arX

iv:0

709.

0222

v1 [

phys

ics.

flu-d

yn]

3 S

ep 2

007

Large-eddy simulation of the flow in a lid-driven cubical cavity

Roland Bouffanais∗ and Michel O. Deville†

Ecole Polytechnique Federale de LausanneSTI–ISE–LIN

Station 9CH-1015 Lausanne (Switzerland)

Emmanuel Leriche‡

Laboratoire de Mathematiques de l’Universite de Saint-Etienne (LaMUSE)Faculte des Sciences et Techniques – Universite Jean-Monnet

23 rue du Docteur Paul MichelonF-42023, Saint-Etienne (France)

(Dated: February 1, 2008)

Large-eddy simulations of the turbulent flow in a lid-drivencubical cavity have been carried out at a Reynoldsnumber of12 000 using spectral element methods. Two distinct subgrid-scales models, namely a dynamicSmagorinsky model and a dynamic mixed model, have been both implemented and used to perform long-lastingsimulations required by the relevant time scales of the flow.All filtering levels make use of explicit filters appliedin the physical space (on an element-by-element approach) and spectral (modal) spaces. The two subgrid-scalesmodels are validated and compared to available experimental and numerical reference results, showing verygood agreement. Specific features of lid-driven cavity flow in the turbulent regime, such as inhomogeneityof turbulence, turbulence production near the downstream corner eddy, small-scales localization and helicalproperties are investigated and discussed in the large-eddy simulation framework. Time histories of quantitiessuch as the total energy, total turbulent kinetic energy or helicity exhibit different evolutions but only after arelatively long transient period. However, the average values remain extremely close.

PACS numbers: 47.25, 47.55Keywords: LES, lid-driven cavity, spectral element, explicit filtering, helicity

I. INTRODUCTION

The study of a lid-driven flow of a Newtonian fluid in arectangular three-dimensional cavity is of particular interestin view not only of the simplicity of the flow geometry butalso the richness of the fluid flow physics manifested by multi-ple counter-rotating recirculating regions at the cornersof thecavity depending on the Reynolds number, Taylor-Gortler-like(TGL) vortices, flow bifurcations and transition to turbulence.This flow structure is now well documented thanks to a rela-tively rich literature reporting both computational and experi-mental studies. A comprehensive review of the fluid mechan-ics of driven cavities is provided by Shankar and Deshpandein [1].

In the present paper, our focus resides in relatively high-Reynolds-number and three-dimensional lid-driven cubicalcavity flows. At Reynolds number higher than a critical valuecomprised between2 000 and3 000, an instability appears inthe vicinity of the downstream corner eddy [2, 3, 4]. As theReynolds number further increases, turbulence develops nearthe cavity walls, and at Reynolds number higher than10 000,the flow near the downstream corner eddy becomes fully tur-bulent. The highest Reynolds number attained was 12 000by direct numerical simulation (DNS) performed by Leriche

∗Electronic address: roland.bouffanais@epfl.ch†Electronic address: michel.deville@epfl.ch‡Electronic address: emmanuel.leriche@univ-st-etienne.fr

and Gavrilakis [5] and 10 000 experimentally by Koseff andStreet [6] and Prasad and Koseff [7]. In the literature, papersusing the lid-driven cavity problem as a benchmark test caseto evaluate the performance of numerical algorithms are pro-liferating, but are often limited to two space dimensions orto Reynolds numbers below10 000. More recently, one mayhowever notice the important developments of novel and morephysical numerical methods applied to the lid-driven cavityflow such as molecular dynamics by Chen and Lin in [8] andalso the lattice–Boltzmann model applied by Heet al. in [9].

The results reported herein correspond to the numericalsimulation of the flow in a lid-driven cubical cavity at theReynolds number of12 000 placing us in the locally-turbulentregime. The spatial discretization relies on spectral elementmethods (SEM) which have been mainly applied to the DNSof fluid flow problems at low and moderate Reynolds num-bers. With the advent of more powerful computers, espe-cially through cluster technology, higher Re values seem tofall within the realm of feasibility. However, despite their highaccuracy, spectral element methods are still far from reachingindustrial applications that involve developed turbulence at Revalues of the order of106 − 107. The reason for that dismalperformance is that a resolved DNS including all scales fromthe largest structures to Kolmogorov scales, needs a numberof degrees of freedom that grows like Re9/4. Therefore withincreasing Re, one has to increase the number of elements,E,and the degree,N , of the polynomial spaces. This places thecomputational load far out of the reach of present day comput-ers. Large-eddy simulation (LES) represents an alternative toDNS insofar that it involves less degrees of freedom because

2

the behavior of the small scales are modeled. The numericalsimulations presented in this paper encompass two differentLES based on two distinct subgrid-scales modeling both us-ing an eddy-viscosity assumption, and one using in additionamixed model relying on the scale-similarity hypothesis, simi-larly to Zanget al. in [10, 11] for Re= 10 000. Compared tothe previous works of Zanget al., the two LES reported hereoffer simulation length ten times larger therefore increasingthe accuracy of the ensemble averaging and more importantlyallowing to capture intermittent turbulent production. Theseevents lead to the determination of large eddies suggested tobe mainly responsible for the turbulence production near thedownstream corner eddy.

Unlike low-order methods such as finite volumes or finitedifferences, spectral and spectral element methods allow acomplete decoupling between the mathematical formulation,the subgrid modeling, the numerical technique and the filter-ing technique, which are introduced successively in Sec. II.Specifically, we are first seeking to validate the two subgrid-scale models introduced in Sec. II which rely on explicit filter-ing techniques specific to spectral element spatial discretiza-tion. Sec. III presents a short, but comprehensive valida-tion procedure. In Sec. IV emphasis is put on characterizingthe turbulent flow in its locally-turbulent regime. Fundamen-tal features are qualitatively and quantitatively investigatedsuch as the inhomogeneity of the turbulence, the turbulenceproduction in the downstream-corner-eddy region, the small-scales turbulent structures in the cavity flow and finally thepeculiar helical properties.

II. THE MODEL AND NUMERICAL TECHNIQUE

A. Mathematical modeling

Side wall−h

h

h

Bottom wall

−h h

x, u

z, w

y, v

−h

Downstr

eamwall

Upstream

wall

U0

Side wall

Top lid

FIG. 1: Sketch of the geometry of the lid-driven cubical cavity.

The fluid enclosed in the cavity is assumed to be incom-pressible, Newtonian with uniform density and temperature.The flow is governed by the Navier–Stokes equations insidethe fluid domain denoted byV = [−h, +h]3 with no-slipboundary conditions on every cavity walls, except on the top,

see Fig. 1. The flow is driven by imposing a prescribed veloc-ity distribution with nonzero mean on the “top” wall—namedlid in the sequel—with the velocity field maintained every-where parallel to a given direction. The details regarding theimposition of this Dirichlet boundary condition for the veloc-ity field at the lid is discussed in Sec. II C 3. As the flowpresents turbulent zones coexisting with laminar regions,thenumerical simulation incorporates the mathematical modelsinvolved by the large-eddy simulation method in order to re-solve the complex dynamics of the flow. As a consequence,the governing equations of the large-eddy simulations are thefiltered Navier–Stokes equations. Large-scale quantities, des-ignated in the sequel by an “overbar”, are obtained by a filter-ing procedure on the computational domainV = [−1, +1]3

usingh for the non-dimensionalization of lengths. The appli-cation of a low-pass inhomogeneous and anisotropic spatialfilter to the Navier–Stokes equations in the Eulerian velocity–pressure formulation and in convective form for the nonlinearterm yields

∂u

∂t+ u · ∇u = −∇p + ν∆u− ∇ · τ , (1)

∇ · u = 0, (2)

in which u is the filtered velocity field,t denotes the time,p = P/ρ is the filtered static pressure andν the assuredlyconstant, uniform kinematic viscosity. The symbols∇ and∆

represent the nabla and Laplacian operators, respectively. Thesubgrid-scale (SGS) stress tensorτ is given by

τ = uu − uu, (3)

and accounts for the effects of the unresolved- or small-scaleson the dynamics of the resolved- or large-scales [12].

B. Subgrid-scale models

1. Under-resolved direct numerical simulation

In the same framework as it prevails among the praction-ers, one can resort to the DNS computations without anyLES model, but with the nodal filtering technique describedin Sec. II D 1 to let the numerical method dissipate locally thehigh-wave-number modes introduced by the insufficient spacediscretization. Such an approach corresponds to an under-resolved DNS (UDNS).

2. Smagorinsky model

The SGS Smagorinsky model (SM) [13] uses the conceptof turbulent viscosity and assumes that the small scales arein equilibrium, balancing energy production and dissipation.This yields the following expression for the eddy viscosity

νsgs = (CS∆)2|S|, (4)

where |S| = (2SijSij)1/2 is the magnitude of the filtered

strain-rate-tensor withSij = 1/2(∂ui/∂xj + ∂uj/∂xi), CS

3

is the Smagorinsky constant and∆ the filter width. TheSmagorinsky model has several drawbacks. The most severeone is the constant value ofCS during the computation whichproduces too much dissipation. Furthermore the SM does notprovide the modeler with backscattering where kinetic energyis transferred from small scales to larger scales in an inverse-cascading process.

3. Dynamic Smagorinsky model

The dynamic Smagorinsky model (DSM) proposed by Ger-manoet al. [14] overcomes the difficulty of constantCS, byallowing it to become dependent of space and time. Now wehave a dynamic parameterCd = Cd(x, t). Let us introducea test-filter length scale∆ that is larger than the grid lengthscale∆ (e.g. ∆ = 2∆). Using the information provided bythose two filters and assuming that in the inertial range of theturbulence energy spectrum, the statistical self-similarity ap-plies, we can better determine the features of the SGS stress.As detailed in [15], with the test filter, the former LES Eq. (1)yields a dynamic parameter having the expression

Cd =(α − β) : Ld

(α − β) : (α − β), (5)

where

L = u u − u u, (6)

α = −2∆2

|S|S, (7)

β = −2∆2

|S|S. (8)

The notation “:” in Eq. (5) is used for inner tensor product(double contraction), and the upper index d denotes the devi-atoric part of the tensor.

4. Dynamic mixed model

The dynamic mixed model [11] introduced to tackle cav-ity flows is a blend of the mixed model of Bardinaet al.[16] and the former dynamic Smagorinsky model. We noticethat Bardina’s scale similarity model is not an eddy-viscositybased model. Instead it belongs to the class of structural mod-els [12] and relies on the scale-similarity principle. It pro-duces almost no dissipation and for that reason needs to beused jointly with dissipative models such as the Smagorin-sky model—Bardina’s mixed model—or with the dynamicSmagorinsky model. The approach of Zanget al. [11] wasextended by Liuet al. [17] who proposed a new similaritysubgrid-scale model for incompressible flows, in which thesubgrid stress tensor is assumed to be proportional to the re-solved stress tensor. Vremanet al. [18] later modified theDMM formulation to remove a mathematical inconsistency byexpressing the scale-similarity part of the sub-test-scale stressT—see [15]—using onlyu. Salvetti and Banerjee [19] and

Horiuti [20] extended the DMM to two distinct dynamic two-parameter models. Morinishi and Vasilyev [21] recommendeda modification to the dynamic two-parameter mixed model ofSalvetti and Banerjee [19] for large-eddy simulation of wallbounded turbulent flow. The works of Vremanet al. [22] andWinckelmanset al. [23] also closely relate to the DMM ap-proach. As mentioned by Morinishi and Vasilyev [21] andGhosal [24], the reliability of the results of large-eddy simu-lation is strongly affected by both the effectiveness of thesub-grid scale model and the accuracy of the numerical method,particularly in the approximation of the non-linear convectiveterm. As mentioned in Sec. I, the SEM is decoupled fromthe subgrid modeling and offers a high accuracy characteris-tics of spectral methods. Therefore, the present work focuseson the one-parameter type of dynamic mixed model DMM asintroduced by Zanget al. [11] for the lid-driven cavity flow.The modification suggested by Vremanet al. [18] was notimplemented;a priori tests with their modified DMM usingsamples from the DNS results by Leriche and Gavrilakis [5]showed no noticeable improvement over the DMM of Zanget al. in the subgrid stress correlations. Therefore increasingthe computational expense by adding an additional filteringlevel operation as required by the modification of Vremanetal.[18], seemed unjustified.

By decomposing the velocity field as

u = u + u′, (9)

whereu′ represents the subgrid-scale velocity field and by in-serting in Eq. (3), we can redefine the SGS stress as proposedby Germano [25]

τ = L + C + R, (10)

where

L = u u− u u,

C = uu′ + u′ u − (u u′ + u′ u), (11)

R = u′ u′ − u′ u′,

are designated as the modified Leonard stress, the SGS crossterm, and the modified SGS Reynolds stress, respectively. Themodified Leonard term can be calculated by resolved quanti-ties and corresponds essentially to the mixed model. The twoother terms are unresolved residual stresses and are treatedthrough the Smagorinsky model, see [11] for greater details.Following the same dynamic procedure as in [15] and Sec.II B 3, and with the same notations, one obtains a dynamiccoefficient which reads

Cd =(α − β) : (Gd − L

d)

(α − β) : (α − β), (12)

where

G = u u − u u. (13)

The expression of the dynamic coefficient given in Eq. (12)for the dynamic mixed model is similar to the one for the dy-namic model—see Eq. (5)—the tensorL

d being replaced byGd − L

d.

4

C. Numerical technique

1. Space discretization

The numerical method treats Eqs. (1)–(3) within the weakGalerkin formulation framework. The spatial discretizationuses Lagrange–Legendre polynomial interpolants. The readeris referred to the monograph by Devilleet al. [26] for fulldetails. The velocity and pressure are expressed in thePN −PN−2 functional spaces wherePN is the set of polynomials ofdegree lower thanN in each space direction. This spectral el-ement method avoids the presence of spurious pressure modesas it was proved by Maday and Patera [27, 28]. The quadra-ture rules are based on a Gauss–Lobatto–Legendre (GLL) gridfor the velocity nodes and a Gauss–Legendre grid (GL) for thepressure nodes.

Borrowing the notation from [26], the semi-discrete filteredNavier–Stokes equations resulting from space discretizationare

Mdudt

+ Cu + νKu− DT p + Dτ = 0, (14)

−Du = 0. (15)

The diagonal mass matrixM is composed of three blocks,namely the mass matricesM . The global vectoru containsall the nodal velocity components whilep is made of all nodalpressures. The matricesK, DT , D are the discrete Laplacian,gradient and divergence operators, respectively. The matrixoperatorC represents the action of the non-linear term writtenin convective formu · ∇, on the velocity field and dependson u itself. The semi-discrete equations constitute a set ofnon-linear ordinary differential equations (14) subject to theincompressibility condition (15).

2. Time integration

The state-of-the-art time integrators in spectral methodshandle the viscous linear term and the pressure implicitly by abackward differentiation formula of order2 to avoid stabilityrestrictions such that

ν∆t ≤ C/N4, (16)

while all non-linearities are computed explicitly, e.g. byasecond order extrapolation method, under the CFL restrictionumax∆t ≤ C/N2. Nonetheless, as the LES viscosity is notconstant, we modify the standard time scheme in such a waythat this space varying viscosity be handled explicitly as thiswas done e.g. in [15, 29, 30]. Let us define the effectiveviscosity as

νeff = ν + νsgs = νcst + (νeff − νcst), (17)

whereνcst is the sum of the physical viscosityν and the aver-age ofνsgsover the computational domain. The filtered semi-

discrete Navier–Stokes equations become

Mdudt

+ νcstKu− DT p = −Cu + 2D(νeff − νcst)S, (18)

−Du = 0, (19)

and the previous time splitting still applies. The viscous ex-plicit term on the right-hand side does not harm stability asthe magnitude of the term2D(νeff − νcst)S is less than that ofCu.

The implicit part is solved by a generalized block LU de-composition with a pressure correction algorithm [26, 31].

3. The lid-filtered velocity distribution

As already mentioned by Leriche and Gavrilakis in [5], im-posing a given velocity distribution on the lid of a cavity isneither an easy task experimentally nor numerically. Indeedimposing a constant lid velocity profile leads to a singularity(discontinuous behavior in the velocity boundary conditions)at the edges and at the corners of the lid, see Fig. 1. With-out adequate treatment, this discontinuous behavior will un-dermine the convergence and the accuracy of any numericalmethod in the vicinity of the lid. For the two-dimensionalcase, a well known solution (but with no physical relevance)is to subtract the most singular terms of the analytical expres-sion of the local stream-function expansion near the lid cor-ners. The extension of such procedure to three-dimensionalcases is still missing even though several recent attempts arereported, see [2, 32]. In order to explicitly filter the discontin-uous behavior, the constant lid velocity profile is regularizedby the use of a high-order polynomial expansion which van-ishes along its first derivatives at the lid edges and corners

u(x, y = h, z, t) = U0

[1 − (x/h)

18]2 [

1 − (z/h)18

]2

,

(20)

v(x, y = h, z, t) = w(x, y = h, z, t) = 0.

This profile flattens very quickly near the lid edges and cor-ners while away from them, it grows rapidly to a constantvalue over a short distance. The exact form and the polyno-mial order of the profile is discussed in [4, 5]. The highestpolynomial order of this distribution in bothx- andz-directionis 36. Such high-order polynomial expansions lead to steepvelocity gradients in the vicinity of the edges of the lid. Thegrid refinement, in terms of spectral element distribution nearthe lid will be presented in greater details in Sec. III. One ofthe constraint in the grid design is to ensure the proper reso-lution of the lid velocity distribution by the spectral elementdecomposition.

D. Filtering techniques

As spectral elements offer high spatial accuracy, we con-struct explicitly the filters using two spectral techniques. Thefirst one is a nodal filter acting in physical space on the nodal

5

velocity components (and pressure) to render the computa-tions stable in the long range integration. The second methodis designed as a modal filter and is carried out in spectral spacein an element by element fashion. That filter correspondsspecifically to the convolution kernel of the low-pass LES fil-tering.

1. Nodal filter

The nodal filter due to Fischer and Mullen [33] is ade-quately suited to parallel spectral element computation. In-troducinghN,j, j = 0, . . . , N the set of Lagrange–Legendreinterpolant polynomials of degreeN based on the GLL gridnodesξN,k, k = 0, . . . , N , the rectangular matrix operatorIMN of size(M + 1) × (N + 1) is such that

(IMN )ij = hN,j(ξM,i). (21)

Therefore, the matrix operator of orderN − 1

ΠN−1 = INN−1 IN−1

N , (22)

interpolates on the GLL grid of degreeN − 1 a function de-fined on the GLL grid of degreeN and transfers the data backto the original grid. This process eliminates the highest modesof the polynomial representation. The one-dimensional (1D)filter is given by the relation

u = [αΠN−1 + (1 − α)INN ]u. (23)

The LES version of the filter setsα = 1 and is given by

u = INM IM

N u, (24)

whereM is equal toN − 2 or N − 3. The three-dimensional(3D) extension results easily from the matrix tensor productproperties of the filter. It is worth noting that by constructionsuch nodal filter constitutes a projective filter, i.eu = u.

2. Modal filter

Here, the variableu is approximated by a modal basis firstproposed in thep-version of the finite elements and used byBoyd [34] as a filter technique. It is built up on the referenceparent element as

φ0 =1 − ξ

2, φ1 =

1 + ξ

2, (25)

φk = Lk(ξ) − Lk−2(ξ), 2 ≤ k ≤ N.

Conversely to the Lagrange–Legendre nodal basis used in ourspectral element calculations, this modal basis (25) formsahierarchical set of polynomials allowing to define in an ex-plicit and straightforward manner a low-pass filtering proce-dure. The one-to-one correspondence between the nodal La-grangian basis and thep-representation yields

u(ξi) =

N∑

k=0

ukφk(ξi), (26)

which in matrix notation reads

u = Φu. (27)

The low-pass filtering operation is performed in spectral spacethrough a diagonal matrixT with components such that

T0 = T1 = 1 and Tk =1

(1 + (k/kc)2)2 ≤ k ≤ N,

(28)where the cut-off valuekc corresponds toTk = 1/2. Theentire filtering process for a one-dimensional problem is givenby

u = G ⋆ u = ΦTΦ−1

u. (29)

The three-dimensional extension is again trivial by the matrixtensor product properties.

As noted in [29], the effect of such modal filter onto a givenfield expanded in the modal basis (25) presents the interestingfeature of maintaining the inter-elementC0-continuity. Morerigorously, suchC0-continuity is enforced if and only if bothφ0 andφ1 are not at all affected by the low-pass filtering, inother words if and only ifT0 = T1 = 1. Nevertheless, ithas been observed that suchC0-breakage does not constitutea major issue for our simulations as it only affects the eddyviscosity field and other terms present into the modeling of theeffect of the SGS tensor (3), and which are not used directlyfor constructing a solution retaining theC0-continuity feature.

Such modal filter is invertible and consequently is not pro-jective, i.eu 6= u.

3. The filter length

The decomposition of the computational domain into spec-tral elements of given sizes, within which a GLL distributionof grid points based on the polynomial degree is chosen, re-quires a specific definition of the filter length∆. In order toaccount for both the size of each spectral element and its valueof the polynomial order, and following [35], the filter lengthfor a 1D spectral element method is chosen as

∆ =s

p, (30)

wheres is the element size andp the highest polynomial de-gree in the spectral decomposition Eq. (26) that is the closestto the cut-off frequencykc. In the particular context of themodal filter previously introduced,p is such that

p = k, such thatinfk

(Tk) < Tkc= 1/2, k = 0, . . . , N.

(31)We notice that the filter length decreases when the element isrefined. The straightforward extension of Eq. (30) to our 3Dproblem using rectilinear elements leads to

∆(x, y, z) = (∆1(x)∆2(y)∆3(z))1/3 =

(s1

p1

s2

p2

s3

p3

)1/3

.

(32)

6

III. PHYSICAL AND COMPUTATIONAL PARAMETERS

The different large-eddy simulations presented here refertothe same geometry—see Fig. 1—and physical parameters asthe direct numerical simulation (DNS) performed by Lericheand Gavrilakis [5]. The details relative to these parameters aregathered in Table I. The Reynolds number based on the max-imum velocity on the lid was chosen to be Re= U02h/ν =12 000.

The kinetic energy is provided to the flow by the shear stressat the top lid through viscous diffusion. The amplitude of theReynolds stress below the lid is negligible indicating thattheflow under the lid is mainly laminar but transient. The mo-mentum transfer from the lid induces a region of strong pres-sure in the upper corner of the downstream wall as the flow,mainly horizontal prior the corner, has to change directionandmoves vertically downwards. This sharp turn dissipates en-ergy in that region. Along the downstream wall the plungingflow behaves like a wall jet with a variable thickness. Near thesymmetry plane the jet thickness is reduced while it increasesaway from this plane. This jet, laminar and unsteady at thevery beginning, separates from the cavity wall at mid-heightand grows as two elliptical jets on both sides of the symmetryplane. They hit the bottom wall where they produce turbu-lence. This turbulence is convected away by the main centralvortex towards the upstream wall where the flow slows downand relaminarizes during the fluid rise.

Domain size(x, y, z) (2h, 2h, 2h)Wall positions x, y, z = ±hReynolds number Re= U02h/ν 12 000No. of spectral elements(Ex, Ey, Ez) (8, 8, 8)Polynomial orders(Nx, Ny , Nz) (8, 8, 8)Time step 0.002 h/U0

No. of time iterations 387 000Dynamic range 774h/U0

Nodal filtering – DSM & DMM M = N − 2 = 6Modal filtering – DSM & DMM (1st level) kc = N − 2 = 6Modal filtering – DSM & DMM (2nd level) k′

c = N − 3 = 5

TABLE I: Numerical and physical parameters of the simulations

In order to resolve the boundary layers along the lid andthe downstream wall, the spectral elements are unevenly dis-tributed as can be seen in Fig. 2. The spatial discretizationhasEx = Ey = Ez = 8 elements in the three space directionswith Nx = Ny = Nz = 8 polynomial degree, equivalentto 653 grid points in total. The spectral element calculationhas two times less points per space direction than the DNS ofLeriche and Gavrilakis [5] who employed a1293 Chebyshevdiscretization. Both nodal and modal filters were used in ourLES computations based on DSM and DMM; the former withM = N − 2 to stabilize the velocity field at each time stepand the latter withkc = N − 2 (resp. k′

c = N − 3) to fil-ter the highest modes in the modal Legendre space at the firstlevel (resp. second level) of explicit filtering. These filteringlevels refer to the overbar and the test filtering respectively. Itis noteworthy recalling here that the modal filter introduced inSec. II D is not projective. The computations are particularly

X

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

FIG. 2: Spectral element grid in the mid-planez/h = 0.

sensitive to the values ofM andkc; smaller values will affectspectral convergence whereas higher values will have very lit-tle effect on the smallest scales of the problem. The referenceresults are the DNS data of Leriche [4, 5] and the experimentalones from Koseff and Street [6], corresponding to1 000 and145.5 time units respectively. In the cavity flow, the averageis obtained by time averaging.

The LES-DSM and LES-DMM were both started from thesame initial condition, namely the velocity field obtained fromthe DNS by Leriche and Gavrilakis and re-interpolated fromthe Chebyshev grid onto the spectral-element GLL grid.

Non-dimensionalization is performed usingh as lengthscale,h/U0 as time scale andU0 as velocity scale. All theresults and data presented in the sequel will be based on thisnon-dimensionalization.

A. Statistical ensemble averaging

For any variable, the Reynolds statistical splitting intro-duces the average value denoted by a capital letter into brack-ets “〈·〉” whereas a lower case letter will be used to denoteits fluctuating part. It is noteworthy reminding here the filtersplitting introduced in Eq. (9) using the overbar and prime no-tations to denote respectively the resolved and subgrid scales.To simplify notations, and unless otherwise stated, the over-bar will be omitted in the sequel as most of the fields consid-ered are resolved fields derived from solutions of the filteredNavier–Stokes equations (1)–(3). More precisely consideringany variableX can be decomposed as follows

X = 〈X〉 + x = (〈X〉 + x) + (〈X ′〉 + x′), (33)

where〈X〉 (resp. 〈X ′〉) is the average resolved (resp. sub-grid) part ofX andx (resp. x′) is the fluctuating resolved(resp. subgrid) part ofX . The subgrid scales being unknown,the term〈X ′〉+x′ cannot be directly computed from the sim-ulation. All the results presented in this article refer to re-solved quantities be them average〈X〉 or fluctuatingx. Forthe sake of simplicity, these quantities are directly and respec-tively compared to〈X〉 andx, obtained from reference results,see Sec. III C.

7

We assume that a statistically-steady state is attained andtime averaging will be taken as ensemble averaging. Thewhole dynamic range—cf. Table I— corresponding to1 290equally spaced samples has been considered when averaging.As the starting point of all LES is the same DNS sample takenfrom a statistically-steady state, it is reasonable to alsoas-sume that these simulations will reach a statistically-steadystate very quickly. These assumptions can be verified in sev-eral number of ways. First, we present in Fig. 3 the time his-tories of the volume integral of the total kinetic energyK(t)and the volume integral of the fluctuating energyκ(t) for theDNS and both the LES-DSM and LES-DMM. On this figure,one can observe that after approximately80 h/U0 time units,the two LES models DSM and DMM start being effective andproviding different macroscopic results. BothK(t) andκ(t)have different time evolutions but within the same range offluctuations and with very close average values, see Table II.

non-dimensional timet7006005004003002001000

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

(a)

(b)

FIG. 3: Time histories ofK(t) (graphs(a)) and ofκ(t) (graphs(b))for the DNS (green lines), the LES-DSM (red lines) and the LES-DMM (blue lines)

Average integral terms Magnitude inU2

0 units

〈K(t)〉DNS 0.055527〈K(t)〉DSM 0.056296〈K(t)〉DMM 0.056194

〈κ(t)〉DNS 0.004529〈κ(t)〉DSM 0.004960〈κ(t)〉DMM 0.004864

TABLE II: Average values ofK andκ for the DNS, LES-DSM andLES-DMM

A second way to assess the accuracy of the ensemble aver-aging is done by testing the property of symmetry (resp. an-tisymmetry) with respect to the mid-planez/h = 0, of somefirst- and second-order statistics of the resolved velocityandpressure fields. For each grid point, the relative differencebetween the nodal value at this point and the correspondingnodal value at the symmetric grid point is calculated. In theantisymmetric case, the opposite nodal value is consideredatthe symmetric grid point. Thez-component of the averageresolved velocity field〈W 〉 is the only field presented beingantisymmetric with respect to the mid-planez/h = 0. The re-sults of the maximum errors on the grid are gathered in Table

III and are showing to be of the order of the error introducedby the space and time discretizations.

Variable Rel. diff. DSM Rel. diff. DMM Anti-/Symmetry

〈U〉 4.807e-04 6.696e-05 S〈V 〉 4.591e-04 3.014e-04 S〈W 〉 6.966e-05 4.129e-04 A〈P 〉 1.120e-04 7.333e-05 Sp〈u2〉 8.758e-05 8.899e-05 Sp〈v2〉 1.696e-03 7.764e-04 Sp〈w2〉 4.501e-04 8.447e-05 S〈uv〉 1.107e-04 2.236e-04 S

TABLE III: Quantitative assessment of the symmetry and anti-symmetry properties of some resolved average fields in the cavity;“Rel. diff.” stands for maximum relative difference

B. Under-resolved DNS and Smagorinsky model

Before providing the reader with a comprehensive reviewof results obtained for the two models LES-DSM and LES-DMM, partial results for the UDNS and the LES-SM are pre-sented in this section. These results correspond to the sameparameters as the one in Table I, except that the numberof iterations is33 000 corresponding to a simulation lengthof 66 h/U0—approximately one tenth of the total simulationtime of the LES-DSM and LES-DMM. Moreover, for theLES-SM the value of the Smagorinsky constantCS definedin Eq. (4) was taken equal to its theoretical value0.18, see[12] for greater details, and no wall-damping procedure wasimplemented for these preliminary simulations. The referenceresult is the DNS by Leriche and Gavrilakis [5] and is rep-resented by the solid line in the profiles in Figs. 4 and 5,whereas dashed (resp. dotted) lines refer to the UDNS (resp.LES-SM). The results in Figs. 4 and 5 are one-dimensionalprofiles of the average velocity field and its rms-fluctuationsin the mid-planez/h = 0. General conclusions can be drawnfrom all these figures. First, UDNS is totally inoperative intheparticular context of this simulation. Even first-order statisticssuch as〈U〉 and 〈V 〉 are far from being well predicted, notto mention rms-fluctuations. Second, the Smagorinsky modelLES-SM results show a real improvement in predicting thefields compared to the UDNS but as already known, the sim-plicity of this model does not allow to correctly predict thestiff physics of this simulation. These results justify theneedfor a more complex LES modeling such as LES-DSM andLES-DMM presented in the sequel.

C. Comparisons with available results

In this section, results of the LES-DSM and the LES-DMMare compared with the available reference experimental andnumerical results.

8

x/h1.00.50.0-0.5-1.0

0.035

0.015

-0.005

-0.025

y/h1.00.50.0-0.5-1.0

0.040

0.020

0.000

-0.020

FIG. 4: In the mid-planez/h = 0: 〈U〉 on the horizontal centerliney/h = 0 (top), 〈V 〉 on the vertical centerlinex/h = 0 (bottom):DNS (solid line), MILES (dashed line) and LES-SM (dotted line)

1. One-dimensional profiles

Of the previous work available in the literature on the lid-driven cubical cavity flow, the numerical DNS data fromLeriche and Gavrilakis [5], Leriche [36] and the experimentaldata of Prasad and Koseff [7] constitute the two main refer-ences. This work being an extension of the one by Leriche, itborrows from [5] the values of the main physical parameters—see Table I. The work from Prasad and Koseff [7] includesdata from a flow at Reynolds number similar to that of thepresent LES. The measurements that these authors reportedwere taken in the mid-planez/h = 0, which is a statisticalsymmetry plane of the flow domain. As it will be shown inthe sequel, the flow near the downstream secondary eddy—see Fig. 1—is not homogeneous in thez-direction. In the“turbulent” part of the cavity, the mid-plane is found to cutthrough surfaces of local minima in the intensity field withrapid changes occurring on both sides of it.

The set of experimental data corresponding to a Reynoldsnumber Re= 10 000 is used for the comparisons of the one-dimensional average velocity profiles along the vertical andhorizontal symmetry axes. It is important to note that no ex-perimental error-bars were given for any data. The only infor-mation related to the local experimental measurement erroris provided by the two crosses corresponding to two differ-ent measurements in the middle (x/h = 0 or y/h = 0) ofeach centerline—the velocity probing system going back andforth from this point [37]. In addition the experimental data ofPrasad and Koseff [7, 37] are obtained over a non-dimensionalaveraging time of 145.5 whereas the DNS (resp. LES) resultswere obtained over an averaging time of1 000 (resp.774). In

x/h1.00.50.0-0.5-1.0

0.060

0.040

0.020

0.000

y/h1.00.50.0-0.5-1.0

0.040

0.020

0.000

FIG. 5: In the mid-planez/h = 0:p

〈u2〉 on the horizontal cen-terline y/h = 0 (top),

p〈v2〉 on the vertical centerlinex/h = 0

(bottom): DNS (solid line), MILES (dashed line) and LES-SM (dot-ted line)

absence of local error-bars in the measurements, this may ex-plain the scattering (and possible non-convergence) of someexperimental data, together with practical difficulties ofac-curately measuring fluctuating fields in region of low or al-most constant velocity. A detailed analysis of the disparitybetween the numerical results and some experimental data canbe found in [4, 5].

For the sets of experimental and DNS data, the total ve-locity field is considered whereas in the case of LES, onlyits resolved part is presented. The legend for Figs. 6–10 isas follows: crosses refer to the experimental data of Prasadand Koseff, the solid lines to the DNS by Leriche and Gavri-lakis, the dashed lines to the LES-DSM and the dotted linesto the LES-DMM. All the data related to average and rms-fluctuations of the velocity field are expressed in terms of thevelocity scaleU0 and〈uv〉 in terms ofU2

0 .A discussion on the comparisons between the DNS refer-

ence results and the experimental ones is available in [5]. Inthe sequel, we will focus on comparing the LES-DSM andLES-DMM results with the DNS and experimental ones. Arapid overview of Figs. 6–10 indicates that both LES mod-els provide results very close to the DNS references, even forthe rms-fluctuations in Figs. 8 and 9 and above all for thecomponent〈uv〉 of the Reynolds stress in Fig. 10. The dif-ferences between the profiles of the two LES models and theDNS generally coincide with the existence of local extrema;maxima tend to be slightly over-estimated in the LES whereasminima are somewhat under-estimated. These two effects canbe partly justified by the reduced sampling in the LES-DSMand LES-DMM compared to the sampling of the DNS. Thisphenomenon have already been encountered and studied by

9

x/h1.00.50.0-0.5-1.0

0.015

0.005

-0.005

-0.015

-0.025

y/h1.00.50.0-0.5-1.0

1.000

0.600

0.200

-0.200

FIG. 6: In the mid-planez/h = 0: 〈U〉 on the horizontal centerliney/h = 0 (top),〈U〉 on the vertical centerlinex/h = 0 (bottom); Ex-periment (crosses), DNS (solid line), LES-DSM (dashed line), LES-DMM (dotted line)

x/h1.00.50.0-0.5-1.0

0.200

0.000

-0.200

-0.400

y/h1.00.50.0-0.5-1.0

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

-0.015

FIG. 7: In the mid-planez/h = 0: 〈V 〉 on the horizontal centerliney/h = 0 (top),〈V 〉 on the vertical centerlinex/h = 0 (bottom); Ex-periment (crosses), DNS (solid line), LES-DSM (dashed line), LES-DMM (dotted line)

Leriche in [4]. From these results it is not possible to rank be-tween themselves the performances of the LES-DSM and theLES-DMM.

x/h1.00.50.0-0.5-1.0

0.030

0.015

0.000

y/h1.00.50.0-0.5-1.0

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

FIG. 8: In the mid-planez/h = 0:p

〈u2〉 on the horizontal center-line y/h = 0 (top),

p〈u2〉 on the vertical centerlinex/h = 0 (bot-

tom); Experiment (crosses), DNS (solid line), LES-DSM (dashedline), LES-DMM (dotted line)

x/h1.00.50.0-0.5-1.0

0.090

0.060

0.030

0.000

y/h1.00.50.0-0.5-1.0

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

FIG. 9: In the mid-planez/h = 0:p

〈v2〉 on the horizontal center-line y/h = 0 (top),

p〈v2〉 on the vertical centerlinex/h = 0 (bot-

tom); Experiment (crosses), DNS (solid line), LES-DSM (dashedline), LES-DMM (dotted line)

2. Two-dimensional profiles

The comparisons with the DNS results started in Sec.III C 1 are now extended to the whole mid-planez/h = 0 byplotting identical series of contour levels of average velocity

10

x/h1.00.50.0-0.5-1.0

0.0010

0.0006

0.0002

-0.0002

y/h1.00.50.0-0.5-1.0

0.0000

-0.0002

-0.0004

-0.0006

-0.0008

FIG. 10: In the mid-planez/h = 0: 〈uv〉 on the horizontal center-line y/h = 0 (top), 〈uv〉 on the vertical centerlinex/h = 0 (bot-tom); Experiment (crosses), DNS (solid line), LES-DSM (dashedline), LES-DMM (dotted line)

components in Fig. 11 and of rms-fluctuations of the velocityin Fig. 12, for the DNS (left column), the LES-DSM (centralcolumn) and the LES-DMM (right column).

As previously noted with the one-dimensional profiles, theresults provided by the LES-DSM and LES-DMM are bothvery close to the reference DNS results. Secondary cornereddies located above the bottom wall and below the lid nextto the upstream wall are correctly captured in the mean flow.Other finer structures visible in Fig. 12 (bottom), for

√〈v2〉

near the upstream wall are also correctly captured by bothLES modelings. The rms-fluctuations of thex-componentuof the velocity field is accurately resolved just below the lidwhich is a high-gradient region for the mean flow. Moreover,in the region near the downstream wall where the wall jet—separated into two elliptical jets—are impinging on the bot-tom wall, the high gradients of velocity fluctuations are wellreproduced. As it will be presented in the following sections,the maximum of turbulence production belongs to this regionof the flow domain which will be indeed of particular interestin the remaining.

The flow below the lid and near the corner with the down-stream wall presents wiggles in the LES contours for〈V 〉, seeFig. 11 (bottom). Although less intense, these wiggles arealso noticeable on the contours for

√〈v2〉 at the same loca-

tion, see Fig. 12 (bottom). More limited effects are noticeablefor the equivalentx-component fields. These very limited de-fects in both simulations find their origin in a slight under-resolution of the spectral-element grid in this small region ofthe cavity where high gradients are present.

D. Physical parameters of the LES modeling

The LES modeling for both the LES-DSM and LES-DMMinvolves the calculation of two scalar fields, namely the dy-namic parameterCd and the eddy viscosityνsgs which areinter-related. As some values ofCd produced by the two dy-namic procedures (5) and (12) may locally reach relatively“high values” destabilizing the time-integration procedure forthe filtered Navier–Stokes computations. Hence it is commonto usead hocaveraging or limiting of the dynamic parame-ter Cd to ensure stability. Various procedures are reported inthe literature: averaging in homogeneous directions [14, 38],temporal smoothing [39], integral constraint [40], Lagrangianaveraging [41] and clipping [11, 29]. In the present work thelatter procedure of clipping is used. First the maximum ad-mitted value of the dynamic parameter wasCdmax = (0.18)2,0.18 corresponding to the theoretical value of the Smagorin-sky constant—see [12]. The negative values ofCd are alsoclipped and set to zero for the LES-DSM and LES-DMM. Theamount of grid points clipped is indeed very limited and cor-respond to0.2% and0.08% of the total number of grid pointsfor LES-DSM and LES-DMM respectively. It was found thatthe clipping ofCd to the interval comprised between−(0.18)2

and+(0.18)2—therefore allowing for local negative values ofthe eddy viscosity—was not affecting at all the stability ofthespectral-element filtered Navier–Stokes computation. Thedif-ference between the results with or without the negative val-ues ofCd was found to be negligible in the particular contextof the lid-driven cubical cavity flow which is related to thelimited amount of backscattering for this flow at a Reynoldsnumber of12 000.

Fig. 13 displays contour lines of the average eddy viscosityfor the LES-DSM in the mid-planez/h = 0 and in the planez/h = 0.241 where the maximum of average turbulent en-ergy dissipation rate was localized—cf. Sec. IV C for greaterdetails. First, theC0-continuity breakage in the inter-elementcontinuity is obvious—see Fig. 2 to compare with the spectralelement grid in the mid-plane—and is directly related to thediscontinuous nature of the filter length field∆ defined in Sec.II D 2, Eq. (32). The effect of such discontinuity of the sub-grid viscosity has been analyzed and discussed by Blackburnand Schmidt in [29] using the same numerical framework asours, namely the SEM. They found that the inter-element dis-continuity of the subgrid term does not have a noticeable ef-fect on their physical results which is confirmed by the presentwork. Finally, it appears clearly that the reasons for resortingto a dynamic procedure are fully justified by Fig. 13. Indeed,the dynamic procedure automatically turns on the dynamic pa-rameterCd which in turn activates subgrid-scale viscous ef-fects in the regions of the flow where turbulent dissipation atthe small-scales level occurs—see Sec. IV C.

Similar results are obtained for the eddy viscosity and thedynamic parameter in the case of the dynamic mixed modelLES-DMM. The same clipping procedure, with the same clip-ping values as described earlier for LES-DSM was imple-mented.

11

X

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

X

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

X

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

X

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

X

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

X

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

FIG. 11: Contours of average velocity in the mid-planez/h = 0; DNS (left), LES-DSM (center) and LES-DMM (right)—100 contours levelstaken between−0.4 and1 for 〈U〉 (top) and between−0.7 and0.2 for 〈V 〉 (bottom). Dashed contours lines correspond to negative levels

X

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

X

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

X

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

X

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

X

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

X

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

FIG. 12: Contours of rms-fluctuations of the velocity in the mid-planez/h = 0; DNS (left), LES-DSM (center) and LES-DMM (right); 20contours equally spaced between 0 and0.1 for

p〈u2〉 (top) and between0 and0.15 for

p〈v2〉 (bottom)

12

X

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

11.5E-06 1.9E-05 3.7E-05 5.5E-05 7.3E-05 9.1E-05

X

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

11.5E-06 1.9E-05 3.7E-05 5.5E-05 7.3E-05 9.1E-05

FIG. 13: Contours of the average eddy viscosity〈νsgs〉 for the LES-DSM in the mid-planez/h = 0 (left) and in the planez/h = 0.241(right); same series of contour levels is used in the two planes

IV. CHARACTERIZATION OF TURBULENCE IN THEFLOW

This section is devoted to a thorough analysis of some spe-cific features of the flow in the region of the cavity where tur-bulence occurs. The aims are to ensure that the LES-DSM andLES-DMM are both capable of reproducing the fine physicsobserved in these regions and also to gain insights in the tur-bulent mechanisms involved.

A. Inhomogeneity of turbulence

It is easily predictable that such a confined flow will pro-duce an inhomogeneous turbulence but it is worth determin-ing in greater details the turbulent inhomogeneous zones inthecavity. In order to access this information we use the averageturbulent energy dissipation rate〈ε〉 defined by

〈ε〉 =1

2ν

⟨(∂ui

∂xj+

∂uj

∂xi

) (∂ui

∂xj+

∂uj

∂xi

)⟩= 2ν〈SijSij〉.

(34)Here and in the sequel, we use index notation and the sum-mation convention, where repeated indices imply summa-tion. The velocity fluctuations being divergence-free, onecanrewrite

〈ε〉 = ν

⟨∂ui

∂xj

∂ui

∂xj

⟩+ ν

∂2〈uiuj〉

∂xi∂xj, (35)

which in turn can be recast in terms ofω the fluctuating vor-ticity, Ω being the total resolved vorticity field

〈ε〉 = ν〈ωiωi〉 + 2ν∂2〈uiuj〉

∂xi∂xj. (36)

We define the average difference〈δ〉 by the difference be-tween the average turbulent energy dissipation rate, dividedby ν, and the average fluctuating enstrophy

〈δ〉 =⟨ ε

ν

⟩− 〈ωiωi〉 = 2

∂2〈uiuj〉

∂xi∂xj. (37)

FIG. 14: Region of the cavity where the turbulent flow is inhomoge-neous according to the criterion|〈δ〉|/|〈δ〉max| > 1/100; LES-DMM

For homogeneous flow, the spatial derivatives of theReynolds stress components〈uiuj〉 are zero, and subse-quently〈δ〉 = 0. The average difference〈δ〉 was calculatedfor both databases LES-DSM and LES-DMM. Fig. 14 dis-plays a 3D view of the volume of the cavity where the flow isinhomogeneous according to the following heuristic criterion:|〈δ〉|/|〈δ〉max| > 1/100, where|〈δ〉DSM

max | = 159.8 U2

0/h2 and

|〈δ〉DMMmax | = 155.6 U2

0/h2. In other words, it shows the re-

gion of the flow where the inhomogeneity of the turbulence—measured by〈δ〉—is above 1% of its maximum absolutevalue.

As expected, one can observe in Fig. 15 that in the regionnear the downstream wall where the two primary elliptical jetsare impinging on the bottom wall, the flow is highly inhomo-geneous. More specifically, the inhomogeneity is more im-portant in the zone in between the two elliptical jets where theflow is ejected and recirculating. Likewise similar patternswith lower magnitudes are detected in the regions where thesecondary jets and the tertiary jets are impinging. The sec-ondary jets are impinging on the bottom of the upstream wallproducing an inhomogeneous turbulence visible in Fig. 15 forvalues ofx/h close to−1. For the tertiary jets, impinging onthe upstream part of the lid, the inhomogeneity is only visiblein the 3D view in Fig. 14.

13

X

Z

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

X

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

FIG. 15: Contours of〈δ〉 in the planey/h = −0.968 just abovethe bottom wall (left) and in the mid-planez/h = 0 (right); 100equally spaced contours corresponding to levels between the thresh-old 0.01|〈δ〉max|; dashed contours correspond to negative levels witha colormap ranging from blue to red; LES-DMM

B. The turbulence production near the downstream wall

As mentioned by Leriche and Gavrilakis in [5], the largestturbulence production rates in the cavity are to be found in theprimary elliptical jets parallel to the downstream wall, near theimpact points just above the bottom wall. The budget equa-tions of the resolved second-order moments〈uiuj〉 govern-ing the turbulence energetics—see [42] and [43] for greaterdetails—comprise a term named herePij , defined by

Pij = −〈uiuk〉∂〈Uj〉

∂xk− 〈ujuk〉

∂〈Ui〉

∂xk, (38)

and corresponding to the interaction of the resolved mean flowand the resolved Reynolds stress tensor.Pij can be interpretedas responsible for the production of Reynolds stresses or inother words for the production of turbulence.

1. Maximum of turbulence production near the downstream wall

In the specific case of the separated downstream-wall jet,the termP22 is the largest out of the set of turbulence pro-duction termsPij. After probing in the cavity, the max-ima of the resolved fieldP22 is to be found in the planey/h = −0.9388 just at a very short distance above the bottomwall. The maximum values obtained areP DSM

22max= 0.070 U3

0/h

andP DMM22max

= 0.064 U3

0/h. The contours of the turbulence

production termP22 in this planey/h = −0.9388 are shownin Fig. 16 for both LES models. First, it can be noted thatthese contours are qualitatively very close to the ones obtainedby Leriche and Gavrilakis in [5]. Forx/h > 0.5, the distri-bution of contours of the production of turbulence allow toclearly visualize the trace of the separated elliptical jets.

2. Time histories and power spectra at the maximum of turbulenceproduction

In Fig. 16, one can notice that for each LES model, onegrid point—identical for both DSM and DMM—has been

X

Z

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

X

Z

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

FIG. 16: Contours of resolved the production of turbulence termP22 in the planey/h = −0.9388; LES-DSM (top) and LES-DMM(bottom); 20 contour levels equally spaced between−0.025 U3

0 /hand0.070 U3

0 /h; dashed lines refer to negative contour levels; bulletpoints• refer to the same grid node of coordinates (x/h = 0.7874,y/h = −0.9388, z/h = 0.3371)

highlighted with a bullet point•. This point denoted byΘ0

whose coordinates arex/h = 0.7874, y/h = −0.9388,z/h = 0.3371, is the closest grid point to the two maximaof P22 for LES-DSM and LES-DMM. The pointΘ0 providesthe optimal search position for probing time histories of vari-ous turbulent fields in the sequel.

First, the values of thex-component of the fluctuating re-solved velocity fieldu, of the fluctuating resolved pressurepand the resolved turbulent kinetic energyk = uiui/2, havebeen extracted of the LES-DSM database for each and everysample. These time histories are shown in Fig. 17—note thatonly the last1 024 samples out of the total of1 290 that con-stitutes the database are presented.

Based on these results the corresponding power spectrahave been computed by fast Fourier transform—a posteriorijustifying the choice of1 024 samples in the previous timehistories—and are presented in Fig. 18. The scattering ofpoints in the high-wavenumberω zone is expected for spectraof non-spatially average fields. For such inhomogeneous flowwith highly localized turbulent effects, averaging in space the

14

non-dimensional timet774697.2620.4543.6466.8390313.2236.4

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

(a)

(b)

(c)

FIG. 17: Time histories ofp (graph(a) shifted of+0.25), the turbu-lent kinetic energyk (graph(b)) andu (graph(c) shifted of−0.25),at the point of coordinates(0.7874,−0.9388, 0.3371); LES-DSMdatabase

(a)

1e-11

1e-10

1e-09

1e-08

1e-07

1e-06

1e-05

1e-04

1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512ω

rr r

r r

r

r

r

rr

r

rrr

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

rrr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rrr

r

r

r

rrr

rr

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

rrrrr

r

rr

rr

rr

rr

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

rr

r

r

r

rrrrrr

rrrrrr

r

r

rr

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

rr

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rrr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

rr

r

r

r

rrrr

rr

r

r

rr

r

rrr

r

r

r

r

r

rrrr

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

rr

rr

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

rr

r

r

rrr

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

rrr

r

r

r

r

rr

rrrrrr

r

rr

rrrrrr

rrr

r

rrr

r

r

rrrr

r

r

r

r

r

rrrr

rr

rr

r

rr

r

r

rrrr

r

rrrr

rr

r

r

r

r

rrrrr

rr

r

r

rrr

r

rr

r

rrrr

r

rrr

r

rr

r

r

rr

r

rrrr

r

rrr

r

rr

r

rrr

rrrr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rrrr

rr

r

r

rrrrr

rrr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

rrrrr

rr

r

r

r

rr

r

r

rrr

rrr

rr

rrrrr

rr

r

r

r

rr

rr

rrr

r

rr

rr

rr

rrrr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

rrr

r

rr

r

rrrrrr

rrrr

r

rr

rr

r

rrrrrr

r

rr

rr

rr

r

rrr

rrrr

(b)

1e-11

1e-10

1e-09

1e-08

1e-07

1e-06

1e-05

1e-04

1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512ω

r rr r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

rrr

rr

r

r

r

rrrr

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

rrrrr

rr

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

rr

r

r

rrrr

rr

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rrr

r

rr

r

r

r

rr

rrr

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rrr

rr

rrr

r

rr

r

r

rr

rrrr

r

r

r

r

rrrrrr

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

rr

r

rrrr

r

rrrr

r

r

r

r

rr

rr

r

r

r

r

rr

r

rr

rr

r

r

r

rr

rr

r

r

rr

r

r

rr

r

rr

r

r

r

r

rrr

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

rr

r

r

r

rr

r

rr

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

rr

rrr

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rrr

r

r

rr

r

r

rr

rr

rrr

r

r

rr

r

r

rr

r

r

r

rrrr

r

rr

rrrrr

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

rrr

rr

rr

r

r

r

rr

rrr

r

rrr

r

r

r

rrrr

r

r

rr

rr

rrr

r

rrrr

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

rrrr

r

r

r

r

rrr

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

rr

rrrr

r

r

rr

rr

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rrr

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

rr

r

r

rr

rr

r

r

rrr

rr

rrr

r

r

rrr

r

r

rr

rr

r

r

r

r

rr

r

rr

rrrr

rr

r

r

r

(c)

1e-11

1e-10

1e-09

1e-08

1e-07

1e-06

1e-05

1e-04

1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512ω

rr r

rr

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

rrr

r

r

rrrrrrrr

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

rr

r

rrrr

rrr

rr

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

rrrrrrrr

r

r

rrrr

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

rr

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

rrrr

r

r

r

rr

r

r

rr

r

rrr

rr

r

r

r

rr

rr

r

rr

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

rrrr

r

rrr

r

r

r

r

r

r

rrrrr

rr

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

rrr

r

r

r

r

r

rrrr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rrr

rrrrr

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rrrrrrr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

rr

r

r

rr

r

r

r

rrr

r

r

rr

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rrrr

rrr

r

rrr

r

r

rr

r

rrr

r

rr

rr

r

rr

r

r

rrrr

rr

r

rrr

rrr

rr

r

rrr

r

rr

rr

rr

r

rrr

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

rrrr

rr

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

rr

r

r

r

rrr

r

r

rr

rrr

r

rr

r

r

r

r

r

rr

rr

rr

r

r

rr

r

rr

rr

r

rrr

r

r

rr

r

r

r

rr

rr

r

r

r

r

rrrr

r

rrrrr

rrr

r

rrr

rrr

r

rr

rr

rr

r

r

r

r

r

r

rrr

r

rr

rr

r

rr

rrrr

r

r

rrr

r

r

r

rrrr

r

FIG. 18: Power spectra for the fluctuating pressurep (a), the tur-bulent kinetic energyk (b), and the fluctuating velocity fieldu (c),obtained from the time histories in Fig. 17; LES-DSM database

fields not only pleasantly reduce the scattering of points butconcurrently strongly modifies the high-wavenumber scalingwhich is the main source of information brought by the spec-tra. Nevertheless, the spectra offer a qualitative informationregarding the Eulerian time scales of the spatial structures ofturbulence convected past the pointΘ0. The resolved meanflow depicted in Fig. 19—highlighting the presence of thecore central primary vortex and secondary corner vortices—serves merely to convect turbulence at the bullet-spotted pointΘ0. A careful scrutinizing of the resolved mean flow in thevicinity of Θ0 shows that this point is exactly positioned atthe “interface” between the core central vortex and the bottomcorner vortex. The power spectra in Fig. 18 feature the distri-

FIG. 19: Two-dimensional projected average resolved velocity vec-tors in the mid-planez/h = 0 (top) and in the planey/h = −0.9388(bottom); bullet point refers toΘ0; LES-DSM; bullet points• refer tothe same grid node of coordinates (x/h = 0.7874, y/h = −0.9388,z/h = 0.3371)

bution of frequencies—or equivalently of time scales. Thesefrequenciesω refer to the convection pastΘ0 of turbulentstructures of size of orderℓ at a velocity of order〈U〉(Θ0),leading to the relation

ω =〈U〉(Θ0)

ℓ. (39)

The average resolved velocity field atΘ0 being given, the

15

spectra hence instruct us on the distribution of spatial scalesof resolved turbulent structures convected by the mean flowat this point where the production of turbulence is maximum.Unfortunately, the relatively low sampling of the LES-DSMdatabase and the not-long-enough simulation range intervaldoes not permit to reach the highest frequencies of the orderof 〈U〉(Θ0)/∆ where∆ is the filter length—see Eq. (32)—defining the LES scale separation.

3. Determination of coherent structures responsible for the peaksof turbulence production

In an attempt to provide a comprehensive and thorough as-sessment of the performances of both LES models, the deter-mination of the coherent structures responsible for the intenseturbulence production at the pointΘ0 has been envisaged asan ultimate challenge for both SGS modeling. The first steptowards this goal necessitates to study the instantaneous dis-tribution of the resolved term−v2∂〈V 〉/∂y which was foundto be the predominant term inP22, see [5]. Fig. 20 displaysthe time histories of this term for the DNS, LES-DSM andLES-DMM. Both LES present a limited number of high-valuepeaks which are assumed to be engendered by specific coher-ent vortices or large eddies. The intensity of the peaks pro-duced by the LES-DMM is lower than those generated by theLES-DSM. This is supposed to be due to an over-evaluation ofthe eddy viscosity by the dynamic procedure of the DMM. Inaddition, this is consistent with the observation made in Sec.IV B 1 whereP DMM

22max< P DSM

22maxwas found and with the values

of resolved〈K〉 and〈κ〉 in Table II.In order to finally characterize possible large eddies which

would be responsible for these peaks, database samples pro-ducing a resolved term−v2∂〈V 〉/∂y above the thresholdvalue0.15 U3

0/h were put aside to form a subset of the com-

plete databases. The size of the subset of samples for LES-DSM (resp. LES-DMM) is approximately6% (resp.5%) ofthe size of the complete database. Based on these two subsetsa conditional averaging of the streamwise resolved vorticityfield Ωx is performed. Fig. 21 displays the contours of thisquantity in the vicinity ofΘ0—the domain represented corre-sponds to only4% of the surface of a normal section of thecavity—for both models. Two counter-rotating vortices areclearly exhibited by both models, together with the intensein-fluenced shear layers laying on the bottom wall aty/h = −1.This vortex pair is identified as the coherent eddy responsiblefor the turbulence peaks and production in this region. Thecharacteristic length scale of this large eddy is of the orderof 0.1h. Having identified this vortex pair we can further an-alyze the time histories atΘ0 of the resolved pressure andthe resolved turbulent kinetic energy depicted on Fig. 17,graph(a) and (b) respectively. One can notice that the in-tense peaks of the resolved term−v2∂〈V 〉/∂y on Fig. 20correspond to intense peaks of resolved turbulent kinetic en-ergy on Fig. 17(b) and to low-pressure peaks on Fig. 17(a). The vortex pairs generated by this turbulent flow areresponsible for the low pressures and the high turbulent ki-netic energy thereby justifying the observed correlationsbe-

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

−v2 ∂〈V 〉

∂y

non-dimensional timet

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

−v2 ∂〈V 〉

∂y

non-dimensional timet

non-dimensional timet

−v2∂〈V 〉

∂y

8007006005004003002001000

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

FIG. 20: Time histories of the resolved term−v2∂〈V 〉/∂y in U3

0 /hunits for the DNS (green), LES-DSM (red) and the LES-DMM(blue); the dotted lines represent the threshold value0.15 U3

0 /h

tween these three time histories. Moreover the intensity ofthevortex pair calculated by the LES-DSM is again higher thanthe one from the LES-DMM:〈ΩDSM

x 〉camax = 18.6 U0/h and〈ΩDMM

x 〉camax = 14.0 U0/h, where the subscript “ca” stands forconditionally averaged. The intensity, the more regular struc-ture and the localization of the vortex pair are three featuressuggesting that the dynamic Smagorinsky model provides abetter SGS modeling than the dynamic mixed model. Never-theless, the DMM performances in terms of SGS modeling aremore than satisfactory. When considering the complete aver-aging of thex-component of the resolved vorticity field in theregion where the vortex pair has been localized by conditionalaveraging, see Fig. 21,〈Ωx〉 was found almost constant andof magnitude approximately0.9 U0/h.

16

Z

Y

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5-1

-0.9

-0.8

-0.7

Z

Y

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5-1

-0.9

-0.8

-0.7

FIG. 21: Contours of the conditionally averaged resolved vorticityfield 〈Ωx〉ca in the planex/h = 0.7874 for the LES-DSM (left) andthe LES-DMM (right); dashed lines refer to negative contourlevels

C. Small-scales turbulent structures

A characteristic of high-Reynolds-number turbulence isthat the vorticity possesses intense small-scale, random vari-ations in both space and time. The spatial scale for vortic-ity fluctuations is the smallest in the continuum of turbulentscales, i.e the Kolmogorov scale. Analogously to the vortic-ity fluctuations, for large-Reynolds-number turbulence veloc-ity gradients∂ui/∂xj are also dominated by the small scalesof turbulence and the overall energy dissipation rate of kineticenergy is dominated by the average turbulent energy dissipa-tion rate〈ε〉 defined in Eq. (34). In the LES framework, theinterest for small scales is twofold. First, small scales fall intothe range of subgrid scales and therefore are not simulated butwholly modeled to properly reproduce their interactions withlarger resolved scales of the flow. Second, the small scaleshave the crucial role to terminate the turbulent energy cascadeby dissipating the energy originating from large eddies. Anin-correct SGS modeling will produce either an over-dissipationor conversely an under-dissipation of kinetic energy. The timehistories of the total kinetic energy of the cavity flowK(t)and of the total turbulent fluctuating energyκ(t) presented inFig. 3 are in this framework a precious proof of the correctglobal prediction of the energy dissipation by the modeledsmall scales in volume.

1. Localization of small-scales structures

In this context, it appears relevant to first locate small-scalesturbulent structures in the cavity and afterwards to check thecorrelation between the small-scales positioning and the ac-tivation of the SGS modeling represented in Fig. 13. Smallscales can be indirectly localized by investigating the zonesof intense average turbulent energy dissipation rate. Indeed〈ε〉 involves products of fluctuating velocity gradients, see Eq.(34). First qualitatively, the region of the cavity flow corre-sponding to values of〈ε〉 above1% of its maximum value isshown in Fig. 22 for the LES-DMM. As foreseen, the wall-jet-impinging regions are subject to intense turbulent energy dis-sipation at the small-scales level. The two-dimensional cutsin Fig. 23 offer a more detailed information regarding the in-tensity of 〈ε〉 in four different planes of specific interest. It

FIG. 22: Visualization of the region of the cavity where the averageturbulent energy dissipation rate〈ε〉 is above1% of its maximumvalue3 570 νU2

0 /h2; LES-DMM

is worth keeping in mind that the more intense〈ε〉 the moresmall scales are involved in the dissipation process. Fig. 23displays with decreasing intensity, the dissipation due totheimpingements of the separated wall jets on the bottom wall(bottom-left), on the upstream wall (bottom-right) and on thelid-plane (top-left). It appears that the LES-DSM is not ableto properly reproduce the same intensity for the two symmet-ric jets impinging on the upstream wall (bottom-right). Thesame asymmetry in the intensity of〈ε〉 is observed for theLES-DMM which could presumably be due to the observedasymmetry—with respect to the mid-plane—of the eddy vis-cosities generated by the dynamic procedures of both SGSmodeling.

In Fig. 23 (bottom-left), one can notice that one grid pointhas been highlighted with a black rectangle. This pointdenoted byΞ0 whose coordinates arex/h = 0.7685, y/h =−1, z/h = 0.2410, is the closest grid point to the maximum of〈ε〉 for LES-DSM. The pointΞ0 provides the optimal searchposition for probing small-scales related fields. The plane-cutz/h = 0.241—passing byΞ0—of 〈ε〉 in Fig. 23 (top-right)exhibits a qualitative correlation with the same plane-cutforthe average eddy viscosity〈νsgs〉 in Fig. 13 (right).

2. Correlation between small-scales localization and eddyviscosity

Such correlation between the small-scales localization andthe activation of the LES dynamic Smagorinsky modeling isimportant in practice to ensure the effectiveness of the SGSmodeling. Therefore a more quantitative approach is required,which relies on the calculation of a correlation field based onthe instantaneous values ofε andνsgs. The following correla-tion coefficientC, defined by

C = C(ε, νsgs) =〈ε νsgs〉 − 〈ε〉〈νsgs〉

(〈ε′′2〉〈ν′′2sgs〉)

1/2, (40)

17

X

Z

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

112 80 148 216 284 352

X

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1 1 52 103 154 205 256

X

Z

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1 0 1200 2400 3600

Z

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1 0 28 60 92 125 157

FIG. 23: Two-dimensional contour lines of〈ε〉 in the followingplanes: lid-planey/h = 1 (top-left), planez/h = 0.241 (top-right),bottom-planey/h = −1 (bottom-left), upstream-planex/h = −1(bottom-right); LES-DSM; black rectangle refers to the grid nodeof coordinates (x/h = 0.7685, y/h = −1, z/h = 0.2410)

where′′ stands for the fluctuating part of the considered field,was calculated for the complete set of samples LES-DSM.

FIG. 24: Contours of the correlation coefficientC in the planez/h =0.241 containing the pointΞ0; LES-DSM

Contours ofC in the planez/h = 0.241, passing byΞ0 arepresented in Fig. 24. The high-correlation zones reproducein essence the turbulent-dominated regions of the cavity andeven suggest the mean-flow convective effect of the centralcore vortex and other secondary corner vortices on the tur-bulent pockets. Nevertheless, higher correlations would havebeen expected in the vicinity ofΞ0. Such low correlationsare evidences of the limitations of the LES in this region ofthe cavity flow. Conversely, the high correlations near the up-stream wall are in good agreement with the small-scales lo-

calization. More precisely the poor correlation in the vicinityof Ξ0 is imputed to the fact that in this region, the termSijSij

in the turbulent energy dissipation rate—see Eq. (34)—variesvery rapidly in space likewise the eddy viscosity. At this point,the information provided by the analysis of the subgrid-scaleactivity in the next section is a good complement to the previ-ous correlation study.

3. Subgrid-scale activity

The filtered kinetic energy can be decomposed into the ki-netic energy of the resolved velocity field and the residual ki-netic energy which is equal toτii/2. The conservation equa-tion for the kinetic energy of the resolved velocity field—seepp. 585–586 in [43] for greater details—comprises transportterms as well as source/sink terms which are of prime inter-est. First is the sink termǫν = 2νSijSij = 2SijSij/Recorresponding to the viscous dissipation associated with theresolved velocity field. The second sink termǫsgs = −τd

ijSij

corresponds to the SGS contribution and represents the rateoftransfer of energy from the resolved scales of the flow to thesubgrid scales. This termǫsgs is often inappropriately referredto as the SGS dissipation in the literature. Indeedǫsgs doesnot correspond to any physical dissipation but finds its originin inertial processes. In addition, it is important to note thatlocally ǫsgscan take negative values.

The SGS activity, denoted byAsgs in the sequel, allows tostudy the local energy fluxes due to the SGS effects. Follow-ing Geurts and Frohlich in [44] and Meyerset al. in [45],Asgs

is defined as

Asgs=ǫsgs

ǫsgs+ ǫν=

−τdijSij

−τdijSij + 2νSijSij

. (41)

The SGS activityAsgsmeasures the importance of the subgridscales in the overall dissipation process of the kinetic energyof the resolved velocity field. As mentioned by Meyerset al.in [45], the SGS activity varies between zero and one wherea value of zero corresponds to DNS andAsgs = 1 is asso-ciated with LES at infinite Reynolds number. Moreover thevalue ofAsgs is directly related to the filter width∆ and mea-sures the “distance” between a DNS resolving all flow fea-tures at sufficiently high spatial resolution and an actual LEScorresponding to a specific filter width and mesh spacing. Inthe particular case of the LES-DSM, the SGS sink term is

ǫsgs= 2νsgsSijSij = 2Cd∆2

|S|SijSij , leading to

ADSMsgs =

νsgs

νsgs+ ν=

Cd∆2

|S|/ν

1 + Cd∆2

|S|/ν. (42)

Fig. 25 displays the average value〈Asgs〉 of the SGS ac-tivity in the planez/h = 0.241 containingΞ0 and where theturbulent energy dissipation rate is maximum. First, it appearsthat the SGS activity is slightly higher for the LES-DMM thanfor the LES-DSM. Moreover, it appears very clearly that theSGS modeling is activated in the region of the cavity where

18

the different wall jets are present, with maxima in the im-pingement zones. The LES-DMM is more effective in acti-vating the subgrid scales in these particular zones. In the zonewhere the tertiary wall jet is impinging on the lid, SGS dissi-pation for the LES-DSM is less than25% of the total dissipa-tion, whereas it is above45% for the LES-DMM.

FIG. 25: Contours of the average SGS activity〈Asgs〉 in the planez/h = 0.241 containing the pointΞ0: LES-DSM (top) and LES-DMM(bottom); same series of contour levels is used for both models

D. Helical properties of the cavity flow

The helicityH of the fluid flow confined in the cavityV atinstantt is defined by

H(t) =

∫

V

u · ω dV , (43)

and is a measure of linkages and knots between the vorticitylines of the flow. The quantityh(x, t) = u · ω is the helicitydensity and is a pseudo-scalar quantity just likeH. The he-licity is an important flow quantity because just like the totalenergy of the flowK, it is an invariant of three-dimensionalhomogeneous turbulence [46]. The study of the resolved he-licity H and the average resolved helicity density〈h〉 in theparticular context of the lid-driven cavity flow in a locally-turbulent regime allows to gain insights into very importantfeatures of the turbulence dynamics [46]. For instance TGLvortices and secondary corner eddies are structures encoun-tered in the lid-driven cavity flow which are well known astypical helical structures.

X

Z

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1 -0.4 -0.2 -0.1 0.1 0.3

Z

Y

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1 -0.8 -0.5 -0.3 -0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8

FIG. 26: Contours of the average resolved helicity density〈h〉 inthe bottom planey/h = −1 (left) and in the planex/h = 0.7874containingΘ0; LES-DSM

Mappings of the average resolved helicity density in Fig. 26allows to locate resolved helical coherent structures (HCS).These HCS are particularly intense in the secondary-corner-eddy region and are consistent with the experimentally ob-served typical HCS, namely streamwise counter-rotating vor-tices [47]. This pairing of coherent helical structures corre-spond to a pairing of coherent vortical structures having oppo-site vorticity and consequently opposite helicity. Such obser-vation justifies the relatively small—but non-zero—resolvedaverage helicity reached by both LES models:〈HDSM〉 =0.00764 U2

0h2 and〈HDMM 〉 = −0.00572 U2

0h2. Smaller HCS

have been identified earlier in Sec. IV B 3, where stream-wise counter-rotating vortices—cf. Fig. 21—near the bot-tom wall, have been identified by the conditional averagingas the principal coherent structures responsible for the high-intensity peaks in the production of turbulence in this regionof the flow. Finally, it is noteworthy to emphasize the stronglink between average resolved helicity density contours andaverage resolved turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate onesin Fig. 23.

non-dimensional timet7006005004003002001000

0.10

0.05

0.00

-0.05

-0.10

FIG. 27: Time histories ofH(t) for the LES-DSM (red lines) and theLES-DMM (blue lines)

As mentioned previously the average resolved helicity ofthe flow is non-zero. The time histories of the resolved helic-ity for the whole simulations are shown in Fig. 27 for bothLES-DSM and LES-DMM. In Sec. III A was mentioned thatboth SGS models start being effective and producing differ-ent global results after a transient period of about80 h/U0

19

time units, and likewise the helicity as can be seen in Fig.27. Moreover, the amplitude of the resolved helicity fluctua-tions is not decaying during the simulation and the LES-DMMqualitatively produces more high-amplitude negative helicalvalues therefore justifying its negative average value.

1e-01

1e+00

1e+01

16 32 64 128 256 512k

FIG. 28: One-dimensional relative helicity spectrumα(bk); LES-DMM

Helicity, like energy, is cascaded from large scales down tothe Kolmogorov dissipation scale, where it is destroyed. Un-fortunately, the relatively low Reynolds number of both LESdoes not permit the determination of quantitative scalingsofenergy and helicity spectra which could be compared to theKolmogorov scalings ink−5/3 in helical three-dimensionalhomogeneous isotropic turbulence, as mentioned by Borueand Orszag in [48]. In the same paper, Borue and Orszag con-clude that helicity is inherently a large-scale quantity whichbehaves similarly to a passive scalar. Consequently the one-dimensional relative helicity spectrum defined by

α(k) =H(k)

2k K(k), (44)

whereH (resp. K) is the one-dimensional resolved helicity(resp. energy) spectrum, decreases at small scales. Even ifinour context, the turbulence is not homogeneous nor isotropic,the previous assertion is undeniably verified by both LES ascan be seen only for the LES-DMM in Fig. 28, for high val-ues ofk corresponding to small scales. Similar relative he-licity spectrum is obtained for the LES-DSM. This suggeststhat the decreasing trend at small scales of the relative helicityspectrum is more general and not only limited to the homo-geneous and isotropic turbulence theoretical framework, justlike the Kolmogorov scale in the inertial range.

V. CONCLUSIONS

The long-integration results of two LES of the lid-drivencubical cavity flow at a Reynolds number of12 000 have beenpresented for two dynamic subgrid-scale models, namely adynamic Smagorinsky model and a dynamic mixed model.

These simulations were based on an accurate spectral-elementspatial discretization, having two times less points per spacedirection than the direct numerical simulation reference re-sult from Leriche and Gavrilakis [5]. All filtering levels intro-duced in both SGS modelings rely on explicit modal filters inthe spectral space, retainingC0-continuity of the numerical so-lution of the filtered Navier–Stokes equations. An additionalnodal filter was used to stabilize both LES. Time-averagingwas shown to be equivalent to ensemble-averaging, with re-spect to the global precision level of the numerical integration.

Partial simulation results using the UDNS and theSmagorinsky model as subgrid-scale models, have served toprove the necessity of a dynamic SGS procedure. Full LESresults for both dynamic models have shown very good agree-ment with the DNS reference results. The agreement with theexperimental reference results from Prasad and Koseff [7] isqualitatively good.

At a Reynolds number of12 000, the lid-driven cavity flowis placed in a locally turbulent regime and such turbulent flowis proved to be highly inhomogeneous in the secondary-cornerregions of the cavity where turbulence production and dissi-pation are important. The maximum production of turbulencewas found to be located in the downstream-corner-eddy re-gion just above the bottom wall. An analysis of the spectra ofturbulent quantities at this point allowed us to determine thedistribution of the scales of the turbulent structures convectedpast this maximum. Moreover, both LES were able to capturethe coherent counter-rotating pair of vortices which are mainlyresponsible for the peaks of turbulence production still atthispoint. LES-DSM have shown globally more intense and betterresults than the LES-DMM in this matter.

Small-scales turbulent structures were located indirectly bystudying the regions of intense turbulent energy dissipationrateε. The eddy-viscosity field was shown to be strongly cor-related toε in the turbulent areas of the flow, but the clippingprocedure—necessary for stabilizing the numerics—imposedto the dynamic parameters strongly diminishes this correla-tion in the intense turbulent zones. Subgrid-scales activity hasbeen analyzed and the higher SGS activity is associated withthe LES-DMM.

Helical properties of the flow were investigated. Typicalhelical coherent structures were identified in the secondary-corner regions. These structures appear to be correlated tothe turbulent energy dissipation rateε. The relative helicityspectra is shown to be decreasing at small scales, which is inagreement with the theoretical results from Borue and Orszag[48] for the three-dimensional isotropic inhomogeneous tur-bulence.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Prof. Pierre Sagaut forfruitful discussions.

This research is being partially funded by a Swiss NationalScience Fundation Grant (No. 200020–101707), whose sup-port is gratefully acknowledged.

The DNS data were obtained on supercomputing facilities

20

at the Swiss National Supercomputing Center CSCS and the LESdata on Pleiades cluster at EPFL–ISE.

[1] P N Shankar and M D Deshpande. Fluid Mechanics in theDriven Cavity.Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 32:93–136, 2000.

[2] S Albensoeder and H C Kuhlmann. Accurate three-dimensionallid-driven cavity flow.J. Comp. Phys., 206:536–558, 2005.

[3] R Iwatsu, K Ishii, T Kawamura, K Kuwahara, and J M Hyun.Numerical simulation of three-dimensional flow structure in adriven cavity.Fluid. Dyn. Res., 5(3):173–189, 1989.

[4] E Leriche.Direct numerical simulation of lid-driven cavity flowby a Chebyshev spectral method. PhD thesis, no. 1932,EcolePolytechnique Federale de Lausanne, 1999.

[5] E Leriche and S Gavrilakis. Direct numerical simulationof theflow in the lid-driven cubical cavity.Phys. Fluids., 12:1363–1376, 2000.

[6] J R Koseff and R L Street. The lid-driven cavity flow: A synthe-sis of qualitative and quantitative observations.J. Fluids Eng.-Transactions ASME, 106:390–398, 1984.

[7] A K Prasad and J R Koseff. Reynolds number and end-walleffects on a lid-driven cavity flow.Phys. Fluids., 1(2):208–218,1989.

[8] C K Chen and DTW Lin. TIP4P potential for lid-driven cavityflow. Acta Mechanica, 178:223–237, 2005.

[9] N-Z He, N-C Wang, B-C Shi, and Z-L Guo. A unified in-compressible lattice BGK model and its application to three-dimensional lid-driven cavity flow. Chin. Phys., 13:40–46,2004.

[10] Y Zang, R L Street, and J R Koseff. Application of a dynamicsubgrid-scale model to turbulent recirculating flows. InAnnualResearch Briefs, volume 85. Center for Turbulence Research,Stanford University/NASA–Ames, 1992.

[11] Y Zang, R L Street, and J R Koseff. A dynamic mixed subgrid-scale model and its application to turbulent recirculatingflows.Phys. Fluids A, 5:3186–3193, 1993.

[12] P Sagaut.Large eddy simulation for incompressible flows: anintroduction. Springer, Berlin, 3rd edition, 2005.

[13] J S Smagorinsky. General circulation experiments withtheprimitive equations. I: The basic experiment.Month. Weath.Rev., 91:99–165, 1963.

[14] M Germano, U Piomelli, P Moin, and W H Cabot. A dynamicsubgrid-scale eddy viscosity model.Phys. Fluids A, 3:1760–1765, 1991.

[15] R Bouffanais, M O Deville, P F Fischer, E Leriche, and D Weill.Large-eddy simulation of the lid-driven cubic cavity flow bythespectral element method.J. Sci. Comput., 27:151–162, 2006.

[16] J Bardina, J H Ferziger, and W C Reynolds. Improved turbu-lence models based on large eddy simulation of homogeneous,incompressible, turbulent flows. Technical Report TF-19, Ther-mal Sciences Division, Department of Mechanical Engineering,Stanford University, Stanford, 1983.

[17] S Liu, C Meneveau, and J Katz. On the properties of similar-ity subgrid-scale models as deduced from measurements in aturbulent jet.J. Fluid Mech., 275:83–119, 1994.

[18] B Vreman, B Geurts, and H Kuerten. On the formulation of thedynamic mixed subgrid-scale model.Phys. Fluids., 6:4057–4059, 1994.

[19] M V Salvetti and S Banerjee. A priori tests of a new dy-namic subgrid-scale model for finite-difference large eddysim-ulations.Phys. Fluids., 9:2831–2847, 1997.

[20] K Horiuti. A new dynamic two-parameter mixed model for

large-eddy simulation.Phys. Fluids., 9:3443–3464, 1997.[21] Y Morinishi and O V Vasilyev. A recommended modification

to the dynamic two-parameter mixed subgrid scale model forlarge eddy simulation of wall bounded turbulent flow.Phys.Fluids., 13:3400–3410, 2001.

[22] B Vreman, B Geurts, and H Kuerten. Large-eddy simulation ofthe turbulent mixing layer.J. Fluid Mech., 339:357–390, 1997.

[23] G S Winckelmans, A A Wray, O V Vasilyev, and H Jean-mart. Explicit-filtering large-eddy simulation using the tensor-diffusivity model supplemented by a dynamic Smagorinskyterm. Phys. Fluids., 13:1385–1403, 2001.

[24] S Ghosal. An analysis of numerical error in large-eddy simula-tion of turbulence.J. Comp. Phys., 125:187–206, 1996.

[25] M Germano. A proposal for a redefinition of the turbulentstresses in the filtered Navier–Stokes equations.Phys. Fluids.,29:2323–2324, 1986.

[26] M O Deville, P F Fischer, and E H Mund.High-order meth-ods for incompressible fluid flow. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 2002.

[27] Y Maday and A T Patera.Spectral element methods for theincompressible Navier–Stokes equations, pages 71–142. State-of-the-Art Survey on Computational Mechanics, A. K. Noor &J. T. Oden Eds. ASME, New-York, 1989.

[28] Y Maday, A T Patera, and E M Rønquist. ThePN × PN−2

method for the approximation of the Stokes problem. TechnicalReport 92009, Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT,Cambridge, MA, 1992.

[29] H M Blackburn and S Schmidt. Spectral element filtering tech-niques for large eddy simulation with dynamic estimation.J.Comp. Phys., 186:610–629, 2003.

[30] G S Karamanos, S J Sherwin, and J F Morrison.Large eddysimulation using unstructured spectral/hp elements. in RecentAdvances in DNS and LES, D. Knight & L. Sakell. KluwerAcademic, Dordrecht/Norwell, MA, 1999.

[31] J B Perot. An analysis of the fractional step method.J. Comp.Phys., 108:51–58, 1993.

[32] A M Gomilko, V S Malyuga, and V V Meleshko. On steadyStokes flow in a trihedral rectangular corner.J. Fluid Mech.,476:159–177, 2003.

[33] P F Fischer and J S Mullen. Filter-based stabilization of spectralelement methods.Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des SciencesParis, 332(I):265–270, 2001. Analyse Numerique.

[34] J P Boyd. Two comments on filtering (artificial viscosity) forChebyshev and Legendre spectral and spectral element meth-ods: Preserving boundary conditions and interpretation ofthefilter as a diffusion.J. Comp. Phys., 143:283–288, 1998.

[35] G S Karamanos and G E Karniadakis. A spectral vanishingviscosity method for large-eddy simulations.J. Comp. Phys.,163:22–50, 2000.

[36] E Leriche. Direct numerical simulation of lid driven cavity athigh Reynolds numbers.J. Sci. Comput., 27:335–345, 2006.

[37] A K Prasad. Personal communication. Additional experimentaldata.

[38] A G Kravchenko and P Moin. On the effect of numerical errorsin large eddy simulations of turbulent flows.J. Comp. Phys.,131:310–322, 1997.

[39] M Breuer. Large eddy simulation of the subcritical flow past acylinder: numerical and modeling aspects.Int. J. Numer. Meth-

21

ods Fluids, 28:1281–1302, 1998.[40] S Ghosal, T S Lund, P Moin, and K Akselvoll. A dynamic

localization model for large-eddy simulation of turbulentflows.J. Fluid Mech., 286:229–255, 1995.

[41] C Meneveau, T S Lund, and W H Cabot. A Lagrangian dynamicsubgrid-scale model of turbulence.J. Fluid Mech., 319:353–385, 1996.

[42] J Mathieu and J Scott.An Introduction to Turbulent Flow. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.

[43] S B Pope.Turbulent Flows. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, 2000.

[44] B J Geurts and J Frolich. A framework for predicting accuracylimitations in large-eddy simulation.Phys. Fluids., 14:41–44,

2002.[45] J Meyers, B J Geurts, and M Baelmans. Optimality of the

dynamic procedure for large-eddy simulations.Phys. Fluids.,17:Art. 045108, 2005.

[46] H K Moffat and A Tsinober. Helicity in laminar and turbulentflow. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 24:281–312, 1992.

[47] A Tsinober and E Levich. On the helical nature of three di-mensional coherent structures in turbulent flows.Phys. Lett.,99:321–323, 1983.

[48] V Borue and S A Orszag. Spectra in helical three-dimensionalhomogeneous isotropic turbulence.Phys. Rev. E, 55(6):7005–7009, 1997.