can be split into two parts,
ij = ij slow + ij rapid: (15)
The slow part is totally independent of the mean- ow gradients. These are
accounted for in the rapid part only. They further demonstrated that the
slow part can be accurately modeled with an eddy-viscosity concept whereas
the rapid part should be modeled using a scale similarity approach. A-
priori tests by da Silva (2001) conrmed the existence of a good correlation
between the real and modeled slow parts of the SGS stress tensor, when
modeled with any model from the Structure Function family. Since the slow
part aims at representing the turbulent dynamics which is independent of
the mean ow inhomogeneities, it is consistent to model this part using the
eddy viscosity concept of the Structure Function model,
slow ; 1  slow = C  v S (16)
ij
3 kk sf ij

where the constant Csf remains the same as the one used in the basic
Structure Function model which is obtained considering the inertial range
of an isotropic turbulence energy spectrum i.e. Csf = 0:105 CK;3=2.
The rapid part is modeled using the Increment concept ideas,
rapid ; 1  rapid = C (17)
ij
3 kk inc vi vj 

where the model coecient Cinc is determined locally in space and time fol-
lowing the classical dynamical approach applied to the generalized Leonard
stress tensor written in a Galilean invariant form (Brun & Friedrich (2001)),
Lij i vj ; vbi vbj :
= vd (18)
 A NEW MIXED MODEL 7
The test lter (c) required here has twice the size of the implicit lter ( ) of
the computational mesh. The trace of equation (15) yields the coecient
Cinc based on SGS kinetic energy considerations (Brun & Friedrich (2001)).

Cinc =
1 Lkk : (19)
4 Qll

a) b)

c) d)

e) f)
Figure 1. a) Pressure contours from lower shear layer at the far eld region of a
turbulent plane jet. b) Contours of the real 22 SGS stress. c) Contours of the 22 SGS
stress modeled by the Increment model. d) Contours of the 22 SGS stress modeled by
the Structure Function model. e) Contours of the 22 SGS stress modeled by the Filtered
Structure Function model. f) Contours of the resolved strain rate tensor element S22 .
8 CHRISTOPHE BRUN ET AL.
4. Results from a-priori tests: DNS of a plane jet at ReH = 3000
A DNS of a plane jet at Reynolds number ReH = 3000 (da Silva & M etais
(2001a)) was used as data bank to analyse the capabilities of the new model
in a-priori tests. Figure 1 a) shows isosurfaces of low pressure in the lower
shear layer corresponding to this simulation. The picture shows two strong
Kelvin-Helmholtz vortices centered at about (x=h y=h) = (7:8 ;0:5) and
(x=h y=h) = (9:6 ;0:5). Between these structures several streamwise vor-
tex pairs develop. One of these streamwise vortices is also clearly seen in the
gure. The real 22 stress is shown in gure 1 b). The same stress component
modeled with the Increment model has some degree of correlation with the
real ones (see 1 c) ). No such correlation exists for both the Structure Func-
tion (1 d) ) and Filtered Structure Function (1 e) ) based values, which are
aligned with the resolved strain rate tensor element S22 (see gure (1 f) ).
On the other hand, the eddy-viscosity models of the type of the Structure
Function model have the best agreement with the slow part of the mean
12 component, which does not depend on the mean ow gradients. This
can be seen in gure 2. The present mixed model is designed to cope with
both the above requirements.

Figure 2. Pro les of real and modeled slow 12 SGS stresses. SF = structure function
model. SSF = selective structure function model. Smag = Smagorinsky model. DySmag
= Dynamic Smagorinsky model. SS = Scale similarity model.
 A NEW MIXED MODEL 9

h i
2 0.4

Uo = uaxis urms =Uo

0.35

1.8
0.3

0.25
1.6

0.2

1.4
0.15

= 5:8
0.1
1.2

0.05

1 0

x=D x=D
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure 3. Axial evolution of the mean (left) and RMS velocity (right) along the round
jet axis. || FSF model, + mixed model SF+INC.

