$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
A photo of the set-up is shown in Figure 1. Raw particle images of a 32 x 32 pixel interrogation window near the wall from two consecutively captured images are shown in Figure 2. The particles in Figure 2a are displaced 2-3 pixels to the right in Figure 2b and satisfy the "one-quarter rule," which states that in-plane and out-of-plane particle displacements should not exceed ¼ of the interrogation window size. Additionally, the particle density per interrogation window should be roughly 8-10 particles since PIV correlation algorithms track groups of particles. However, the seeding density in near-wall PIV investigations is often on the order of 1-3 particles. Thus, special algorithms should be used to address studies with lower seeding density, such as particle tracking velocimetry (PTV) algorithms which track individual particles 1,2,4-6. A time-averaged correlation approach 7,8 may also be used to address low seeding density issues but this generally results in the loss of temporal resolution. Additionally, imaging near walls is impacted by bright laser reflections that may adversely affect PIV correlations and produce false vectors. These bright reflections also limit the position of the first valid velocity vector in the wall normal direction. Pre-processing the raw particle images is necessary to reduce the impact of background noise from sources such as laser reflections. In this demonstration the first valid vector was located 23 μm from the wall.
After raw particle images are processed using the PIV correlation algorithms, the quality and validity of the resulting velocity vector fields should be assessed. Spurious vectors are unavoidable in the raw vector fields but there are a few distinguishing characteristics. Incorrect vectors are common near surfaces, at the edges of the light sheet, and at the edges of a flow. In addition, the magnitude and direction of invalid vectors differ significantly from neighboring vectors and will not make physical sense. In the case of this boundary layer flow example, the valid velocity vectors should point from left to right as the particle displacements from Figure 2 indicate. Additionally, the velocities should decrease near the wall due to the no-slip condition 9. The instantaneous velocity fields shown in Figure 3 fit both of these physical criteria. Another useful metric to assess the validity of PIV results is to determine the vector choice of each vector in the velocity vector field. In general, the vector field should consist of >= 95% first choice vectors, i.e. those that required no post-processing, so that robust post-processing algorithms may be used to detect and replace spurious vectors without producing considerable artifacts 2. The instantaneous vector fields shown in Figure 3 are composed entirely of 1st choice vectors.
The significance of high-speed, or cinematographic, PIV measurements becomes evident from an inspection of a time sequence of flow images. Instantaneous velocity (Vi) and velocity fluctuation (V') vector fields at the beginning, middle, and end of the recording sequence are shown in Figure 3. Using a Reynolds decomposition, Vi is the sum of the averaged velocity field (
) and V' 10. For this experiment,
was determined by temporally averaging all images in the sequence. The instantaneous vector fields throughout the recording sequence are very similar and show the flow moving from the left to the right. These results also indicate that the flow is predominantly in the horizontal direction since the horizontal velocity component (u) is much larger than the vertical velocity component (v). The fluctuation vector fields also indicate that the horizontal velocity fluctuations (u') are larger than the vertical velocity fluctuations (V'). However, the fluctuations also indicate that the flow is slowing down since u' reverses its direction throughout the recording sequence.
The time-averaged and instantaneous u - profiles at several different times throughout the recording sequence are shown in Figure 4 and verify that the flow is slowing down over time. The u - profiles were determined by averaging four adjacent vector columns together to improve the statistical significance of the results close to the wall. The procedure was used in previous work 6,8. The error bars indicate twice the standard deviation of the four adjacent vector columns. The largest error bar occurs near the surface of the plate and reaffirms the difficulty of using PIV correlation algorithms for areas of low seeding density. Several analysis algorithms are designed to address low seeding density such as PTV 5,6 and time-averaged correlation approaches 7,8.

Figure 1. Benchtop assembly.

Figure 2. Particle images in a 32 x 32 pixel interrogation near the wall at a) t = 0.2 msec and b) t = 0.4 msec. The physical dimensions of the interrogation window are 96 x 96 μm2.

Figure 3. On the left: instantaneous (Vi), and on the right: fluctuation (V') velocity fields at the beginning, middle, and end of the recording sequence. Vector fields are composed entirely of first-choice vectors. A smaller subset of the vector fields is shown for clarity. The Vi fields indicate flow moving from left to right while V' reverse direction. Please note that only every fourth vector column in the horizontal direction is shown for clarity. Additionally, the velocity scale between the Vi and V' fields is different as indicated in the top left corner of each image.

Figure 4. Horizontal velocity (u) profiles at different times throughout the flow. Time-averaged u - profile is shown with circles. Error bars shown on t = 0.1 msec profile are representative of error bars for all other times. The time history of the u - profiles shows a decrease in the flow over time.