Skip to main content

Uncertainty quantification of three-dimensional velocimetry techniques for small measurement depths

Abstract

In this paper, the multi-camera techniques tomographic PTV and 3D-PTV as well as the single-camera defocusing PTV approach are assessed for flow measurements with a small measurement depth in conjunction with a high resolution along the optical axis. This includes the measurement of flows with strong velocity gradients in z direction and flow features, which have smaller scales than the actual light sheet thickness. Furthermore, in fields like turbomachinery, the measurement of flows in domains with small depth dimensions is of great interest. Typically, these domains have dimensions on the order of 100 mm in z direction and of 101 mm in x and y direction. For small domain depths, employing a 3D flow velocimetry technique is inevitable, since the measurement depths lie in the range of the light sheet thickness. To resolve strong velocity gradients and small-scale flow features along the z axis, the accuracy and spatial resolution of the 3D technique are very important. For the comparison of the different measurement methods, a planar Poiseuille flow is investigated. Quantitative uncertainty analyses reveal the excellent suitability of all three methods for the measurement of flows in domains with small measurement depths. Naturally, the multi-camera approaches tomographic PTV and 3D-PTV yield lower uncertainties, since they image the measurement volume from different angles. Other criteria, such as optical access requirements, hardware costs, and setup complexity, clearly favor defocusing PTV over the more complex multi-camera techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. Atkinson C, Coudert S, Foucat J-M, Stanislas M, Soria J (2010) The accuracy of tomographic particle image velocimetry for measurements of a turbulent boundary layer. Exp Fluids 50:1031–1056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cierpka C, Kähler CJ (2012) Particle imaging techniques for volumetric three-component (3D3C) velocity measurements in microfluidics. J Vis 15:1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cierpka C, Lütke B, Kähler CJ (2013) Higher order multi-frame particle tracking velocimetry. Exp Fluids 54:1533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Discetti S, Agüera N, Cafiero G, Astarita T (2015) Ensemble 3D PTV for high resolution turbulent statistics. In: 11th international symposium on particle image velocimetry, Santa Barbara, CA USA, September 14–16

  5. Dracos T, Gruen A (1998) Videogrammetric methods in velocimetry. Appl Mech Rev 51:387–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Elsinga GE, Scarano F, Wieneke B, van Oudheusden BW (2006) Tomographic particle image velocimetry. Exp Fluids 41:933–947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fuchs T, Hain R, Kähler CJ (2014) Three-dimensional location of micrometer-sized particles in macroscopic domains using astigmatic aberrations. Opt Lett 39:1298–1301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fuchs T, Hain R, Kähler CJ (2014) Macroscopic three-dimensional particle location using stereoscopic imaging and astigmatic aberrations. Opt Lett 39:6863–6866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fuchs T, Hain R, Kähler CJ (2015) Three-dimensional single-camera PTV air flow measurements in cavities using in-situ calibration—comparison with tomographic PTV. In: 11th international symposium on particle image velocimetry, Santa Barbara, CA USA, September 14–16

  10. Hain R, Klostermann H, Kähler CJ (2012) Time-resolved Tomographic PIV measurements with particle trajectory extraction of the vortex system of a generic flatfish. In: 16th international symposium on applications of laser techniques to fluid mechanics, Lisbon, Portugal, July 09–12

  11. Hartley RI, Zisserman AM (2004) Multiple view geometry in computer vision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Karnitz MA, Potter MC, Smith MC (1974) An experimental investigation of transition of a planar Poiseuille flow. J Fluid Eng 96:384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kähler CJ, Sammler B, Kompenhans J (2002) Generation and control of tracer particles for optical flow investigations in air. Exp Fluids 33:736–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Maas HG, Gruen A, Papantoniou D (1993) Particle tracking velocimetry in three-dimensional flows. Exp Fluids 15:133–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nishioka M, lid AS, Ichikawa AY (1975) An experimental investigation of the stability of planar Poiseuille flow. J Fluid Mech 72:731–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ohmi K, Li H-Y (2000) Particle-tracking velocimetry with new algorithms. Meas Sci Technol 11:603–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Piirto M, Eloranta H, Saarenrinne P, Karvinen R (2005) A comparative study of five different PIV interrogation algorithms. Exp Fluids 39:573–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Raffel M, Willert C, Werely S, Kompenhans J (2007) Particle image velocimetry. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rochlitz H, Scholz P, Fuchs T (2015) The flow field in a high aspect ratio cooling duct with and without one heated wall. Exp Fluids 56:208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rosic B, Denton JD, Curtis EM (2008) The influence of shroud and cavity geometry on turbine performance: an experimental and computational study—part I: shroud geometry. J Turbomach 130:041001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schröder A, Geisler R, Staack K, Elsinga GE, Scarano F, Wieneke B, Henning A, Poelma C, Westerweel J (2011) Eulerian and Lagrangian views of a turbulent boundary layer flow using time-resolved tomographic PIV. Exp Fluids 50:1071–1091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Virant M, Dracos T (1997) 3D PTV and its application on Lagrangian motion. Meas Sci Technol 8:1539–1552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wieneke B (2008) Volume self-calibration for 3D particle image velocimetry. Exp Fluids 45:549–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Willert C, Gharib M (1992) Three-dimensional particle imaging with a single camera. Exp Fluids 12:353–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The investigations were conducted as part of the joint research programme AG Turbo 2020 in the frame of AG Turbo. The work was supported by the Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (BMWi) as per resolution of the German Federal Parliament under Grant Number 03ET2013M. The authors gratefully acknowledge AG Turbo and MTU Aero Engines AG for their support and permission to publish this paper. The responsibility for the content lies solely with its authors. Special thanks go to Katharina Haase, who supported the measurements and the processing of the data.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Fuchs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fuchs, T., Hain, R. & Kähler, C.J. Uncertainty quantification of three-dimensional velocimetry techniques for small measurement depths. Exp Fluids 57, 73 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-016-2161-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Particle Image Velocimetry
  • Particle Image
  • Particle Tracking Velocimetry
  • Multiplicative Algebraic Reconstruction Technique
  • Planar Poiseuille Flow