1
(hU i ; ucof ) = (huaxis i ; ucof ) 1
(hU i ; ucof ) = (huaxis i ; ucof )
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Figure 4. Mean velocity pro le in the self-similar regime of the round jet with the FSF
model (left) and the mixed model SF+INC (right). || Experiment (Hussein et al.
(1994), ), + LES in x = 10D, LES in x = 10:5D,
LES in x = 11D, 2 LES in
x = 11:5D .

5. Results from a-posteriori tests: LES of round jets at ReD =

25000
This section analyses the results obtained with the new mixed model in an
LES of a round jet at ReD = 25000. This simulation was compared with
results of da Silva & M etais (2001b) using the Filtered Structure Function
model in the same conguration and with the experimental data of Hussein
et al. (1994), at ReD = 95000.
10 CHRISTOPHE BRUN ET AL.

h
urms = ( uaxis i ; ucof ) h
urms = ( uaxis i ; ucof )
0.4 0.4

0.35 0.35

0.3 0.3

0.25 0.25

0.2 0.2

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Figure 5. Axial RMS velocity pro le in the self-similar regime of the round jet with the
FSF model (left) and the mixed model SF+INC (right). || Experiment (Hussein et
al. (1994), ), + LES in x = 10D, LES in x = 10:5D,
LES in x = 11D, 2 LES in
x = 11:5D .

hu0v0i = (huaxisi ; ucof )2 hu0v0i = (huaxisi ; ucof )2

0.05 0.05

0.045 0.045

0.04 0.04

0.035 0.035

0.03 0.03

0.025 0.025

0.02 0.02

0.015 0.015

0.01 0.01

0.005 0.005

0 0

-0.005 -0.005

-0.01 -0.01

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Figure 6. Cross-correlation velocity pro le in the self-similar regime of the round jet
with the FSF model (left) and the mixed model SF+INC (right). || Experiment
(Hussein et al. (1994), ), + LES in x = 10D, LES in x = 10:5D,
LES in x = 11D,
2 LES in x = 11:5D .

hu0u0u0i = (huaxisi ; ucof )3 hv0v0v0i = (huaxisi ; ucof )3

0.02 0.01

0.018

0.016 0.008

0.014

0.012 0.006

0.01

0.008 0.004

0.006

0.004 0.002

0.002

0 0

-0.002

-0.004 -0.002

-0.006

-0.008 -0.004

-0.01

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Figure 7. Pro le of the axial (left) and radial velocity skewness (right) in the self-similar
regime of the round jet with the mixed model SF+INC. || Experiment (Hussein et
al. (1994), ), + LES in x = 10D, LES in x = 10:5D,
LES in x = 11D, 2 LES in
x = 11:5D .
 A NEW MIXED MODEL 11
5.1. SELF SIMILAR REGIME
Figure 3 shows the centerline velocity decay and root-mean square (RMS)
for both simulations. In the potential core of the jet, which extends six
diameters downstream, the RMS velocity slowly increases (gure 3). A
similar qualitative behaviour was obtained experimentally at ReD = 62000
by (Crow & Champagne (1971)). Once the annular mixing layer reaches
the axis, the potential core disappears, yielding both a decrease in the axial
mean velocity verifying the experimental slope Uo =Uaxis =  (x ; xo )=D
with   5:8 and an increase in the turbulence intensity urms =Uo from 10%
to 30%.
Qualitatively, the two models behave in the same way, although one
can notice that the inverse energy transfer related to the INC model yields
a slightly stronger increase in the turbulence level of the jet than pure
forward energy transfer due to the FSF model. This dierence increases
through the transitional zone of the jet and reaches 4% at the outlet part
of the computational box between x = 10D and x = 12D. In this zone, the
ow should not have yet reached the self-similar regime. Nevertheless, the
mean axial velocity prole (gure 4) ts already very well the experiment
of Hussein et al. (1994), for both SGS formulations.
Figures 5, 6 and 7 show the second to third order moments of the ve-
locity uctuations in nondimensional units. The axial RMS prole (gure
5) and the cross correlation (gure 6) re ect a qualitatively good agree-
ment with the experiment. Some dierences are expected to be related to
the early stage of the considered self-similarity. The mixed model yields a
stronger turbulence intensity and cross correlation level. The use of a co ow
leads to a non-standard non-dimensionalisation which complicates the in-
terpretation of the results. Therefore, at this stage it is not clear which
LES result relects reality best. In gure 7 the skewness of the axial (left)
and radial (right) velocity are compared with the self-similar prole for the
mixed model. The prediction is relatively accurate and indicates the success
of this approach.
5.2. TRANSITIONAL REGIME
We now compare the two SGS formulations in the transitional zone of the
jet. As noticed in the previous section the mean velocity prole is not visibly
aected by the choice of one or the other model (gure 8). The jet spreads
yielding negative values of the transverse velocity V (r) in the outer zone as
a result of the entrainment property of the ow. As expected, the in uence
of the model concerns the turbulence intensity which reaches already a
higher level on the jet axis at x = 2D (gure 9). At the end of the potential
12 CHRISTOPHE BRUN ET AL.
hU i = huaxisi 0.06
hV i = huaxisi
1

0.04

0.8

0.02

0.6

0.4

-0.02

0.2

-0.04

-0.06

r=D r=D
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure 8. Mean streamwise (left) and transverse velocity pro les (right) of the round
jet. FSF model : || x = 4D, { { { x = 8D, - - - x = 12D. Mixed model SF+INC :
+ x = 4D, x = 8D,
x = 12D .

0.3 h
k1=2= uaxis i 0.04
hu0v0i = huaxisi2
0.28

0.26 0.035

0.24

0.22 0.03

0.2
0.025
0.18

0.16
0.02
0.14

0.12
0.015
0.1

0.08
0.01
0.06

0.04 0.005
0.02

0 0

r=D r=D
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure 9. RMS velocity pro le (left) and cross-correlation pro le (right) of the round
jet. FSF model :      x = 2D, || x = 4D, { { { x = 8D, - - - x = 12D. Mixed
model SF+INC : 2 x = 2D, + x = 4D, x = 8D,
x = 12D .

core the zone of more intense turbulence level spreads from the axis to the
whole jet shear layer.
The velocity cross correlation seems not to be aected by the use of one
or the other model. While the production re ected by < u0v 0 > remains
constant, the dissipation, re ected by the level of kinetic energy k,decreases.
This indicates a redistribution of energy obviously due to the model. As
described in the rst section, the use of the INC model enhances the inverse
energy transfer from small to large scales lling up the energy spectrum at
low wave numbers while inhibiting the dissipation process at small scales.
This, nally, yields an increase in the turbulent intensity. In such a per-
spective, the present mixed model appears to be closer to reality than the
Filtered Structure Function model.
 A NEW MIXED MODEL 13

Figure 10. 3D Iso surface of the pressure eld (grey) and of the Q criterion (black) in
a round jet at ReD = 25000 with the FSF model (left) and the mixed model SF+INC
(right).

5.3. COHERENT STRUCTURES

Figure 10 shows coherent structures obtained with the Filtered Structure
Function model (left) and the present mixed model (right). Isosurfaces
of low pressure contours (light grey) indicate vortex rings which tend to
develop into alternating vorticity structures (Urbin & M etais (1997)) at the
end of the core zone. The use of the INC model to describe the rapid part of
the SGS tensor shows some dierences with respect to the basic FSF model.
In particular, for the topology of the ow at the end of the potential core,
the alternating pairing situation, obtained with the FSF model tends to
modify the initial axisymmetric mode into strong axial vortical structures.
With the INC model, equivalent structures appear closer to the inlet of the
jet. This dierence can be linked to the lack of backward energy transfer in
the near eld of the jet caused by the FSF model. Such a behavior of the
ow, which cannot be captured with an eddy-viscosity based SGS model,
is taken into account in the newly proposed mixed model.
Finally, it is interesting to look at the kinetic energy exchanges between
grid and subgrid-scales. This can be analysed through the transport equa-
tion of SGS kinetic energy (da Silva & M etais (2001a)). In particular, the
instantaneous transfer of energy between grid and subgrid-scales is given
14 CHRISTOPHE BRUN ET AL.
by the quantity,
;ij Sij : (20)
This quantity represents the `production' of SGS kinetic energy kSGS caused
by the resolved strain rate. It is interesting to note that once modeled with
the INC formulation the SGS kinetic energy is directly related to the second
order structure function Qkk .
Positive values of ;ij Sij indicate energy transfer from the grid to the
subgrid-scales (forward scatter), whereas negative values indicate energy
exchanges from the subgrid to the grid-scales (backward scatter). Hartel et
al. (1994), considered the behaviour of this term as one possible criterion
for the validation of a SGS model. For eddy-viscosity models (equation 1)
this term of production is by denition positive and yields always forward
scatter,
;ijslow Sij = t Sij Sij > 0 (21)
However, the INC model formulation yields each of the two possible
energy transfers, depending on how the increment tensor Qij and the strain
rate tensor are correlated :
;ijrapidSij = ;Cinc Qij Sij (22)

Figure 11. 3D Isosurface of the Q criterion (light grey) and of SGS energy production
due to the increment tensor (forward transfer in dark grey and backscatter in black), in
a round jet at ReD = 25000 with the mixed model SF+INC.
 A NEW MIXED MODEL 15
Figure 11 shows positive (black) and negative (dark grey) values of the
INC part of the SG energy ux represented by the term Qij Sij . The gure
shows that the INC model allows for both forward and backward energy
transfers. The zones of energy uxes are located around the high vorticity
structures described by the Q-criterion (light grey), in the initial transition
region but this correlation decreases as the ow evolves into a fully turbulent
state. Both these trends correspond to the correct topology of the interscale
interactions for the term ;ij Sij , as reported by da Silva & M etais (2001a).
The high intensity of these transfers demonstrates the need of accounting
for backscatter in transitional ows such as in the present round jet.

6. Conclusions
We propose a new mixed SGS model concept based on the similarity be-
tween ij and the velocity increment tensor Qij . This similarity is analysed
by a priori tests of a plane jet at ReH = 3000. It reveals that the eddy
viscosity part of the form of the Structure Function family represents accu-
rately the small scales of the ow while the non-linear part of the form of
the Increment Tensor describes well the large scale interaction. A posteri-
ori tests of a round jet at ReD = 25000 are validated against experiments.
Comparison with a simulation using the Filtered Structure Function model
alone reveals that backward energy transfer to large scales provided by the
mixed model yields an increasement in the kinetic energy distribution. This
eect has to be accounted for in such a transitional ow.

Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the EC TMR project `LES of complex industrial
ows'.

References
Hunt, J. C. R., Wray, A. A., Moin, P. 1988 Eddies, streams, and convergence zones
in turbulent ows Center for Turbulence Research, Annual research briefs.
Borue, V. & Orszag, S. A. 1998 Local energy ux and subgrid-scale statistics in
three-dimensional turbulence J. Fluid Mech. 366, 1{31.
Brun, C., Kessler, P., Comte, P., & Lesieur, M. 1997 Simulation des grandes
echelles de jet rond. Rapport de Synth ese DGA/DRET contrat n
95-2557A, LEGI
Grenoble.
Brun, C., & Friedrich, R. 1999 A-priori tests of SGS stress models in fully developed
pipe ow and a new local formulation Direct and Large-Eddy Simulation III, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, P.R. Voke et al. (eds.), 249{262.
Brun, C., Huttl, T.J., & Friedrich, R. 2000 A-posteriori tests of a new subgrid-scale
model: L.E.S. of fully developed pipe ow Advances in Turbulence VIII, CIMNE, C.
Dopazo et al. (ed.), 547{550.
16 CHRISTOPHE BRUN ET AL.
Brun, C., & Friedrich, R. 2001 The spatial velocity increment as a tool for SGS
modeling. Modern Simulation Strategies for Turbulent Flow, R.T. Edwards Publishing
House, B.J. Geurts (eds.), 57{84.
Comte, P., Dubief, Y., Brun, C., Meinke, M., Schulz, C., & Rister, Th. 1998
Simulation of spatially developing plane and round jets Notes on Numerical Fluid
Mechanics, Vieweg, ed. E.H. Hirschel, vol. 66, 301{318, CNRS-DFG Collaborative
Research Programme, Results 1996-1998.
Crow, S.C. & Champagne, F.H. 1971 Orderly structure in jet turbulence J. Fluid
Mech. 48(3), 547{591.
Ducros, F., Comte, P. & Lesieur, M. 1996 Large-Eddy Simulation of transition to
turbulence in a boundary layer developing spatially over a at plate J. Fluid Mech.
326, 1{36.
Frisch, U. 1995 Turbulence. The legacy of A.N. Kolmogorov Cambridge University
Press.
Hartel, K., Kleiser, L., Unger, F., & Friedrich, R. 1994 Subgrid-scale energy
transfer in the near-wall region of turbulent ows Phys. Fluids 6(9), 3131{3143.
Hussein, H.J., Capp, S.P., & George, W.K. 1994 Velocity measurements in a high-
Reynolds-number, momentum conserving, axisymmetric, turbulent jet J. Fluid Mech.
258, 31{75.
Kraichnan, R.H. 1976 Eddy viscosity in two and three dimensions J. Atmos. Sci. 33,
1521{1536.
Leonard, A. 1974 On the energy cascade in large-eddy simulations of turbulent ows
Adv. in Geophys. A18.
Lesieur, M. 1997 Turbulence in Fluids Kluwer Academic Publishers, 3rd edition.
Lesieur, M. & Metais, O. 1996 New trends in large-eddy simulations of turbulence
Annu. Rev. Fluid. Mech. 28, 45{82.
Metais, O. & Lesieur, M. 1992 Spectral large-Eddy Simulation of isotropic and stably
strati ed turbulence J. Fluid Mech. 239, 157{194.
da Silva, C. B. 2001 The role of coherent structures in the control and interscale inter-
actions of round, plane and coaxial jets 2001 PhD thesis, INPG, Grenoble.
da Silva, C. & Metais, O. 2001a On the inuence of coherent structures upon interscale
interactions in turbulent plane jets submitted to J. Fluid Mech.
da Silva, C. & Metais, O. 2001b Coherent structures in bifurcating jets: a numerical
study, to be submitted
Pruett, D. & Adams, N. A. 1998 On the direct approximation of subgrid-scale stresses
in large-eddy simulation Unpublished.
Shao, L., Sarkar, S., & Pantano, C. 1999 On the relationship between the mean ow
and subgrid stresses in large-eddy simulation of turbulent shear ows Phys. Fluids
11(6), 1596{1607.
Urbin, G., & Metais, O. 1997 Large-eddy simulations of the three-dimensional spa-
tially developing round jet Direct and Large-Eddy Simulation II, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, J.P. Chollet et al. (eds.).
Winckelmans, G. S., Wray, A. A., & Vasilyev, O. V. 1998 A new mixed model
for L.E.S.: the Leonard model supplemented by a dynamic Smagorinsky term Proc.
Summer Program, Center for Turbulence Research, NASA Ames/Stanford Univ.,
367{388.