Closure Modeling of Low Dimensional Models
using LES Analogy
Haroon Imtiaz & Imran Akhtar
Department of Mechanical Engineering
NUST College of Electrical & Mechanical Engineering
National University of Science and Technology Islamabad, Pakistan 44000.
Abstract—Proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) is an im-
portant reduced order modeling technique in fluid mechanics.
The first step in POD is the collection of flow field data at different
time steps from Direct numerical simulation. The singular value
decomposition extracts the most dominant modes from the col-
lected data. The implementation of Galerkin procedure produces
a reduced order model of considered flow field named as POD-
ROM (ROM stands for reduced order model). In this paper,
We have considered the one-dimensional Burgers equation and
developed its reduce order model named as POD-G ROM. Two
closure models of POD-ROM have also been implemented on one-
dimensional Burgers equation. This work focuses on Smagronisky
(POD-S) reduced order model and Dynamic subgrid-scale (POD-
D) reduced order model. We have further analyzed the effect of
modes on accuracy of solution obtained through POD-D, POD-
S and POD-G ROMs. It was concluded that accuracy obtained
depends upon number of considered modes for all three ROMs
(POD-G, POD-S and POD-D). POD-S ROM performs same as
POD-D ROM but needs a lot of iteration for Cs optimization.
The constraint of Cs estimation through hit and trial is removed
in POD-S ROM. This model performs better than POD-S ROM
but it is computationally expensive.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Realistic 3D flows are solved through direct numerical
simulation which usually requires millions and sometimes
billions degrees of freedom. Numerical simulation of fluid
flow through DNS is a computationally expensive endeavour
and its control is not practically feasible. The control in
real flows requires to update the plant output based upon
feedback signal which needs numerous quick simulations.
This motivates the engineers and scientists towards model
reduction techniques. Model reduction techniques based on
proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) have successfully
been applied to many industrial problems. These applications
involve fluid flow control [1]–[4], image processing [5] and
pattern recognition. The simple reduced order model based on
POD and Galerkin projection is called POD-G ROM, where
G stands for Galerkin projection. The POD method provides
optimal basis (modes) for dynamical system. Akhtar et al. [6]
discussed that the POD-G ROM produces erroneous results
for turbulent flow. In this case the truncated modes do not
have significant amount of energy but have vital role in overall
dynamics of system [7].
In turbulence modeling, closure problem arises when
Reynolds-Averaged Naiver-Stokes equation (RANS) contains
a term known as Reynolds stresses. These Reynolds stresses
are modeled through Boussinesq hypothesis which is simple
relationship between Reynolds stresses and velocity gradi-
ents through the eddy viscosity. Turbulence models including
Prandtl ’s mixing length model, K-ω model, Spalart-Allmaras
model, K-∈ model and Smagronisky model are used to model
the turbulent eddy viscosity.
The schematic of energy distribution in turbulence modeling is
shown in Fig. 1a while Fig. 1b shows the energy distribution in
POD closure modeling. In turbulence modeling, Fig. 1a shows
the shaded area which is modeled through different models
of RANS. Fig. 1b shows the shaded area which is modeled
through different techniques of POD closure modeling. In
POD-G ROM, we consider M modes and reduced order model
is developed. The higher modes after M i.e. (M+1,M+2,...,N)
contain relatively low energy but in turbulent flows discarded
modes play a vital role. There is a need to model the
discarded modes through different modeling techniques for
better performance of reduced order models. The effect of
discarded modes are modeled through POD closure modeling.
Closure modeling in POD-ROM is inspired from the modeling
techniques of turbulence. Few people have done work on
closure modeling of POD ROM [8]–[16]. This is in contrast
with LES modeling of turbulence in which hundred of papers
have already been published. There are numerous models in
literature including Mixing length, Smagorinsky, Variational
multiple scale and Dynamic subgrid-scale reduced order POD
model [7]. This work will focus on Smagornisky and Dynamic
subgrid-scale reduced order models and compare the results
with POD-G ROM. The symbols used for Smagornisky and
Dynamic Subgrid-scale reduced order POD models are POD-S
ROM and POD-D ROM respectively. In this work, the one-
dimensional Burgers equation is used for proof of concept. The
boundary conditions for one-dimensional Burgers equation are
homogenous, i.e. at boundary u is set zero.
II. POD R EDUCED O RDERED M ODELS
The POD reduced order model can be constructed in two
steps, computation of POD modes from ensembled flow field
data and Galerkin projection of Burgers equation onto a space
spanned by a number of POD modes. Let H be the Hilbert
space endowed with the inner product (., .)H and u(., t) ∈ H,
t ∈ [0, T ] be the state variable of a dynamical system.
Taking snapshots at different time instances t1 , t2 , ..., tN ∈
[0, T ] and ensembling these snapshots into a larger matrix will
 ∑
E(k) Where S, and V contain the POD basis, singular values
of W and eigenvectors of W respectively. In this work, a
truncated POD basis S M =span{ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 , ..., ϕM } is obtained
from snapshots ensembled data {u(., t1 ), u(., t2 ), ..., u(., tN )}
through SVD.
The one-dimensional Burgers equation
{
ut − vuxx + uux = f
(6)
u(x, 0) = u0 x
Turbulence
model A. POD Galerkin (POD-G) Reduced Order Model
LES The second step for obtaining a reduced order model is
Galerkin projection of Burgers equation on POD modes. This
(a) kc k reduced order model is without closure term and known as
POD-G. Taking the dot product of Eq. (5) with ϕ results in
E(m) the following equation.
{ }
ut , ϕ − vuxx , ϕ + uux , ϕ = f, ϕ ∀ϕ ∈ S M (7)
∑M
Here f =0 and u is substituted with i=1 ϕi (x)qi (t) which
results in
∑
M ∑
M
q̇k (t) = bk + Akm qm (t) +
m=1 m=1
(8)
∑
M
Bkmn qm (t)qn (t)
LES Inspired POD n=1
model
where bk = f, ϕk
(b) M m Akm = −νϕm,xx , ϕk
Bkmn = ϕn ϕm,x , ϕk
Fig. 1. Energy distribution versus (a) Wave number (b)Modes
B. The Smagronisky POD (POD-S) reduced order model
The dynamical system obtained from POD-G reduced order
result in model is accurate for laminar flow. In case of turbulent flows,
it is not recommended because Galerkin truncation does not
W = span{u(., t1 ), u(., t2 ), ...u(., tN )} (1)
produce accurate results despite having the most of energy
Let the time instances are tk = kδt, k = 1, 2, 3, ..., N having in captured modes [7]. The Smagronisky POD-ROM is LES
time step δt = NT−1 . The correlation matrix can be defined as inspired POD closure model which is based on concept of
energy cascading. In this method, energy of discarded modes is
Kij = (ui , uj ) (2) modeled through addition of extra term containing a constant
∫ coefficient of eddy viscosity and this model is named as POD-
where inner product is defined as (a, b) = Ω
a.b dΩ S ROM.
Kν = λν (3) ∑
M ∑
M
q̇k (t) = bk + Akm qm (t) +
νk (k=1,2,...,N) are eigenvectors , K ∈ RNXN is snapshot m=1 m=1
(9)
correlation matrix and λ1 , λ2 , λ3 , ..., λN > 0 are positive ∑
M ∑
M

eigenvalues. Bkmn qn (t)qm (t) + Dkm qm (t)

n=1 m=1
1 ∑
N
Where Akm , bk and Bkmn are same as in Eq. (8). The Dkm
ϕk (.) = √ (νk )j u(., tj ), 1 ≤ k ≤ M (4)
λk j=1 can be defined as
Dkm = (Cs ∥SuL ∥ϕm,xx , ϕk ) (10)
This is the mathematical formulation for the POD modes in
which M is number of considered modes. In other approach, In Eq. (10), the ∥SuL ∥ is Frobenius norm of ux and Cs is
it can also be found out using SVD (singular value decompo- constant. The value of Cs is estimated and it remains constant
sition). In SVD, W is decomposed as during the simulation. The Cs estimation is based on a hit
∑ and trial procedure through many numerical experiments and
W =S VT (5) computationally expensive.
C. The Dynamic subgrid-scale POD (POD-D) reduced order This second POD filter is applied to Eq. (13) which results in
model following equation
The Cs estimation is computationally expensive in POD- ˜
∂ ū
S ROM so there is a need for modeling of Cs . In closure − v∆ū
˜ + ∇.(ū
˜ū˜) + ∇.Tr = 0 (19)
∂t
modeling of turbulent flows, the Cs is estimated through
where
two methods. The first method involves estimation through fu − (ū
˜ū˜)
Tr = u (20)
available literature data. The Cs depends upon the geometry
and type of turbulence. The Cs is 0.23 for homogeneous f − ū
Tr = uu ˜ū f̄ − ū
˜ = (uū ˜ū f − uū)
˜) + (uu f̄
(21)
isotropic turbulence [17], 0.1 for turbulent channel flow [18] = Lr + Ter
and 0.15 for a turbulent mixing layer [19]. The value of Cs
= 0.1 is widely used for turbulent channels, pipe flows, and f̄ − ū
where Lr = (uū ˜ū˜) and Ter = (u
fu − uū)
f̄
backward-facing step flow [20]–[22]. It is modeled as
In second method, the Cs is calculated by using Dynamic 2
˜ ∥Dū
subgrid-scale model [23]–[25]. The Cs estimation in ROM Tr := −2(Cs δ) ˜∥Dū
˜ (22)
is inspired from this method. In POD-D ROM, POD filter is Where δe is filter radius used in second filtering operation Eq.
used instead of spatial filter which is used in conventional LES (18) and Eq. (16) result in
modeling. In POD-D ROM, the value of Cs is dynamic and
changes with time and space. Ter := −2(Cs δ)g s
g
2 ∥Dū∥Dū := −2(C δ)2 ∥Dū∥Dū (23)
Let X be a appropriate Hilbert space and X r be subspace
spanned by r POD basis functions. For all u ∈ X, the Galerkin After using Eqs. (21 & 22), The Eq. (20) results in
projection u ∈ X r is solution of following equation.
˜ 2 ∥Dū
−2(Cs δ) ˜∥Dū f̄ − ū
˜ = (uū ˜ū g
˜) − 2(Cs δ)2 ∥Dū∥Dū (24)
(u − u, ϕ) = 0 ∀ϕ ∈ X r (11)
f̄ − ū
(uū ˜ū˜)
The length scale is used in LES Dynamic subgrid-scale model Cs2 (x, t) = (25)
which can also be defined for POD-S ROM g − 2(δ)
2(δ)2 ∥Dū∥Dū ˜ 2 ∥Dū
˜∥Dū
˜
( 1 ∫ X2 (u u ) ) 12
i> i> III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
l> := ( ) dx (12)
X2 0 ui>,j ui>,j In this problem, following input parameters are used ∆x =
POD filter and length scale Eqs. (11-12) was used by Ref.
1
8193 , ∆t = 999 1
and ν = 10−3 . DNS solution is obtained
[11]. This is general form of Burgers equation using Implicit and second order central difference scheme.
The Newton’s method is used for solving the nonlinear term
∂u
− v∆u + ∇.(uu) = 0 (13) in the Burgers equation. The DNS results are compared with
∂t available numerical results in literature. The most relevant
The following derivation for Cs is inspired from the LES work in literature was done by Kunisch and Volkwein [27].
derivation in Ref. [26]. In POD-D ROM spatial filter of LES is Fig. 2 shows a good quantitative match between the present
replaced with POD filter. The POD filter is Galerkin projection work and the results obtained by Kunisch and Volkwein [27].
of specific number of POD modes. After applying the POD After establishing the accuracy of DNS solution, snapshots
filter to Burgers equation, the following equation is obtained are captured after each time step as solution is marched from
∂u t=0 to 1. These ensembled snapshots are 1000 which are used
− v∆u + ∇.(uu) = 0 (14) to obtain the POD modes. First 10 modes capture the most
∂t
POD filtered equation can be written as of energy of the system which is 99.14%. The energy of
discarded modes at M=10 (M stands for number of modes)
∂u
− v∆u + ∇.(ūū) + ∇.Tr = 0 (15) is 0.86% as shown in Table 1. It shows the energy distribution
∂t at various modes. It can also be deduced that cumulative
where energy increases and energy of discarded modes decreases
Tr = ∇.uu − ∇.(ūū) (16) with increase in number of modes. The energy of discarded
In POD-G, this term Eq. (16) is not modeled and assumed as modes at M=2 is 8.98% which is more than 10 times than the
zero. In POD-D, it can be written as energy of discarded modes at M=10.
These POD modes are used in POD-G ROM for POD basis
Tr := −2(Cs δ)2 ∥Dū∥Dū (17) coefficients qi (i=1,2,...,10). The solution obtained from POD-
G ROM is compared with the available work in literature
Here δ is filter radius used in first filtering operation Eq. (11)
which was done by Akhtar et al. [6]. For comparison, it is
and Cs is a function of time and space i.e. Cs (x,t). For all
needed to reconstruct the u from q’s of POD-G ROM and
u ∈ X, the second test Galerkin projection u e ∈ X R is the
POD modes. The comparison between the present work and
solution of the following equation
correspondent results obtained by Akhtar et al. [6] is made
(u − ũ, ϕ) = 0 (18) by comparing the u at t=1. Fig. 3 shows a good quantitative
 TABLE I
E NERGY DISTRIBUTION IN PERCENTAGE

M Cumulative Cumulative
energy of energy of
considered modes discarded modes
2 91.01 8.98
3 95.21 4.78
4 96.82 3.18
5 97.64 2.35
6 98.17 1.83
7 98.53 1.46
8 98.80 1.20
9 98.99 1.00
10 99.14 0.86

agreement between the present and the results of Ref. [6].

Fig. 4 shows the DNS solution while the Fig. 5 presents the
u obtained from POD-G ROM. It can be inferred from Figs.
(4 & 5) that POD-G ROM does not give accurate results. The
relative error is defined as
∑N
N ∗ k=1 ∥u (x, tk ) − uDN S (x, tk )∥20
1 P OD−ROM
Error = ∑N
k=1 ∥u
DN S ∥2
o
(26)
Where ∥.∥0 is called L-2 norm. Fig. 6 shows the relative error
of POD-G ROM at wide range of modes. It shows that the
relative error decreases with increase in number of modes as
shown in Fig. 6 . POD-G ROM works better at higher number
of modes but it is computationally expensive and loses its
feasibility in complex flows.
Closure modeling of reduced order models through POD-S
ROM have also been discussed by Refs. [6], [7]. In the same
way, POD basis coefficients for POD-S ROM are obtained
by using Eq. (9). The value of Cs is estimated through hit
and trial and optimal solution is obtained for POD-S ROM.
Two options can be used for assessment of optimial POD-S
ROM solution. One benchmark for POD-S ROM solution is
POD basis coefficients obtained through DNS projection. The
value of Cs is varied until a minimum difference is observed
between POD basis coefficients obtained from POD-S ROM
and through DNS projection onto POD modes.
Fig. 7 provides a good comparison of POD basis coefficients
obtained from POD-G ROM, POD-S ROM and DNS pojec-
tion. The relative error is a second option for comparison
between POD-G, POD-S and POD-D ROMs. The minimum
value of relative error indicates the optimal value of Cs . The
optimal value of Cs is 4x10−4 at M=10. The accuracy of this
POD-S ROM is assessed with results of Akhtar et al. [6].
This quantative comparison between the present work and the
results obtained by Akhtar et al. [6] is shown in Fig. 3 which
looks good. Fig. 8 shows the u obtained from POD-S ROM
and it can also be inferred from these results that POD-S ROM
is better than POD-G ROM (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 5).
There are certain limitations associated with POD-S ROM that
needs a little consideration.
a) Mathematical procedure for calculation of Cs is not
available
Fig. 2. DNS for one-dimensional Burgers equation at t=1
b) The Cs estimation is a time consuming activity
c) POD-S assumes constant value of Cs throughout the
numerical experiment. In complex flows, constant value
of Cs will not produce an accurate solution. In POD-
S ROM for complex flows, the Cs is required to be
estimated for each mode through hit and trial. The
activity of Cs estimation for each mode increases the
time required for simulation through POD-S ROM. The
Fig. 9 shows the Cs variation at various modes which
presents that Cs is relatively higher at M=2 than at
M=10. At low number of modes, larger modeling term
require greater value of Cs as can be seen in Fig. 9.
d) Least square method is not effective in Cs estimation.
In the above discussion, one thing is evident that Cs mea-
surement is time consuming activity and it is required to
measure Cs automatically. In turbulence modeling through
LES, Germano et al. [23] has proposed the Dynamic subgrid-
scale model in which Cs is calculated at each point in space
and time. In model reduction through POD, the Dynamic
subgrid-scale ROM is proposed by Wang [7]. This model
is inspired from Dynamic subgrid-scale model developed by
Germano et al.[23]. The mathematical formulation for POD-D
ROM has been explained above in section (II-C).
The POD-D ROM has addressed the limitations of POD-S
ROM. In this study, POD-D ROM (having Cs term dependent
on space and time) has been implemented on one-dimensional
Burgers equation. In POD-D ROM, we have two filters level,
first filter is applied at r (r=M i.e. number of considered modes)
while other filter is applied at R. In this case r is varied from
8 to 3 while R is set at 1. The energy difference between these
two levels is used for calculation of Cs .
Fig. 10 shows a comparison between the results obtained from
POD-G, POD-S and POD-D ROMs. The relative error for
POD-G ROM is more than POD-S and POD-D ROMs which
shows that POD-S and POD-D ROMs are more accurate than
POD-G ROM. It also shows that relative error decreases as
Fig. 3. u of one-dimensional Burgers equation at t=1 using POD-G and
POD-S ROMs
Fig. 4. DNS for one-dimensional Burgers equation
number of modes increases in POD-S and POD-D ROMs.
The POD-G ROM is not predictable with increase in number
of modes (M is varied from 1 to 10) as shown in Fig. 6. Fig.
10 also presents that the accuracy of POD-D ROM is same as
POD-S ROM.
Table 2 shows the time requirement for numerical experiments
using POD-G, POD-S and POD-D ROMs. The time require-
ment for DNS solution is 915.08 sec. It can be inferred that the
time required for DNS is maximum while the time requirement
for POD-G ROM is minimum. The POD-G ROM results are
not very accurate so POD-G model loses it feasibility despite
having low computational cost. The time requirement for
POD-S ROM is less than POD-D ROM and more than POD-
G ROM. The time mentioned here for POD-S ROM is time
for final simulation but time requirement for Cs optimization
through hit and trial is higher than mentioned in Table 2. The
Fig. 5. POD-G ROM for one-dimensional Burgers equation
Fig. 6. Relative error of POD-G ROM at wide range of modes
POD-D ROM performs well at M=7 and time requirement
for numerical experiment is 18.60s which is approximately 50
times less than DNS time of numerical experiment.
The POD-D ROM has addressed most of limitations of POD-
S ROM. POD-D ROM is based on mathematical formulation
for Cs measurement. There is no need to use hit and trial
method for Cs at various modes because the mathematical
formulation automatically calculates Cs at any number of
considered modes. The implementation of POD-D ROM is
expensive but it is more feasible than POD-G and POD-S
ROMs. This is simple problem in which Cs variation with time
and space is low. In case of complex flows, it is anticipated
that POD-D ROM should perform better than POD-S ROM
due to high variation of Cs with time and space. For future,
it is suggested to modify the POD-D ROM or develop a new
model which should have capability to address the both issues
i.e. time and accuracy.
 Fig. 8. POD-S ROM for one-dimensional Burgers equation

Fig. 9. Cs variation in POD-G ROM for one-dimensional Burgers equation

Fig. 7. Time evolution of POD basis coefficients qi 1,2,...,10 for DNS

projection (black), POD-G (red) and POD-S ROMs (green)

Fig. 10. The relative error of POD-G, POD-S and POD-D ROMs
 TABLE II R EFERENCES
T IME FOR SIMULATION OF DIFFERENT ROMS IN SECONDS
[1] A. E. Deane and C. Mavriplis, “Low-dimensional de-
M POD-G POD-S POD-D scription of the dynamics in separated flow past thick
2 0.06 0.19 86.18 airfoils,” AIAA J., vol. 6, pp. 1222–1234, 1994.
3 0.08 0.35 43.95 [2] X. Ma and Karniadakis, “A low-dimensional model for
4 0.11 0.57 58.02
5 0.163 0.96 96.45 simulating three-dimensional cylinder flow,” J. Fluid
6 0.26 1.79 78.67 Mech, vol. 458, pp. 181–190, 2002.
7 0.39 2.88 18.60 [3] B. R. Noack, K. Afanasiev, M. Morzynski, and F.
8 0.63 4.73 56.45
9 1.12 6.55 720.81 Thiele, “A hierarchy of low-dimensional models for
10 1.24 9.56 778.27 the transient and post-transient cylinder wake,” J. Fluid
Mech, vol. 497, pp. 335–363, 2003.
[4] I. Akhtar and A. H. Nayfeh., “Model based control
IV. C ONCLUSION of laminar wake using fluidic actuation,” J. Comput.
In this paper, the POD-D ROM on one-dimensional Burgers Nonlin. Dyn., vol. 5(4), p. 041 015, 2010.
equation subjected to homogenous boundary conditions is [5] L. Sirovichs and M. Kirby, “Low-dimensional proce-
implemented. The effect of modes on POD reduced order dure for the characterization of human faces,” J. Opt.
models including POD-G, POD-S and POD-D ROMs is in- Soc. Am. A, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 529–524, 1987.
vestigated. POD-D and POD-S ROMs perform better than [6] I. Akhtar, Z. Wang, J. Borggaard, and T. Iliescu, “A new
POD-G ROM. The constraint of Cs estimation through hit and closure strategy for proper orthogonal decomposition
trial method is removed in POD-D ROM. In POD-D ROM, reduced-order models,” Journal of Computational and
the Cs can be calculated through defined procedures at any Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 7, no. 034503, pp. 1–6, 2012.
number of considered modes. This paper shows that relative [7] Z. Wang, “Reduced-order modeling of complex engi-
error decreases with increase in number of modes. The relative neering and geophysical flows: analysis and computa-
of POD-D ROM is same as of POD-S ROM as we vary M tions,” Tech. Rep., 2012, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
from 3 to 8. The time for numerical experiment using POD- and State University.
D ROM is still very large than POD-G ROM. In future, more [8] B. Podvin, “A proper-orthogonal-decomposition based
POD-closure models should be proposed which should address model for the wall layer of a turbulent channel flow,”
the issue of time as well as accuracy. Phys. Fluids, vol. 21, pp. 581–586, 2009.
[9] D. Rempfer and H. F. Fasel, “Dynamics of three-
ACKNOWLEDGMENT dimensional coherent structures in a flat-plate boundary
The first author would like to thank Dr Zhu Wang (Industrial layer,” J. Fluid Mech, vol. 275, pp. 257–283, 1994.
postdoc of the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications [10] W. Cazemier, R. W. Verstappen, and A. E. Veldman,
(IMA) at University of Minnesota, Twin Cities U.S.A.) for his “Proper orthogonal decomposition and low-dimensional
guidance in this research. This research is partially supported models for driven cavity flows,” Phys. Fluids, vol. 10,
by TWAS (The World Academy of Sciences for the developing no. 7, pp. 1685–1699, 1998.
world) under Research Grant Agreement (RGA) No: 11-208 [11] Z. Wang, I. Akhtar, J. Borggaard, and T. Iliescu, “Two-
RG/ENG/AS-C UNESCO FR: 3240262645. level discretizations of nonlinear closure models for
proper orthogonal decomposition,” J. Comput. Phys,
vol. 230, pp. 126–146, 2011.
[12] J. Borggaard, T. Iliescu, and Z. Wang, “Artificial viscos-
ity proper orthogonal decomposition,” Math. Comput.
Model, vol. 53, pp. 269–279, 2011.
[13] I. Akhtar, J. Borggaard, T. Iliescu, and C. J. Ribbens,
“Modeling high frequency modes for accurate low-
dimensional galerkin models,” in Proceedings of the
AIAA 39th Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference,
AIAA Paper, AIAA Paper No. 2009-4202, 2009.
[14] J. S. Smagorinsky, “General circulation experiments
with the primitive equations,” Mon. Weather Review,
vol. 91, pp. 99–164, 1963.
[15] J. G. M. Eggels, “Direct and large eddy simulation of
turbulent flow in a cylindrical pipe geometry,” Tech.
Rep., 1994, Delft University Press, Delft.
[16] L. C. Berselli, T. Iliescu, and W. J. Layton, Mathematics
of large eddy simulation of turbulent flows. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 2006.
[17] M. A. Domis, “Large-eddy simulation of a passive
scalar in isotropic turbulence,” J. Fluid Mech, vol. 104,
pp. 55–79, 1981.
[18] J. W. Deardorff, “A numerical study of three-
dimensional turbulent channel flow at large reynolds
number,” J. Fluid Mech, vol. 41, pp. 453–480, 1970.
[19] N. Mansour, J. H. Ferziger, and W. C. Reynolds, Large-
eddy simulation of turbulent mixing layer, Stanford
University Report No TF-11, 1978.
[20] Y. Morinishi and H. Kobayashi, “Large eddy simula-
tion of backward facing step flow,” in Int. Symp. on
Engineering Turbulence Modeling and Measurements
(Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia), 1990.
[21] F. Unger and R. Friedrich, “Large eddy simulation of
fully-developed turbulent pipe flow,” in 18th Symp. on
Turbulent Shear Flows (Munich), 1991.
[22] J. G. M. Eggels and F. T. M. Nieuwstadt, “Large eddy
simulation of turbulent flow in an axially rotating pipe,”
in 19th Symp. on Turbulent Shear Flows (Kyoto, Japan),
1993.
[23] M. Germano, U. Piomelli, P. Moin, and W. H. Cabot,
“Dynamic subgrid-scale eddy viscosity model,” Phys.
Fluids A3 J., vol. 3, pp. 1760–1765, 1991.
[24] P. Moin, K. Squires, W. Cabot, and S. Lee, “A dynamic
subgrid-scale model for compressible turbulence and
scalar transport,” Phys. Fluids, vol. 3, pp. 2746–2757,
1991.
[25] N. M. El-Hady, T. A. Zang, and U. Piomelli, “Appli-
cation of dynamic subgrid-scale model to axisymmetric
transitional boundary layer at high speed,” Phys. Fluids,
vol. 6, pp. 1299–1309, 1994.
[26] P. Sagaut, Large eddy simulation for incompress-
ible flows, Third, ser. Scientific Computation. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 2006, p. 556.
[27] K. Kunisch and S. Volkwein, “Control of the burgers
equation by a reduced-order approach using proper or-
thogonal decomposition,” J. Optimization Theory Appl.,
vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 345–371,