Advertisement

Experiments in Fluids

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 455–462 | Cite as

Development and validation of echo PIV

  • H. B. Kim
  • J. R. Hertzberg
  • R. Shandas
Original

Abstract

The combination of ultrasound echo images with digital particle image velocimetry (DPIV) methods has resulted in a two-dimensional, two-component velocity field measurement technique appropriate for opaque flow conditions including blood flow in clinical applications. Advanced PIV processing algorithms including an iterative scheme and window offsetting were used to increase the spatial resolution of the velocity measurement to a maximum of 1.8 mm×3.1 mm. Velocity validation tests in fully developed laminar pipe flow showed good agreement with both optical PIV measurements and the expected parabolic profile. A dynamic range of 1 to 60 cm/s has been obtained to date.

Keywords

Particle Image Velocimetry Interrogation Window Ultrasound Beam Particle Image Velocimetry Technique Interrogation Window Size 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was made possible in part by grants from the American Heart Association (Desert-Mountain Affiliate), National Science Foundation (EECS-0225405) and NIH (HL 67393, HL 072738). One of the authors (HB Kim) was supported by the post-doctoral fellowship program of the Korean Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF). We would also like to thank Craig Lanning and Scott Kirby for their technical assistance with the experimental apparatus and ultrasound system.

References

  1. Adrian RJ (1991) Particle-imaging techniques for experimental fluid mechanics. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 23:261–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson P, Woodcock JP (1982) Doppler ultrasound and its use in clinical measurement. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bamber J, Hasan P, Cook-Martin J, Rubim JM (1988) Parametric imaging of tissue shear and flow using B-scan decorrelation rate. J Ultrasound Med 7:s135Google Scholar
  4. Bohs LN, Friemel BH, McDermott BA, Trahey GE (1993) A real time system for quantifying and displaying two-dimensional velocities using ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 19:751–761PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohs LN, Friemel BH, Trahey GE (1995) Experimental velocity profiles and volumetric flow via two-dimensional speckle tracking. Ultrasound Med Biol 21:885–898CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohs LN, Geiman BJ, Anderson ME, Gebhart SC, Trahey GE (2000) Speckle tracking for multi-dimensional flow estimation. Ultrasonics 38:369–375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Crapper M, Bruce T, Gouble C (2000) Flow field visualization of sediment-laden flow using ultrasonic imaging. Dyn Atmos Oceans 31:233–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fillinger MF, Schwartz RA (1993) Volumetric blood flow measurement with color Doppler ultrasonography: the importance of visual clues. J Ultrasound Med 3:123–130Google Scholar
  9. Forsberg F, Merton DA, Liu JB, Needleman L, Goldberg BB (1998) Clinical applications of ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasonics 36:695–701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gill RW (1985) Measurement of blood flow by ultrasound: accuracy and sources of error. Ultrasound Med Biol 11:625–641PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hart DP (1999) Super-resolution PIV by recursive local-correlation. J Visualiz 10:1–10Google Scholar
  12. Keane RD, Adrian RJ (1990) Optimization of particle image velocimeters. Meas Sci Tech 2:1202–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kremkau FW (1989) Diagnostic ultrasound. WB Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  14. Leen E (2001) Ultrasound contrast harmonic imaging of abdominal organs. Seminars Ultrasound CT MRI 22:11–24Google Scholar
  15. Okamoto K (1999) Checker board cross-correlation technique for PIV. In: Proc Of PSFVIP-2, Honolulu, no. PF116Google Scholar
  16. Podell S, Burrascano C, Gaal M, Golec B, Maniquis J, Mehlhaff P (1999) Physical and biochemical stability of Optison, an injectable ultrasound contrast agent. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 30:213–223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Rubin JM, Fowlkes JB, Tuthill TA, Moskalik AP, Rhee RT, Adler RS, Kazanjian SN, Carson PL (1999) Speckle decorrelation flow measurement with B-mode US of contrast agent flow in a phantom and in rabbit kidney. Radiology 213:429–437PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Sandrin L, Manneville S, Fink M (2001) Ultrafast two-dimensional ultrasonic speckle velocimetry: a tool in flow imaging. Appl Phys Lett 78:1155–1157Google Scholar
  19. Schneider M (2000) Design of an ultrasound contrast agent for myocardial perfusion. Echocardiography 17:s11–s16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Tio KK, Linan A, Lasheras JC, Ganan-Calvo AM (1993) On the dynamics of buoyant and heavy particles in a periodic Stuart vortex flow. J Fluid Mech 254:671–699Google Scholar
  21. Uhlendorf V, Scholle F, Reinhardt M (2000) Acoustic behavior of current ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasonics 38:81–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Westerweel J (1993) Digital particle image velocimetry—theory and application. Dissertation, Delft University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  23. Westerweel J, Dabiri D, Gharib M (1997) The effect of a discrete window offset on the accuracy of cross-correlation analysis of digital PIV recordings. Exp Fluids 23:20–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Willert CE, Gharib M (1991) Digital particle image velocimetry. Exp Fluids 10:181–193Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pediatric CardiologyThe Children’s Hospital, University of Colorado Health Sciences CenterDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations