No abstract

We present a new uncertainty estimation method for Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV), that uses the correlation plane as a model for the probability density function (PDF) of displacements and calculates the second order moment of the correlation (MC). The crosscorrelation between particle image patterns is the summation of all particle matches convolved with the apparent particle image diameter. MC uses this property to estimate the PIV uncertainty from the shape of the cross-correlation plane. In this new approach, the Generalized Cross-Correlation (GCC) plane corresponding to a PIV measurement is obtained by removing the particle diameter contribution. The GCC primary peak represents a discretization of the displacement PDF, from which the standard uncertainty is obtained by convolving the GCC plane with a Gaussian function. Then a Gaussian least-squares-fit is applied to the peak region, accounting for the stretching and rotation of the peak, due to the local velocity gradients and the effect of the convolved Gaussian. The MC method was tested with simulated image sets and the predicted uncertainties show good sensitivity to the error sources and agreement with the expected RMS error. Subsequently, the method was demonstrated in three PIV challenge cases and two experimental datasets and was compared with the published image matching (IM) and correlation statistics (CS) techniques. Results show that the MC method has a better response to spatial variation in RMS error and the predicted uncertainty is in good agreement with the expected standard uncertainty. The uncertainty prediction was also explored as a function PIV interrogation window size, and the MC method outperforms the other uncertainty methods. R I P

No abstract

We introduce the first comprehensive approach to determine the uncertainty in volumetric Particle Tracking Velocimetry (PTV) measurements. Volumetric PTV is a state-of-the-art non-invasive flow measurement technique, which measures the velocity field by recording successive snapshots of the tracer particle motion using a multi-camera set-up. The measurement chain involves reconstructing the three-dimensional particle positions by a triangulation process using the calibrated camera mapping functions. The non-linear combination of the elemental error sources during the iterative self-calibration correction and particle reconstruction steps increases the complexity of the task. Here, we first estimate the uncertainty in the particle image location, which we model as a combination of the particle position estimation uncertainty and the reprojection error uncertainty. The latter is obtained by a gaussian fit to the histogram of disparity estimates within a sub-volume. Next, we determine the uncertainty in the camera calibration coefficients. As a final step the previous two uncertainties are combined using an uncertainty propagation through the volumetric reconstruction process. The uncertainty in the velocity vector is directly obtained as a function of the reconstructed particle position uncertainty. The framework is tested with synthetic vortex ring images. The results show good agreement between the predicted and the expected RMS uncertainty values. The prediction is consistent for seeding densities tested in the range of 0.01 to 0.1 particles per pixel. Finally, the methodology is also successfully validated for an experimental test case of laminar pipe flow velocity profile measurement where the predicted uncertainty is within 17% of the RMS error value.

Particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurements are subject to multiple elemental error sources and thus estimating overall measurement uncertainty is challenging. Recent advances have led to a posteriori uncertainty estimation methods for planar two-component PIV. However, no complete methodology exists for uncertainty quantification in stereo PIV. In the current work, a comprehensive framework is presented to quantify the uncertainty stemming from stereo registration error and combine it with the underlying planar velocity uncertainties. The disparity in particle locations of the dewarped images is used to estimate the positional uncertainty of the world coordinate system, which is then propagated to the uncertainty in the calibration mapping function coefficients. Next, the calibration uncertainty is combined with the planar uncertainty fields of the individual cameras through an uncertainty propagation equation and uncertainty estimates are obtained for all three velocity components. The methodology was tested with synthetic stereo PIV data for different light sheet thicknesses, with and without registration error, and also validated with an experimental vortex ring case from 2014 PIV challenge. Thorough sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the relative impact of the various parameters to the overall uncertainty. The results suggest that in absence of any disparity, the stereo PIV uncertainty prediction method is more sensitive to the planar uncertainty estimates than to the angle uncertainty, although the latter is not negligible for non-zero disparity. Overall the presented uncertainty quantification framework showed excellent agreement between the error and uncertainty RMS values for both the synthetic and the experimental data and demonstrated reliable uncertainty prediction coverage. This stereo PIV uncertainty quantification framework provides the first comprehensive treatment on the subject and potentially lays foundations applicable to volumetric PIV measurements.

We present an uncertainty quantification methodology for density estimation from Background Oriented Schlieren (BOS) measurements, in order to provide local, instantaneous, a-posteriori uncertainty bounds on each density measurement in the field of view. Displacement uncertainty quantification algorithms from cross-correlation based Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) are used to estimate the uncertainty in the dot pattern displacements obtained from cross-correlation for BOS and assess their feasibility. In order to propagate the displacement uncertainty through the density integration procedure, we also develop a novel methodology via the Poisson solver using sparse linear operators. Testing the method using synthetic images of a Gaussian density field showed agreement between the propagated density uncertainties and the true uncertainty. Subsequently the methodology is experimentally demonstrated for supersonic flow over a wedge, showing that regions with sharp changes in density lead to an increase in density uncertainty throughout the field of view, even in regions without these sharp changes. The uncertainty propagation is influenced by the density integration scheme, and for the Poisson solver the density uncertainty increases monotonically on moving away from the regions where the Dirichlet boundary conditions are specified.

A novel uncertainty-based pressure reconstruction method is proposed to evaluate the instantaneous pressure fields from velocity fields measured using particle image velocimetry (PIV) or particle tracking velocimetry (PTV). First, the pressure gradient fields are calculated from velocity fields, while the local and instantaneous pressure gradient uncertainty is estimated from the velocity uncertainty using a linear-transformation based algorithm. The pressure field is then reconstructed by solving an overdetermined linear system which involves the pressure gradients and boundary conditions. This linear system is solved with generalized least-squares (GLS) which incorporates the previously estimated variances and covariances of the pressure gradient errors as inverse weights to optimize the reconstructed pressure field. The method was validated with synthetic velocity fields of a 2D pulsatile flow and the results show significantly improved pressure accuracy with an error reduction of as much as 250% compared to the existing baseline method of solving the pressure Poisson equation (PPE). The GLS was more robust to the velocity errors and provides greater improvement with spatially correlated velocity errors. For experimental validation, the volumetric pressure fields were evaluated from a laminar pipe flow velocity field measured using 3D PTV. The GLS reduced the median absolute pressure errors by as much as 96%.

Uncertainty quantification in planar particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurement is critical for proper assessment of the quality and significance of reported results. New uncertainty estimation methods have been recently introduced generating interest about their applicability and utility. The present study compares and contrasts current methods, across two separate experiments and three software packages in order to provide a diversified assessment of the methods. We evaluated the performance of four uncertainty estimation methods, primary peak ratio (PPR), mutual information (MI), image matching (IM) and correlation statistics (CS). The PPR method was implemented and tested in two processing codes, using in-house open source PIV processing software (PRANA, Purdue University) and Insight4G (TSI, Inc.). The MI method was evaluated in PRANA, as was the IM method. The CS method was evaluated using DaVis (LaVision, GmbH). Utilizing two PIV systems for high and lowresolution measurements and a laser doppler velocimetry (LDV) system, data were acquired in a total of three cases: a jet flow and a cylinder in cross flow at two Reynolds numbers. LDV measurements were used to establish a point validation against which the high-resolution PIV measurements were validated. Subsequently, the high-resolution PIV measurements were used as a reference against which the low-resolution PIV data were assessed for error and uncertainty. We compared error and uncertainty distributions, spatially varying RMS error and RMS uncertainty, and standard uncertainty coverages. We observed that qualitatively, each method responded to spatially varying error (i.e. higher error regions resulted in higher uncertainty predictions in that region). However, the PPR and MI methods demonstrated reduced uncertainty dynamic range response. In contrast, the IM and CS methods showed better response, but under-predicted the uncertainty ranges. The standard coverages (68% confidence interval) ranged from approximately 65%-77% for PPR and MI methods, 40%-50% for IM and near 50% for CS. These observations illustrate some of the strengths and weaknesses of the methods considered herein and identify future directions for development and improvement.