Introduction of Particle Image Velocimetry

Ken Kiger Burgers Program For Fluid Dynamics Turbulence School College Park, Maryland, May 24-27
Slides largely generated by J. Westerweel & C. Poelma of Technical University of Delft Adapted by K. Kiger

Introduction
Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV): Imaging of tracer particles, calculate displacement: local fluid velocity
Frame 1: t = t0

Measurement section
Light sheet optics Frame 2: t = t0 + t

Twin Nd:YAG laser

CCD camera

Introduction
Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV)
992 32

divide image pair in interrogation regions small region: ~ uniform motion compute displacement repeat !!!

1004

32

Introduction
Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV):
Instantaneous measurement of 2 components in a plane conventional methods (HWA, LDV) single-point measurement traversing of flow domain time consuming only turbulence statistics particle image velocimetry whole-field method non-intrusive (seeding instantaneous flow field

Introduction
Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV):
Instantaneous measurement of 2 components in a plane instantaneous vorticity field particle image velocimetry whole-field method non-intrusive (seeding instantaneous flow field

Example: coherent structures

Example: coherent structures

Turbulent pipe flow Re = 5300 10085 vectors

hairpin vortex

Example: coherent structures

Van Doorne, et al.

Overview

PIV components:

- tracer particles - light source - light sheet optics - camera

- measurement settings - interrogation - post-processing

Hardware (imaging)

Software (image analysis)

Tracer particles
Assumptions: - homogeneously distributed - follow flow perfectly - uniform displacement within interrogation region Criteria: -easily visible -particles should not influence fluid flow!

small, volume fraction < 10-4

Image density

low image density NI << 1 particle tracking velocimetry high image density NI >> 1 particle image velocimetry

Evaluation at higher density

High NI : no longer possible/desirable to follow individual tracer particles Possible matches Sum of all possibilities

Assumption: uniform flow in interrogation area

Particle can be matched with a number of candidates Repeat process for other particles, sum up: wrong combinations will lead to noise, but true displacement will dominate

Statistical estimate of particle motion

Statistical correlations used to find average particle displacement

Bx By

1-d image @ t=t0

Ia (k,l) Ia Ib (k i,l R(i, j)

Bx By k 1 l 1 2 Bx By

j) Ib j) Ib
2 1 2

Ia (k,l) Ia
k 1 l 1

Ib (k i,l
k 1 l 1

1-d image @ t=t1

Ia

1 Bx B y

Bx

By

k 1 l 1

I a (k , l )

Cross-correlation

1-D cross-correlation example

Ia(x) normalized Ib(x+ x) normalized Ia(x)*Ib(x+ x)

Ia

Ib

Bx

Ia (k) Ia Ib (k i) Ib R(i)
Bx k 1 k 1 2 Bx 2 1 2

Ia (k) Ia

Ib (k i) Ib
k 1

Finding the maximum displacement

-Shift 2nd window with respect to the first

Typically 16x16 or 32x32 pixels

- Calculate match Good indicator: R(i, j)
Bx By

Ia (k,l) Ia Ib (k i,l
k 1 l 1 Bx By 2 Bx By

j) Ib j) Ib
2 1 2

Ia (k,l) Ia
k 1 l 1

Ib (k i,l
k 1 l 1

- Repeat to find best estimate

Ia

1 Bx B y

Bx

By

k 1 l 1

I a (k , l )

Finding the maximum displacement

-Shift 2nd window with respect to the first

Typically 16x16 or 32x32 pixels

- Calculate match Good indicator: R(i, j)
Bx By

Ia (k,l) Ia Ib (k i,l
k 1 l 1 Bx By 2 Bx By

j) Ib j) Ib
2 1 2

Ia (k,l) Ia
k 1 l 1

Ib (k i,l
k 1 l 1

- Repeat to find best estimate

Ia

1 Bx B y

Bx

By

k 1 l 1

I a (k , l )

Bad match: sum of product of intensities low

Finding the maximum displacement

-Shift 2nd window with respect to the first

Typically 16x16 or 32x32 pixels

- Calculate match Good indicator: R(i, j)
Bx By

Ia (k,l) Ia Ib (k i,l
k 1 l 1 Bx By 2 Bx By

j) Ib j) Ib
2 1 2

Ia (k,l) Ia
k 1 l 1

Ib (k i,l
k 1 l 1

- Repeat to find best estimate

Ia

1 Bx B y

Bx

By

k 1 l 1

I a (k , l )

Good match: sum of product of intensities high

Can be implemented as 2D FFT for digitized data

o

Impose periodic conditions on interrogation regioncauses bias error if not treated properly.

Cross-correlation
This shifting method can formally be expressed as a cross-correlation:

R(s)

I1 x I 2 x s dx

- I1 and I2 are interrogation areas (sub-windows) of the total frames - x is interrogation location - s is the shift between the images Backbone of PIV:

-cross-correlation of interrogation areas -find location of displacement peak

Cross-correlation

peak: mean displacement

RC
correlation of the mean

correlation of mean & random fluctuations

RF

RD
correlation due to displacement

Influence of NI
RD (s D ) ~ NI NI C z0 2 DI 2 M0
C z0 DI M0 particle concentration light sheet thickness int. area size magnification

NI = 5

NI = 10

NI = 25

More particles: better signal-to-noise ratio Unambiguous detection of peak from noise: NI=10 (average), minimum of 4 per area in 95% of areas (number of tracer particles is a Poisson distribution)

Influence of NI

NI = 5

NI = 10

NI = 25

PTV: 1 particle used for velocity estimate; error e PIV: error ~ e/sqrt(NI)

Influence of in-plane displacement

X,Y-Displacement < quarter of window size

X / DI = 0.00 FI = 1.00
RD (s D ) ~ N I FI

0.28 0.64
FI ( X , Y )

0.56 0.36
1 X DI 1 Y DI

0.85 0.16

Influence of out-of-plane displacement

Z-Displacement < quarter of light sheet thickness ( z0)

Z / z0 = 0.00 FO = 1.00

0.25 0.75

0.50 0.50
FO ( z) 1 z z0

0.75 0.25

RD (s D ) ~ N I FI FO

Influence of gradients a M0 u t
Displacement differences < 3-5% of int. area size, DI

Displacement differences < Particle image size, d

a / DI = 0.00 a / d = 0.00

0.05 0.50

0.10 1.00
F ( a)

0.15 1.50
exp( a 2 / d 2 )

RD (s D ) ~ N I FI FO F
R.D. Keane & R.J. Adrian

PIV Design rules

image density in-plane motion out-of-plane motion spatial gradients

NI >10 | X| < DI | z| < z0 M0 u t < d

Obtained by Keane & Adrian (1993) using synthetic data

Window shifting

in-plane motion

| X| < DI

strongly limits dynamic range of PIV

large window size: too much spatial averaging

Window shifting

in-plane motion

| X| < DI

strongly limits dynamic range of PIV

small window size: too much in-plane pair loss

Window shifting

in-plane motion

| X| < DI

strongly limits dynamic range of PIV

Multi-pass approach: start with large windows, use this result as pre-shift for smaller windows No more in-plane pair loss limitations!

Window shifting: Example

Grid turbulence fixed windows matched windows

windows at same location

windows at 7px downstream

Window shifting: Example

Vortex ring, decreasing window sizes

Raffel, Willert and Kompenhans

Sub-pixel accuracy
Maximum in the correlation plane: single-pixel resolution of displacement?

But the peak contains a lot more information! Gaussian particle images Gaussian correlation peak (but smeared)

Sub-pixel accuracy
r

Fractional displacement can be obtained using the distribution of gray values around maximum

three-point estimators peak centroid

R R
1 1

R R0

parabolic peak fit

R1 R1 2 R 1 R 1 2 R0
ln R 1 ln R 1 2 ln R 1 ln R 1 2 ln R0

Gaussian peak fit

balance normalization

Peak locking

zig-zag structure, sudden kinks in the flow

Sub-pixel Interpolation Errors

Interpolation error (pixels)

Accuracy depends on:

particle image size noise in data (seeding density, camera noise) shear rate

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 Actual peak location (pixels) 0.5 Polynomial fit Gaussian fit

Pixel Radius R = 0.5

Can exhibit peak locking

Interpolation error (pixels)

Interpolation of peak is biased towards a symmetric data distribution (Integer and 1/2 integer peak locations) Polynomials exhibit strong locking when particle diameter is small Gaussian is most commonly used Splines are very robust, but expensive to calculate

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 Actual peak location (pixels) 0.5 Polynomial fit Gaussian fit

R = 1.0

0.3

Interpolation error (pixels)

0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.5

Polynomial fit Gaussian fit

See Particle Image Velocimetry, by Raffel, Willert, and Kompenhans, Springer-Verlag, 1998.

R = 1.5
-0.25 0 0.25 Actual peak location (pixels) 0.5

Peak locking
Histogram of velocities in a turbulent flow

Gaussian peak fit centroid Even with Gaussian peak fit: particle image size too small peak locking (Consider a point particle sampled by discrete pixels)

Sub-pixel accuracy
optimal resolution: particle image size: ~2 px Smaller: particle no longer resolved Larger: random noise increase
bias errors random errors

total error

three-point estimators:
Peak centroid Parabolic peak fit Gaussian peak fit ...

d / dr

Theoretical: 0.01 0.05 px In practice 0.05-0.1 px Main difference: sensitivity to peak locking or pixel lock-in, bias towards integer displacements

displacement measurement error

window matching
fixed windows
FI ~ 0.75
velocity pdf measurement error

matched windows
FI ~ 1

u2 C2 u2 / C2

signal noise SNR

u2 4C2u2 1 / 4C2

application example: grid-generated turbulence X = 7 px

fixed windows

u/U = 2.5%
matched windows

Data Validation
article lab

Spurious or Bad vectors

Spurious vectors
Three main causes:
-

insufficient particle-image pairs in-plane loss-of-pairs, out-of-plane loss-of-pairs gradients

Effect of tracer density NII=20 N=45 =80 =11 =1 5 3

Remedies
increase NI practical limitations: optical transparency of the fluid two-phase effects image saturation / speckle detection, removal & replacement keep finite NI ( ~ 0.05 ) data loss is small signal loss occurs in isolated points data recovery by interpolation

Detection methods
human perception peak height amount of correlated signal peak detectability peak height relative to noise lower limit for SNR residual vector analysis fluctuation of displacement multiplication of correlation planes fluid mechanics continuity fuzzy logic & neural nets

Residual analysis
evaluate fluctuation of measured velocity residual ideally: Uref = true velocity reference values: Uref = global mean velocity comparable to 2D-histogram analysis does not take local coherent motion into account probably only works in homogeneous turbulence Uref = local (33) mean velocity takes local coherent motion into account very sensitive to outliers in the local neighborhood Uref = local (33) median velocity almost identical statistical properties as local mean Strongly suppressed sensitivity to outliers in heighborhood

U U ref

Example of residual test

4
5

3
0

2
1

Mean 2.9

2.3 2.2

3.0

3.7

3.1

3.2

2.4

3.5

2.7 RMS 0.53

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.7

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.5

3.7

Mean 3.7 2.3 9.7 3.0 3.7 3.1 3.2 2.4 3.5 2.7 RMS 2.29 2.3 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.7 9.7

Standard mean and r.m.s. are very sensitive to bad data contamination need robust measure of fluctuation

Median test
1 4 6 2 0 7 3 5 8

1 - Calculate reference velocity: median of 8 neighbors

uref
2 calculate residuals:

median u1,u2,...u8

ri
r
* 0

ui uref
u0 uref median(ri )
0.1 and r0* 2

3 Normalize target residual by: median(ri) +

4 Robust measure found for:

Westerweel & Scarano, 2005

Interpolation

Bilinear interpolation satisfies continuity

For 5% bad vectors, 80% of the vectors are isolated

Bad vector can be recovered without any problems

N.B.: interpolation biases statistics (power spectra, correlation function) Better not to replace bad vectors (use e.g. slotting method)

Overlapping windows
Method to increase data yield: Allow overlap between adjacent interrogation areas a Motivation: particle pairs near edges contribute less to correlation result; Shift window so they are in the center: additional, relatively uncorrelated result

50% is very common, but beware of oversampling

A Generic PIV program

Data acquisition
Reduce non-uniformity of illumination; Reflections

Laser control, Camera settings, etc.

Image pre-processing PIV cross-correlation Vector validation Post-processing

Pre-shift; Decreasing window sizes

Median test, Search window Vorticity, interpolation of missing vectors, etc.

PIV software
Free
PIVware: command line, linux (Westerweel) JPIV: Java version of PIVware (Vennemann) MatPiv: Matlab PIV toolbox (Cambridge, Sveen) URAPIV: Matlab PIV toolbox (Gurka and Liberzon) DigiFlow (Cambridge), PIV Sleuth (UIUC), MPIV, GPIV, CIV, OSIV, Commercial PIVtec TSI Dantec LaVision Oxford Lasers/ILA PIVview Insight Flowmap

DaVis

VidPIV

Particle Motion: tracer particle Equation of motion for spherical particle:

mp dv p dt 3 D u vp
Viscous drag

1 mf 2

du dt

dv p dt

du mf mp 1 dt
Pressure gradient

g p

Inertia

Added mass

buoyancy

Where
mp mf D r u r vp
g p

D3 , the particle mass p 6 D3 , fluid mass of same volume as particle f 6 particle diameter fluid viscosity fluid velocity particle velocity fluid density particle material density

Neglect: non-linear drag (only really needed for high-speed flows), Basset history term (higher order effect)

Simple thought experiment Lets see how a particle responds to a step change in velocity
Only consider viscous drag
mp r dv p dt 3 r r D u vp

u, vp
0 for t < 0 U for t 0

u
1
p

dvp dt
vp 1
p

18 U vp D2 p
vp 1
p

U vp

vp vp

vp

particular

vp t

homogeneous

U C1 exp

U 1 exp

Particle Transfer Function

Useful to examine steady-state particle response to 1-D oscillating flow of arbitrary sum of frequencies
Represent u as an infinite sum of harmonic functions Neglect gravity (DC response, not transient)
ut
0 f

exp i t d exp i t d

du t dt dv p t dt

i
0

exp i t d exp i t d

vp t
0

i
0

2m p dv p 3 D dt
2
0 p

2 u vp

m f m p du m p 3 D dt
exp i t d

dv p dt

m f m p du 2 m p 3 D dt
f 0 p p

D2
p

18

i exp i t d
0

D2

18
p

exp i t d

2iSt

i St 3

St

p f

D2

f p

18

Particle Transfer Function This can be rearranged:

r vp r u
Im Re

12 p f p f

A B A2 1

2 12

A B

tan

f f

p /

tan

A(1 B) A2 B

2 St 2 3 2

Examine
Liquid in air, gas in water, plastic in water

Liquid particles in Air

Liquid drops in air require St~0.3 for 95% fidelity (1 m ~ 15 kHz) Size relatively unimportant for near-neutrally buoyant particles Bubbles are a poor choice: always overrespond unless quite small