Advertisement

Shake-The-Box: Lagrangian particle tracking at high particle image densities

  • Daniel SchanzEmail author
  • Sebastian Gesemann
  • Andreas Schröder
Research Article

Abstract

A Lagrangian tracking method is introduced, which uses a prediction of the particle distribution for the subsequent time-step as a mean to seize the temporal domain. Errors introduced by the prediction process are corrected by an image matching technique (‘shaking’ the particle in space), followed by an iterative triangulation of particles newly entering the measurement domain. The scheme was termed ‘Shake-The-Box’ and previously characterized as ‘4D-PTV’ due to the strong interaction with the temporal dimension. Trajectories of tracer particles are identified at high spatial accuracy due to a nearly complete suppression of ghost particles; a temporal filtering scheme further improves on accuracy and allows for the extraction of local velocity and acceleration as derivatives of a continuous function. Exploiting the temporal information enables the processing of densely seeded flows (beyond 0.1 particles per pixel, ppp), which were previously reserved for tomographic PIV evaluations. While TOMO-PIV uses statistical means to evaluate the flow (building an ‘anonymous’ voxel space with subsequent spatial averaging of the velocity information using correlation), the Shake-The-Box approach is able to identify and track individual particles at numbers of tens or even hundreds of thousands per time-step. The method is outlined in detail, followed by descriptions of applications to synthetic and experimental data. The synthetic data evaluation reveals that STB is able to capture virtually all true particles, while effectively suppressing the formation of ghost particles. For the examined four-camera set-up particle image densities N I up to 0.125 ppp could be processed. For noise-free images, the attained accuracy is very high. The addition of synthetic noise reduces usable particle image density (N I ≤ 0.075 ppp for highly noisy images) and accuracy (still being significantly higher compared to tomographic reconstruction). The solutions remain virtually free of ghost particles. Processing an experimental data set on a transitional jet in water demonstrates the benefits of advanced Lagrangian evaluation in describing flow details—both on small scales (by the individual tracks) and on larger structures (using an interpolation onto an Eulerian grid). Comparisons to standard TOMO-PIV processing for synthetic and experimental evaluations show distinct benefits in local accuracy, completeness of the solution, ghost particle occurrence, spatial resolution, temporal coherence and computational effort.

Keywords

Ring Vortex Tomographic Reconstruction Ghost Particle Residual Image Particle Candidate 
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

Acknowledgments

The work has been conducted in the scope of the DFG-project ‘Analyse turbulenter Grenzschichten mit Druckgradient bei großen Reynoldszahlen mit hochauflösenden Vielkameramessverfahren’ (Grant KA 1808/14-1 and SCHR 1165/3-1). The authors thank Dr. Daniele Violato and Dr. Matteo Novara from TU Delft for the experimental set-up and the collaboration on conducting the experiment used for the evaluation of the algorithm. Furthermore, the authors thank Bernhard Wieneke for fruitful discussions on IPR and for providing an algorithm to remove divergence from a given vector volume which served as a source for the synthetic track generation.

References

  1. Adrian RJ (1997) Dynamic ranges of velocity and spatial resolution of particle image velocimetry. Meas Sci Technol 8:1393–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson C, Soria J (2009) An efficient simultaneous reconstruction technique for tomographic particle image velocimetry. Exp Fluids 47:563–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson C, Coudert S, Foucaut JM, Stanislas M, Soria J (2011) The accuracy of tomographic particle image velocimetry for measurements of a turbulent boundary layer. Exp Fluids 50:1031–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bastiaans RJM, van der Plas GAJ, Kieft RN (2002) The performance of a new PTV algorithm applied in super-resolution PIV. Exp Fluids 32:345–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Salah R, Alata O, Tremblais B, Thomas L, David L (2015) Particle volume reconstruction based on a marked point process and application to Tomo-PIV. EUSIPCO 2015. Nice, France, 31 Aug–3 June 2015Google Scholar
  6. Bourgoin M, Ouellette NT, Xu H, Berg J, Bodenschatz E (2006) The role of pair dispersion in turbulent flow. Science 311(5762):835–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cierpka C, Lütke B, Kähler CJ (2013) Higher order multi-frame particle tracking velocimetry. Exp Fluids 54:1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornic P, Champagnat F, Plyer A, LeClaire B, Cheminet A, Le Besnerais G (2014) Tomo-PTV with sparse tomographic reconstruction and optical flow. In: 17th international symposium on applications of laser techniques to fluid mechanics. Lisbon, Portugal, 07–10 July 2014Google Scholar
  9. Cornic P, Champagnat F, Cheminet A, LeClaire B, Le Besnerais G (2015) Fast and efficient particle reconstruction on a 3D grid using sparsity. Exp Fluids 56:62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dalziel SB (1992) Decay of rotating turbulence: some particle tracking experiments. Appl Sci Res 49:217–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Discetti S, Astarita T (2011) A fast multi-resolution approach to tomographic PIV. Exp Fluids 52:765–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Discetti S, Astarita T (2012) Fast 3D PIV with direct sparse cross-correlations. Exp Fluids 53:1437–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Discetti S, Natale A, Astarita T (2013) Spatial filtering improved tomographic PIV. Exp Fluids 54:1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Discetti S, Agüera N, Cafiero G, Astarita T (2015) Ensemble 3D-PTV for high resolution turbulent statistics. In: 11th international symposium on PIV–PIV15. Santa Barbara, USA, 14–16 Sept 2015Google Scholar
  15. Earl A, Cochard S, Thomas L, Tremblais B, David L (2015) Implementation of vibration correction schemes to the evaluation of a turbulent flow in an open channel by tomographic particle image velocimetry. Meas Sci Technol 26:015303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eilers PHC, Marx BD (1996) Flexible smoothing with B-splines and penalties. Stat Sci 11(2):89–121MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Elsinga GE, Tokgoz S (2014) Ghost hunting—an assessment of ghost particle detection and removal methods for tomographic-PIV. Meas Sci Technol 25:084004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elsinga GE, van Oudheusden BW, Scarano F (2006b) Experimental assessment of tomographic-PIV accuracy. In: 13th international symposium on applications of laser techniques to fluid mechanics. Lisbon, Portugal, 26–29 June 2006Google Scholar
  19. Elsinga GE, Scarano F, Wieneke B, van Oudheusden BW (2006a) Tomographic particle image velocimetry. Exp Fluids 41:933–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elsinga GE, Westerweel J, Scarano F, Novara M (2011) On the velocity of ghost particles and the bias errors in Tomographic-PIV. Exp Fluids 50:825–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gesemann S (2015) From particle tracks to velocity and acceleration fields using B-splines and penalties. arXiv 1510.09034Google Scholar
  22. Ghaemi S, Scarano F (2011) Counter-hairpin vortices in the turbulent wake of a sharp trailing edge. J Fluid Mech 689:317–356CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Hain R, Kähler CJ, Michaelis D (2008) Tomographic and time resolved PIV measurements on a finite cylinder mounted on a flat plate. Exp Fluids 45:715–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henningsson P, Michaelis D, Nakata T, Schanz D, Geisler R, Schröder A, Bomphrey RJ (2015) The complex aerodynamic footprint of desert locusts revealed by large-volume tomographic particle image velocimetry. J R Soc Interface 12:108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herman GT, Lent A (1976) Iterative reconstruction algorithms. Comput Biol Med 6:273–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huhn F, Schanz D, Gesemannn S, Schröder A (2015) Pressure fields from high-resolution time-resolved particle tracking velocimetry in 3D turbulent flows. In: Proceedings of NIM2015 Workshop, Poitiers, FranceGoogle Scholar
  27. Kähler CJ, Scharnowski S, Cierpka C (2012a) On the resolution limit of digital particle image velocimetry. Exp Fluids 52:1629–1639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kähler CJ, Scharnowski S, Cierpka C (2012b) On the uncertainty of digital PIV and PTV near walls. Exp Fluids 52:1641–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kasagi N, Nishino K (1990) Probing turbulence with three-dimensional particle tracking velocimetry. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 4:601–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. La Porta A, Voth GA, Crawford AM, Alexander J, Bodenschatz E (2001) Fluid particle accelerations in fully developed turbulence. Nature 409:1017–1019CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Lüthi B, Tsinober A, Kinzelbach W (2005) Lagrangian measurement of vorticity dynamics in turbulent flow. J Fluid Mech 528:87–118CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Lynch K, Scarano F (2013) A high-order time-accurate interrogation method for time-resolved PIV. Meas Sci Technol 24:035305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lynch K, Scarano F (2014) Experimental determination of tomographic PIV accuracy by a 12-camera system. Meas Sci Technol 25:084003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lynch K, Scarano F (2015) An efficient and accurate approach to MTE-MART for time-resolved tomographic PIV. Exp Fluids 56:66Google Scholar
  35. Maas HG, Grün A, Papantoniou D (1993) Particle tracking in three dimensional turbulent flows—part I: photogrammetric determination of particle coordinates. Exp Fluids 15:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Malik N, Dracos T, Papantoniou D (1993) Particle tracking in three dimensional turbulent flows—part II: particle tracking. Exp Fluids 15:279–294Google Scholar
  37. Michaelis D, Wolf CC (2011) Vibration compensation for tomographic PIV using single image volume self calibration. In: 9th international symposium on particle image velocimetry—PIV11. Kobe, Japan, 21–23 July 2011Google Scholar
  38. Neeteson NJ, Rival D (2015) Pressure-field extraction on unstructured flow data using a Voronoi tessellation-based networking algorithm: a proof-of-principle study. Exp Fluids 56:44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Neeteson NJ, Bhattacharya S, Rival DE, Michaelis D, Schanz D, Schröder A (2015) Pressure-field extraction from lagrangian flow measurements. In: 11th international symposium on PIV–PIV15. Santa Barbara, USA, 14–16 Sept 2015Google Scholar
  40. Nishino K, Kasagi N, Hirata M (1989) Three-dimensional particle tracking velocimetry based on automated digital image processing. Trans ASME J Fluid Eng 111:384–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nobach H, Bodenschatz E (2009) Limitations of accuracy in PIV due to individual variations of particle image intensities. Exp Fluids 24:045302Google Scholar
  42. Novara M, Scarano F (2013) A particle-tracking approach for accurate material derivative measurements with tomographic PIV. Exp Fluids 54:1584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Novara M, Batenburg KJ, Scarano F (2010) Motion tracking-enhanced MART for tomographic PIV. Meas Sci Technol 21:035401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Novara M, Ianiro A, Scarano F (2013) Adaptive interrogation for 3D-PIV. Meas Sci Tech 24:024012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Novara M, Schanz D, Kähler CJ, Schröder A (2015) Shake-The-Box for multi-pulse tomographic systems: towards high seeding density particle tracking in high speed flows. In: 11th international symposium on PIV–IV15. Santa Barbara, USA, 14–16 Sept 2015Google Scholar
  46. Ouellette NT, Xu H, Bodenschatz E (2006) A quantitative study of three-dimensional Lagrangian particle tracking algorithms. Exp Fluids 40(2):301–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Savitzky A, Golay MJE (1964) Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures. Anal Chem 36(8):1627–1639. doi: 10.1021/ac60214a047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scarano F (2013) Tomographic PIV: principles and practice. Meas Sci Technol 24:012001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scarano F, Poelma C (2009) Three-dimensional vorticity patterns of cylinder wakes. Exp Fluids 47:69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schanz D, Schröder A, Heine B, Dierksheide U (2012) Flow structure identification in a high-resolution tomographic PIV data set of the flow behind a backward facing step. In: 16th international symposium on applications of laser techniques to fluid mechanics, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  51. Schanz D, Gesemann S, Schröder A, Wieneke B, Novara M (2013a) Non-uniform optical transfer functions in particle imaging: calibration and application to tomographic reconstruction. Meas Sci Technol 24:024009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schanz D, Schröder A, Gesemann S, Michaelis D, Wieneke B (2013b) Shake-the-Box: a highly efficient and accurate tomographic particle tracking velocimetry (TOMO-PTV) method using prediction of particle position. In: 10th international symposium on particle image velocimetry—PIV13. Delft, The Netherlands, 1–3 July 2013Google Scholar
  53. Schanz D, Schröder A, Gesemann S (2014) Shake-the-Box—a 4D PTV algorithm: accurate and ghostless reconstruction of Lagrangian tracks in densely seeded flows. In: 17th international symposium on applications of laser techniques to fluid mechanics. Lisbon, Portugal, 07–10 July 2014Google Scholar
  54. Schneiders JFG, Azijli I, Scarano F, Dwight RP (2015) Pouring time into space. In: 11th international symposium on particle image velocimetry—PIV15. Santa Barbara, California, 14–16 Sept 2015Google Scholar
  55. Schröder A, Geisler R, Elsinga GE, Scarano F, Dierksheide U (2008) Investigation of a turbulent spot and a tripped turbulent boundary layer flow using time-resolved tomographic PIV. Exp Fluids 44:305–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schröder A, Geisler R, Staak K, Wieneke B, Elsinga G, Scarano F, Henning A (2011) Lagrangian and Eulerian views into a turbulent boundary layer flow using time-resolved tomographic PIV. Exp Fluids 50:1071–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schröder A, Schanz D, Geisler R, Willert C, Michaelis D (2013) Dual-volume and four-pulse tomo PIV using polarized laser light. In: 10th international symposium on particle image velocimetry—PIV13. Delft, The Netherlands, 1–3 July 2013Google Scholar
  58. Schröder A, Schanz D, Michaelis D, Cierpka C, Scharnovski S, Kähler CJ (2015a) Advances of PIV and 4D-PTV “Shake-The-Box” for turbulent flow analysis—the flow over periodic hills. Flow Turb Comb 95(2–3):193–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schröder A, Schanz D, Geisler R, Gesemann S, Willert C (2015b) Near-wall turbulence characterization using 4D-PTV Shake-The-Box. In: 11th international symposium on particle image velocimetry—PIV15. Santa Barbara, California, 14–16 Sept 2015Google Scholar
  60. Sciacchitano A, Wieneke B, Scarano F (2013) PIV uncertainty quantification by image matching. Meas Sci Technol 24:045302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Violato D, Scarano F (2011) Three-dimensional evolution of flow structures in transitional circular and chevron jets. Phys Fluids 23:124104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Violato D, Moore P, Scarano F (2011) Lagrangian and Eulerian pressure field evaluation of rod-airfoil flow from time-resolved tomographic PIV. Exp Fluids 50:1057–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Violato D, Ianiro A, Cardone G, Scarano F (2012) Three-dimensional vortex dynamics and convective heat transfer in circular and chevron impinging jets. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 37:22–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wereley ST, Meinhart CD (2001) Second-order accurate particle image velocimetry. Exp Fluids 31:258–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wieneke B (2007) Volume self-calibration for stereo PIV and tomographic PIV. Exp Fluids 45:549–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wieneke B (2013) Iterative reconstruction of volumetric particle distribution. Meas Sci Technol 24:024008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wieneke B (2015) PIV uncertainty quantification from correlation statistics. Meas Sci Technol 26:074002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wiener N (1949) Extrapolation, interpolation, and smoothing of stationary time series, vol 2. MIT Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  69. Willneff J (2003) A spatio-temporal matching algorithm for 3D particle tracking velocimetry. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich Diss. ETH No. 15276Google Scholar
  70. Xu H (2008) Tracking Lagrangian trajectories in position-velocity space. Meas Sci Technol 19:075105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Xu H, Bourgoin M, Ouellette NT, Bodenschatz E (2006) High order lagrangian velocity statistics in turbulence. Phys Rev Lett 96:024503CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Schanz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sebastian Gesemann
    • 1
  • Andreas Schröder
    • 1
  1. 1.German Aerospace Center (DLR)Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow TechnologyGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations