Advertisement

Weighted divergence correction scheme and its fast implementation

  • ChengYue Wang
  • Qi Gao
  • RunJie Wei
  • Tian Li
  • JinJun Wang
Research Article

Abstract

Forcing the experimental volumetric velocity fields to satisfy mass conversation principles has been proved beneficial for improving the quality of measured data. A number of correction methods including the divergence correction scheme (DCS) have been proposed to remove divergence errors from measurement velocity fields. For tomographic particle image velocimetry (TPIV) data, the measurement uncertainty for the velocity component along the light thickness direction is typically much larger than for the other two components. Such biased measurement errors would weaken the performance of traditional correction methods. The paper proposes a variant for the existing DCS by adding weighting coefficients to the three velocity components, named as the weighting DCS (WDCS). The generalized cross validation (GCV) method is employed to choose the suitable weighting coefficients. A fast algorithm for DCS or WDCS is developed, making the correction process significantly low-cost to implement. WDCS has strong advantages when correcting velocity components with biased noise levels. Numerical tests validate the accuracy and efficiency of the fast algorithm, the effectiveness of GCV method, and the advantages of WDCS. Lastly, DCS and WDCS are employed to process experimental velocity fields from the TPIV measurement of a turbulent boundary layer. This shows that WDCS achieves a better performance than DCS in improving some flow statistics.

Keywords

Direct Numerical Simulation Weighting Coefficient Correlate Noise Noise Strength Generalize Cross Validation 
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 work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11327202, 11472030, 11490552) and the Fundamental Research Funds for Central Universities (YWF-16-JCTD-A-05).

Supplementary material

348_2017_2307_MOESM1_ESM.txt (2 kb)
Appendix (TXT 2.22 KB)

References

  1. Allen DM (1974) The relationship between variable selection and data agumentation and a method for prediction. Technometrics 16(1):125–127CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Azijli I, Dwight RP (2015) Solenoidal filtering of volumetric velocity measurements using gaussian process regression. Exp Fluids 56(11):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azijli I, Sciacchitano A, Ragni D, Palha A, Dwight RP (2016) A posteriori uncertainty quantification of PIV-based pressure data. Exp Fluids 57(5):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borrell G, Sillero JA, Jiménez J (2013) A code for direct numerical simulation of turbulent boundary layers at high reynolds numbers in BG/P supercomputers. Comput Fluids 80(7):37–43CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruschewski M, Freudenhammer D, Buchenberg WB, Schiffer HP, Grundmann S (2016) Estimation of the measurement uncertainty in magnetic resonance velocimetry based on statistical models. Exp Fluids 57(5):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckley MJ (1994) Fast computation of a discretized thin-plate smoothing spline for image data. Biometrika 81(2):247–258CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Busch J, Giese D, Wissmann L, Kozerke S (2013) Reconstruction of divergence-free velocity fields from cine 3D phase-contrast flow measurements. Magn Reson Med 69(1):200–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chong M, Perry AE, Cantwell B (1990) A general classification of three-dimensional flow fields. Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics (1989–1993) 2(5):765–777Google Scholar
  9. Clark TH (2012) Measurement of three-dimensional coherent fluid structure in high reynolds number turbulent boundary layers. PhD thesis. Trinity hall, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. de Silva CM, Philip J, Marusic I (2013) Minimization of divergence error in volumetric velocity measurements and implications for turbulence statistics. Exp Fluids 54(7):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deriaz E, Perrier V (2006) Divergence-free and curl-free wavelets in two dimensions and three dimensions: application to turbulent flows. J Turbul 7:N3CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Elkins CJ, Alley MT (2007) Magnetic resonance velocimetry: applications of magnetic resonance imaging in the measurement of fluid motion. Exp Fluids 43(6):823–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elsinga GE, Scarano F, Wieneke B, van Oudheusden BW (2006) Tomographic particle image velocimetry. Exp Fluids 41(6):933–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garcia D (2011) A fast all-in-one method for automated post-processing of PIV data. Exp Fluids 50(5):1247–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gladden LF, Sederman AJ (2013) Recent advances in flow MRI. J Magn Reson 229(4):2–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Golub GH, Huang LC, Simon H, Tang WP (1998) A fast poisson solver for the finite difference solution of the incompressible navier-stokes equations. SIAM J Sci Comput 19(5):1606–1624CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Graham J, Lee M, Malaya N, Moser R, Eyink G, Meneveau C, Kanov K, Burns R, Szalay A (2013) Turbulent channel flow data set. http://turbulence.pha.jhu.edu/docs/README-CHANNEL.pdfGoogle Scholar
  18. Hestenes MR, Stiefel E (1952) Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems. J Res Natl Bur Stand 49(6):99–147CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim J, Moin P, Moser R (1987) Turbulence statistics in fully developed channel flow at low reynolds number. J Fluid Mech 177:133–166CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Ko J, Kurdila AJ, Rediniotis OK (2000) Divergence-free bases and multiresolution methods for reduced-order flow modeling. AIAA J 38(12):2219–2232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee M, Malaya N, Moser RD (2013) Petascale direct numerical simulation of turbulent channel flow on up to 786k cores. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, ACM, p 61Google Scholar
  22. Ooi A, Martin J, Soria J, Chong M (1999) A study of the evolution and characteristics of the invariants of the velocity-gradient tensor in isotropic turbulence. J Fluid Mech 381:141–174CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Orszag SA (1971) On the elimination of aliasing in finite-difference schemes by filtering high-wavenumber components. J Atmos Sci 28(6):1074–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schiavazzi D, Coletti F, Iaccarino G, Eaton JK (2014) A matching pursuit approach to solenoidal filtering of three-dimensional velocity measurements. J Comput Phys 263:206–221CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Schneiders J, Dwight RP, Scarano F (2013) Vortex-in-cell method for time-supersampling of PIV data. In: PIV13; 10th International Symposium on Particle Image Velocimetry, Delft, The Netherlands, July 1-3, 2013, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, and Faculty of Aerospace EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  26. Sciacchitano A, Dwight RP, Scarano F (2012) Navier-stokes simulations in gappy PIV data. Exp Fluids 53(5):1421–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sillero JA, Jiménez J, Moser RD (2013) One-point statistics for turbulent wall-bounded flows at reynolds numbers up to \(\delta ^+\approx 2000\). Physics of Fluids (1994-present) 25(10)Google Scholar
  28. Simens MP, Jiménez J, Hoyas S, Mizuno Y (2009) A high-resolution code for turbulent boundary layers. J Comput Phys 228:4218–4231CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Song SM, Napel S, Glover GH, Pelc NJ (1993) Noise reduction in three-dimensional phase-contrast MR velocity measurementsl. J Magn Reson Imaging 3(4):587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Suzuki T, Ji H, Yamamoto F (2009) Unsteady PTV velocity field past an airfoil solved with DNS: part 1. algorithm of hybrid simulation and hybrid velocity field at \({\rm Re}\approx 10^3\). Exp Fluids 47(6):957–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vennell R, Beatson R (2009) A divergence-free spatial interpolator for large sparse velocity data sets. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 114(C10)Google Scholar
  32. Wahba G (1990) Spline models for observational data, vol 59. SIAM, PhiladelphiaCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Wahba G, Wold S (1975) A completely automatic french curve: fitting spline functions by cross validation. Commun Stat Theory Methods 4(1):1–17CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang C, Gao Q, Wang H, Wei R, Li T, Wang J (2016a) Divergence-free smoothing for volumetric PIV data. Exp Fluids 57(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang H, Gao Q, Wei R, Wang J (2016b) Intensity-enhanced mart for tomographic PIV. Exp Fluids 57(5):1–19Google Scholar
  36. Wang Z, Gao Q, Wang C, Wei R, Wang J (2016c) An irrotation correction on pressure gradient and orthogonal-path integration for PIV-based pressure reconstruction. Exp Fluids 57(6):1–16. doi: 10.1007/s00348-016-2189-6 Google Scholar
  37. Westerweel J, Scarano F (2005) Universal outlier detection for PIV data. Exp Fluids 39(6):1096–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yang G, Kilner P, Firmin D, Underwood S, Burger P, Longmore D (1993) 3D cine velocity reconstruction using the method of convex projections. Computers in Cardiology 1993. Proceedings, IEEE, pp 361–364Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Fluid Mechanics, Ministry of EducationBeijing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsBeijingChina
  2. 2.Shenyang Aircraft Design and Research InstituteShengyangChina
  3. 3.MicroVec., IncBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations