Accurate velocity measurements of boundary-layer flows using Doppler optical coherence tomography

  • Sanna Haavisto
  • Juha Salmela
  • Antti KoponenEmail author


Pulsed ultrasound Doppler velocimetry and nuclear magnetic resonance imaging are popular non-invasive measurement methods for flows of opaque fluids. The spatial and temporal resolution of these methods, however, is quite limited, and they lack accuracy, especially close to solid boundaries. In this paper, we show that solution to these problems is achieved by using Doppler optical coherence tomography (DOCT). DOCT provides simultaneous information about the fluid structure and velocity with very high spatial and temporal resolution. For benchmarking of the method we use water as the reference fluid. We show how DOCT gives a very good agreement with theory for the velocity profile, skin friction and viscosity directly from the measurement signal. The velocity profile extends from the turbulent region to viscous sublayer, and viscosity of the fluid can be calculated also from a turbulent flow with a good accuracy. Overall, DOCT is seen to be very well suited for providing new insight into boundary-layer flows, rheology and skin friction.


Velocity Profile Optical Coherence Tomography Wall Shear Stress Skin Friction Scanning Frequency 
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.



Doppler optical coherence tomography


Pulsed ultrasound Doppler velocimetry


Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging


Superluminescent diode



We gratefully acknowledge valuable cooperation network of COST ACTION FP 1005 (Fibre Suspension Flow Modelling) and ERCOFTAG SIG 43 (Fibre Suspension Flows). Academy of Finland (project Rheological Properties of Complex Fluids) is gratefully acknowledged for supporting this work. Professor Pentti Saarenrinne from Tampere University of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Systems, is acknowledged for valuable discussion.


  1. Ayaz UK, Ioppolo T, Ötügen MV (2013) Direct measurement of wall shear stress in a reattaching flow with a photonic sensor. Meas Sci Technol 24:124001–124010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakshi AS, Smith DE (1984) Effect of fat content and temperature on viscosity in relation to pumping requirements of fluid milk products. J Dairy Sci 67:1157–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonesi M, Churmakov D, Meglinski I (2007) Study of flow dynamics in complex vessels using Doppler optical coherence tomography. Meas Sci Technol 18:3279–3286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fujimoto JG (2003) Optical coherence tomography for ultrahigh resolution in vivo imaging. Nat Biotechnol 21:1361–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gnanamanickam EP, Nottebrock B, Grosse S, Sullivan JP, Schr W (2013) Measurement of turbulent wall shear-stress using micro-pillars. Meas Sci Tech 24:124002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gupta SV (2014) Viscometry for liquids: calibration of viscometers. Springer International Publishing, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jonas S, Bhattacharya D, Khokha MK, Choma MA (2011) Microfluidic characterization of cilia-driven fluid flow using optical coherence tomography-based particle tracking velocimetry. Biomed Opt Express 2:2022–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kähler CJ, Scharnowski S, Cierpka C (2012) On the uncertainty of digital PIV and PTV near walls. Exp Fluids 52:1641–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kotzé R, Wiklund J, Haldenwang R (2013) Optimisation of Pulsed Ultrasonic Velocimetry system and transducer technology for industrial applications. Ultrasonics 53:459–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kreplin H, Eckelmann H (1979) Behavior of the three fluctuating velocity components in the wall region of a turbulent channel flow. Phys Fluids 22:1233–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Manneville S (2008) Recent experimental probes of shear banding. Rheol Acta 47:301–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Marti I, Fischer P, and Windhab EJ (2003) Effect of lactose on rheology of milk protein dispersions. 3rd International Symposium on Food Rheology and StructureGoogle Scholar
  13. Messer M, Aidun CK (2009) Main effects on the accuracy of Pulsed-Ultrasound-Doppler-Velocimetry in the presence of rigid impermeable walls. Flow Meas Instrum 20:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mujat M, Ferguson RD, Iftimia N, Hammer DX, Nedyalkov I, Wosnik M, Legner H (2013) Optical coherence tomography-based micro-particle image velocimetry. Opt Lett 38:4558–4561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Poelma C, van der Mijle RME, Mari JM, Tang MX, Weinberg PD, Westerweel J (2012) Ultrasound imaging velocimetry: Toward reliable wall shear stress measurements. Eur J Mech B/Fluids Cardiovascular Flows 35:70–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Salmela J, Haavisto S, Koponen A, Jäsberg A, and Kataja M (2013) Rheological characterization of micro-fibrillated cellulose fibre suspension using multi scale velocity profile measurements. In: Proceeding of 15th fundamental research symposium. Cambridge, UK, Sept. 2013. 15Google Scholar
  17. Spalding DB (1961) A single formula for the law of the wall. J Appl Mech 28:455CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Wang X, Milner T, Chen Z, Nelson J (1997) Measurement of fluid-flow-velocity profile in turbid media by the use of optical Doppler tomography. Appl Opt 36:144–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Weiss N, van Leeuwen T, Kalkman J (2013) Localized measurement of longitudinal and transverse flow velocities in colloidal suspensions using optical coherence tomography. Phys Rev E 88:042312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. White FM (1998) Fluid mechanics. McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Spinnova Ltd.JyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.VTT Technical Research Centre of FinlandJyväskyläFinland
  3. 3.Department of PhysicsUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations