Experiments in Fluids

, 57:102 | Cite as

Pressure-field extraction from Lagrangian flow measurements: first experiences with 4D-PTV data

  • N. J. Neeteson
  • S. Bhattacharya
  • D. E. Rival
  • D. Michaelis
  • D. Schanz
  • A. Schröder
Research Article


As a follow-up to a previous proof-of-principle study, a novel Lagrangian pressure-extraction technique is analytically evaluated, and experimentally validated using dense 4D-PTV data. The technique is analytically evaluated using the semi-three-dimensional Taylor–Green vortex, and it is found that the Lagrangian technique out-performs the standard Eulerian technique when Dirichlet boundary conditions are enforced. However, the Lagrangian technique produces worse estimates of the pressure field when Neumann boundary conditions are enforced on boundaries with strong pressure gradients. The technique is experimentally validated using flow data obtained for the case of a free-falling, index-matched sphere at \(Re=2100\). The experimental data were collected using a four-camera particle tracking velocimetry measurement system, and processed using 4D-PTV. The pressure field is then extracted using both the Eulerian and Lagrangian techniques, and the resulting pressure fields are compared. Qualitatively, the pressure fields agree; however, quantitative differences are found with respect to the magnitude of the pressure minima on the side of the sphere. Finally, the pressure-drag coefficient is estimated using each technique, and the two techniques are found to be in very close agreement. A comparison to a reference value from literature confirms that the drag coefficient estimates are reasonable, demonstrating the validity of the technique.


Dirichlet Boundary Condition Pressure Field Neumann Boundary Condition Lagrangian Method Particle Tracking Velocimetry 
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.



The authors would like to thank Alberta Innovates Technology Futures for their financial backing, and the members of the NIOPLEX research consortium (7th Framework Programme of the European Commission under Grant Agreement 605151) for their valuable feedback.


  1. Aurenhammer F (1991) Voronoi diagrams–a survey of a fundamental geometric data structure. ACM Comput Surv 23(3):345–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auteri F, Carini M, Zagaglia D, Montagnani D, Gibertini G, Merz CB, Zanotti A (2015) A novel approach for reconstructing pressure from PIV velocity measurements. Exp Fluids 56(2):45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brachet ME (1991) Direct simulation of three-dimensional turbulence in the taylorgreen vortex. Fluid Dyn Res 8:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brachet ME, Meiron DI, Orszag SA, Nickel BG, Morf RH, Frisch U (1983) Small-scale structure of the Taylor-Green vortex. J Fluid Mech 130:411–452CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown PP, Lawler DF (2003) Sphere drag and settling velocity revisited. J Environ Eng 129:222–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cornic P, Champagnat F, Cheminet A, Leclaire B, Besnerais GL (2015) Fast and efficient particle reconstruction on a 3D grid using sparsity. Exp Fluids 56:62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fujisawa N, Tanahashi S, Srinivas K (2005) Evaluation of pressure field and fluid forces on a circular cylinder with and without rotational oscillation using velocity data from PIV measurement. Meas Sci Technol 16:989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gurka R, Liberzon A, Hefetz D, Rubinstein D, Shavit U (1999) Computation of pressure distribution using PIV velocity data. PIV’99, Santa Barbara, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. Hengl T (2006) Finding the right pixel size. Comput Geosci 32(9):1283–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jeon YJ, Chatellier L, David L (2014) Fluid trajectory evaluation based on an ensemble-averaged cross-correlation in time-resolved PIV. Exp Fluids 55:1766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kähler CJ, Scharnowski S, Cierpka C (2012) On the uncertainty of digital PIV and PTV near walls. Exp Fluids 52:1641–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Laskari A, de Kat R, Ganapathisubramani B (2014) Full-field pressure from 3D PIV snapshots in convective turbulent flow. In: 17th International symposium on applications of laser techniques to fluid mechanics, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  13. Lüthi B, Tsinober A, Kinzelbach W (2005) Lagrangian measurement of vorticity dynamics in turbulent flow. J Fluid Mech 528:87–118CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Lynch KP, Scarano F (2015) An efficient and accurate approach to mte-mart for time-resolved tomographic piv. Exp Fluids 56:66Google Scholar
  15. Neeteson NJ, Rival DE (2015) Pressure-field extraction on unstructured flow data using a voronoi tessellation-based networking algorithm: a proof-of-principle study. Exp Fluids 56(44):1–13Google Scholar
  16. Novara M, Scarano F (2013) A particle-tracking approach for accurate material derivative measurements with tomographic PIV. Exp Fluids 54:1584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Raffel M, Willert CE, Wereley ST, Kompenhans J (2007) Particle image velocimetry: a practical guide, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 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(2):024009. doi: 10.1088/0957-0233/24/2/024009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 positions. In: 10th International symposium on particle image velocimetry, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  20. 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, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  21. Schneiders JFG, Lynch K, Dwight RP, van Oudheusden BW, Scarano F (2014) Instantaneous pressure from single snapshot tomographic PIV by Vortex-in-Cell. In: 17th International symposium on applications of laser techniques to fluid mechanics, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  22. Shu CW, Don WS, Gottlieb D, Schilling O, Jameson L (2005) Numerical convergence study of nearly incompressible, inviscid taylorgreen vortex flow. J Sci Comput 24(1):1–27MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Sibson R (1981) A brief description of natural neighbor interpolation (chapter 2). In: Barnett V (ed) Interpreting multivariate data (probability and mathematical statistics). Wiley, Chichester, pp 21–36Google Scholar
  24. Sukumar N, Bolander JE (2003) Numerical computation of discrete differential operators on non-uniform grids. Comput Model Eng Sci 4:691–706MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Taylor GI, Green AE (1937) Mechanism of the production of small eddies from large ones. Proc R Soc Lond Math Phys Eng Sci 158(895):499–521. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1937.0036 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. van Oudheusden BW (2013) PIV-based pressure measurement. Meas Sci Technol 24(032):001Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Wieneke B (2008) Volume self-calibration for 3D particle image velocimetry. Exp Fluids 45:549–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wieneke B (2013) Iterative reconstruction of volumetric particle distribution. Meas Sci Technol 24(024):008Google Scholar
  30. Young D (1950) Iterative methods for solving partial difference equations of elliptic type. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. J. Neeteson
    • 1
  • S. Bhattacharya
    • 2
  • D. E. Rival
    • 1
  • D. Michaelis
    • 3
  • D. Schanz
    • 4
  • A. Schröder
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Materials EngineeringQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing EngineeringUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  3. 3.LaVision GmbHGöttingenGermany
  4. 4.Department of Experimental Methods, German Aerospace Center (DLR)Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow TechnologyGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations