Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Three-dimensional particle image velocimetry: error analysis of stereoscopic techniques

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.

1997 Meas. Sci. Technol. 8 894

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0957-0233/8/8/010)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
IP Address: 81.31.173.171
The article was downloaded on 30/10/2010 at 10:22

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

Meas. Sci. Technol. 8 (1997) 894–900. Printed in the UK PII: S0957-0233(97)80754-0

Three-dimensional particle image

velocimetry: error analysis of
stereoscopic techniques
N J Lawson† and J Wu‡
† The GK Williams CRC, Department of Chemical Engineering,
The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
‡ 2 CSIRO, Division of Building, Construction and Engineering, Graham Rd,
Highett, Victoria 3190, Australia

Received 8 January 1997, in final form 23 April 1997, accepted for publication
2 May 1997

Abstract. A geometric error model for analysis and design of stereoscopic PIV
systems is presented. The model allows displacement errors in either translational
or angular systems to be analysed for any given angle or camera separation and
for any off-axis position. A parameter for the analysis of the system performance is
also introduced based on the ratio of out-of-plane to in-plane errors. This is
subsequently used to investigate the relative performance of translational and
angular PIV systems for camera angles up to 45◦ and camera separations of half
the object distance. Results from this analysis show similar trends in centreline
characteristics for both types of stereo systems but different trends in off-axis error
ratios due to imaging geometry. The results have also suggested that a CCD-based
angular PIV stereo system offers up to 40% greater out-of-plane accuracy for a
given field of view and laser power than previous translational systems.

1. Introduction ambiguity [8]. Stereoscopic PIV is also less complex than

Particle image velocimetry (PIV) is a well established, non-
intrusive technique for the measurement of fluid velocity
from a single plane of interest within a flow field [1, 2]. In
its simplest form PIV uses double-exposure photography
to record the position of seeding particles illuminated by a
thin light sheet. A large number of particle–image pairs is
thus recorded whose average displacement over each small
region of the photograph is a measure of the mean velocity.
Following photographic development a two-dimensional
(2D) fluid velocity map has been produced using optical
or digital spatial correlation analysis to determine the
particle displacement within each small region of the flow
[3, 4].
Recent advances in PIV have been directed towards
obtaining three-dimensional (3D) measurements of fluid
velocity to allow the study of more complex fluid
systems. Several methods which have been successfully
demonstrated include holographic PIV [5, 6] known as
HPIV, dual-plane PIV [7, 8] and stereoscopic PIV [9–14].
Of the three techniques, HPIV is the most complex
and requires a significant investment in equipment and
the development of advanced data processing techniques.
Dual-plane PIV has the simplest imaging set-up and uses
a single camera with two independent light sheets. Recent
developments of this technique have also suggested using
two-colour imaging to remove out-of-plane directional
HPIV using only a single light sheet and two cameras,
although the technique does use intensive image processing.
The dependence of PIV measurement accuracy on
velocity gradient strength has been comprehensively
investigated in previous works [15, 16] which have shown
that the measurement error can become unacceptable in
the presence of strong velocity gradients and in the
worst case make the measurement invalid. If this
relationship is combined with the likelihood of strong
gradients in complex 3D flows, then any application of
3D PIV techniques must at some point include an error
analysis.
To date there has been limited error analysis for 3D
PIV systems. For stereo PIV systems, previous work
has been restricted to analysis of in-line and translational
camera configurations [9, 10, 13]. Detailed analysis of the
imaging problems of angular stereo PIV systems has also
been completed including the testing of a novel imaging
system to reduce aberrations [14], although correlation
errors were not investigated in detail. Therefore in what
follows we present a geometric error model which can
be applied to translational or angular stereoscopic PIV
systems. The error analysis is based on a simple PIV model
which is subsequently used to analyse both types of stereo
systems. Results from the model are presented and then
limitations of the different stereoscopic configurations are
discussed.

0957-0233/97/080894+07$19.50
c 1997 IOP Publishing Ltd
 Error analysis of stereoscopic systems using 3D PIV

Figure 1. Diagram of stereoscopic camera system.

2. Theory zj0 = z cos αj + (x − hj ) sin αj . (6)

With reference to a previous analysis [17], let us consider Differentiating (1) and (2) in terms of x, y and z leads
a general case where two cameras, j = 1, 2, are imaging to particle image displacements (1Xj , 1Yj ) in the image
a common object plane in a fluid with coordinates (x, y, z) plane equal to:
and origin O and which have image planes (Xj , Yj ) as ∂Xj ∂Xj ∂Xj
shown in figure 1. Also let the two cameras be separated 1Xj = 1x + 1y + 1z (7)
∂x ∂y ∂z
by a distance hj along the x axes with respect to the lens
centres Oj and let the camera optical axes be rotated by ∂Yj ∂Yj ∂Yj
an angle αj with respect to the z axes. If both cameras 1Yj = 1x + 1y + 1z. (8)
∂x ∂y ∂z
have object and image distances do and di respectively,
To extract velocity data from the particle image
then for a given particle moving in the object plane, the
displacements, (1Xj , 1Yj ), the particle displacements in
corresponding coordinates in the image plane will equal:
the object plane (1x, 1y, 1z) must be found. Therefore if
Xj = −Mj xj0 (1) α1 = −α, α2 = +α, h1 = −h and h2 = +h then (7) and
(8) can be written in terms of x, y and z such that:
Yj = −Mj yj0 (2)
1X1 = a1 1x + b1 1z (9)
where the magnification Mj is given by  
y
Mj = di /(do − zj0 ) (3) 1Y1 = −M1 1y + (1x sin α + 1z cos α) (10)
do1
and xj0 , yj0 and zj0 are transformed coordinates in the image 1X2 = a2 1x + b2 1z (11)
 
planes as shown in figure 1 such that: y
1Y2 = −M2 1y − (1x sin α − 1z cos α) (12)
do2
xj0 = −z sin αj + (x − hj ) cos αj (4)
where
yj0 = y (5) do1 = do − z cos α − (x − h) sin α (13)

895
N J Lawson and J Wu

do2 = do − z cos α + (x + h) sin α (14) where the coefficients c1 , c2 and c3 equal

M1 = di /do1 (15) c1 = −
2
(30)
M1 + M2
M2 = di /do2 (16) q
  a12 + a22 
and the coefficients a1 , a2 , b1 and b2 are y cos α M1 M2
c2 = − + (31)
M1 + M 2 do1 do2 a2 b1 − a1 b2
a1 = −M1 cos α + (M1 sin α/do1 )[z sin α − (x − h) cos α] q
  b2 + b2 
(17) y sin α M2 M1 1 2
a2 = −M2 cos α + (M2 sin α/do2 )[z sin α + (x + h) cos α] c3 = − . (32)
M1 + M2 do2 do1 a1 b2 − a2 b1
(18) Previous error analyses of translational systems [9, 10]
b1 = M1 sin α + (M1 cos α/do1 )[z sin α − (x − h) cos α] have produced relationships for estimating the individual
(19) object plane errors δ(1x), δ(1y) and δ(1z). A more
b2 = −M2 sin α − (M2 cos α/do2 )[z sin α + (x + h) cos α]. general performance parameter, however, can be defined
(20) by considering the ratios of the individual error components
Solving for (1x, 1y, 1z) from equations (9)–(12) gives: to form dimensionless groups. These groups can then be
b2 1X1 − b1 1X2 used to analyse the relative performance of a given error
1x = (21)
a1 b2 − a2 b1 component in the system. Therefore considering a major
 objective of stereoscopic PIV systems is to obtain out-
1
1y = − 1Y1 + 1Y2 of-plane data, a principal measure of the overall system
M1 + M 2
  performance would be to ratio the out-of-plane with the
M1 M2 in-plane errors. Accordingly in the following analysis of
+y + 1z cos α
do1 do2 our stereoscopic PIV model we shall consider the ratio of
  
M2 M1 out-of-plane error to in-plane error such that:
− − 1x sin α (22) q
do2 do1
δ(1z) a12 + a22
a2 1X1 − a1 1X2 = q . (33)
1z = . (23) δ(1x)
a2 b1 − a1 b2 b12 + b22
Finally if the laser pulse separation is 1t the three-
This quantity will be referred to as the error ratio er and
dimensional velocity vector V can be found from: will equal 
δ(1z) 
V = 1s/1t (24) er = (34)
δ(1x) x,y,z
where for any given values of x, y and z.
1s = [1x]i + [1y]j + [1z]k (25)
and i, j and k are unit vectors in the x, y and z directions 4. Translational set-up
respectively.
Let us now analyse the performance of a translational
set-up when α = 0. To this end consider a system
3. Error analysis with two identical cameras where M1 = M2 = M and
do1 = do2 = do . From equation (33) the error ratio er can
In the following we analyse the errors of two commonly be written:
used stereoscopic configurations. These are the transla- 
1 
tional system when α = 0◦ and the angular configuration er = p  . (35)

when h = 0. Let us assume that the uncertainties in α, h, do (x/do ) + (h/do ) x,y,z
2 2

and di are negligible and that the errors in the image plane Therefore the error ratio is independent of y and z but
(1X1 , 1Y1 ) and (1X2 , 1Y2 ) are equal such that: will vary in x. At the centre of the measured field where
x = 0, y = 0, z = 0, the error ratio will simply equal:
δ(1Xj ) = δ(1Yj ) = δ(1X) (26) 
1 
er = . (36)
for j = 1, 2 where δ( ) represents the error in a given (h/d ) 
o x=0,y=0,z=0
variable. Therefore using standard error analysis the This relationship is plotted in figure 2 and can be used as
uncertainties in the object planes, 1x, 1y and 1z can be an initial design guide for a translational system.
written q The off-axis error ratio relationship is more complex
b12 + b22 and is shown in figure 3 for a range of (x/do ) and (h/do ).
δ(1x) = δ(1X) (27) These results show the error ratio significantly falling away
|a1 b2 − a2 b1 |
q  from the centre of field. This reduction in er is caused by
δ(1y) = c12 + c22 + c32 δ(1X) (28) the effective increase in viewing angle for a corresponding
movement off-axis. The increase in viewing angle results
q in greater values of 1X1 and 1X2 in the image plane for a
a12 + a22 given particle movement, therefore improving the estimate
δ(1z) = δ(1X) (29)
|a2 b1 − a1 b2 | of 1z and hence er .

896
 Error analysis of stereoscopic systems using 3D PIV

Figure 2. Translational system centreline error ratio versus camera position (x = 0, y = 0, z = 0).

Figure 3. Translational system off-axis error ratio for a range of h /do and y = 0, z = 0.

5. Angular set-up This result is more complex than the translational system
in described in equation (35) with a dependence on z as
If we now analyse the performance of an angular set-up also well as x and α. At the centre of the measured field where
with two identical cameras where h = 0, M1 = M2 = M x = 0, y = 0, z = 0, the error ratio will simply equal:
and do1 = do2 = do , then from equation (33) the error ratio 
er can be written: 1 
er = . (38)
tan α x=0,y=0,z=0
er = {cos2 α − sin2 α[2(z/do ) cos α + (z/do )2 sin2 α
+(x/do )2 cos2 α]}1/2 {sin α[1 + 2(z/do ) cos α This relationship, which is plotted in figure 4, has a similar
+(z/do )2 sin2 α + (x/do )2 cos2 α]1/2 }−1 |x,y,z . (37) trend to the to the translational characteristic shown in

897
N J Lawson and J Wu

Figure 4. Angular system centreline error ratio versus camera angle (x = 0, y = 0, z = 0).

Figure 5. Angular system off-axis error ratio for a range of α and y = 0, z = 0.

figure 2 and can also be used as an initial design curve
for an angular system.
The off-axis error ratio relationship is shown in figure 5
for a range of (x/do ) and α. These results, as with the
translational system, show er falling away from the centre
of field. The reduction in er , however, is not as significant
as with a translational system. This is due to the rotation
of the lens axis in the angular system which will reduce the
variation in effective viewing angle across a given field.
This results in a smaller change in values of 1X1 and 1X2
across the image plane for a constant particle movement
therefore giving a smaller improvement in the estimate of
1z and hence er .
6. Discussion
The analysis in the previous section has defined error
characteristics which result from the camera geometry of a
stereo PIV system. These relationships can be used in the
initial design stages of either translational or angular stereo
systems. There are, however, other major factors including
image aberrations, laser power and image correspondence

898

which affect the accuracy of the stereo PIV system.
Therefore assuming the use of correlation techniques to
extract the particle image displacements, these problems
will now be discussed in the following section with
reference to the results from the error modelling.
The error modelling has shown for either translational
or angular systems that large camera spacings or angles
are required to attain acceptable levels of error ratio er .
For example, to achieve a centreline error ratio of er = 2
requires a camera separation of h/do = 0.5 (α = 0) or
a camera angle of α = 26.6◦ (h = 0). Unfortunately
these geometries will cause image aberrations such as
coma, astigmatism and distortion due to optical properties
of the imaging system [18] and will ultimately limit the
maximum camera separation or angles and hence 1z
accuracy. These effects can be reduced by using small
apertures and suitable lenses such as planar lenses with long
focal lengths [9, 10, 18]. Aberrations are also unfortunately
accentuated when imaging through a liquid–air interface
such as when taking PIV measurements from a liquid
system. In this case, previous authors have used various
methods to improve the image quality which include image
plane tilt [9, 14] and use of a novel liquid prism [14].
The requirement for small apertures to reduce
aberrations demands greater laser power than for a 2D
system with the same field of view. Illumination levels
will also need to be increased when measuring from a liquid
system due to the increased light loss by reflection through
the liquid–air interface [9, 14]. Previous authors report the
use of f numbers as high as f 16 with camera spacings of
h/do = 0.28 [9] and h/do = 0.2 [10]. These configurations
correspond to centreline error ratios of er = 3.5 and er = 5
respectively. With greater laser power, higher f numbers
such as f 32 could be used to increase camera spacings.
It is unlikely, however, that a translational system will be
able to achieve error ratios of er < 2 due to aperture and
laser power limitations.
Image registration and calibration are also major
considerations for stereo PIV camera systems. Image
registration ensures that the two measurements 1X1 and
1X2 correspond to the same region in the fluid flow.
Previous workers [9] have successfully used a Moiré
technique to align both transparencies before processing.
An alternative method has used a single camera with
two sets of mirrors to record both images on the same
transparency [10]. This greatly simplifies PIV image
registration. Other techniques applied to digital PIV
systems involve the use of a geometric transform and
bicubic interpolation at the image processing stage [12].
In addition, image calibration is required to correct for the
varying magnification caused by distortion of the image.
This is generally done by either displacing a calibration
image in the object plane to produce a double-exposed PIV
image [10] or placing a known grid in the object plane and
then applying geometric transforms or bicubic interpolation
routines to the grid positions [9, 12]. These calibration
maps are then referenced during the correlation stage to
calculate particle displacements.
The angular system offers the possibility of achieving
higher performance than a translational system. For
Error analysis of stereoscopic systems using 3D PIV
example, if an angular system is required with an equivalent
performance of the system described by Prasad and Adrian
[9], i.e. a centreline error ratio of er = 3.5, then this
corresponds to a camera angle of α = 16◦ . With this angle
and if using similar 500 ×400 format cameras with f numbers
of f 16, the depth of field will not match the viewed
field with normally aligned camera backs. If, however,
the camera back is tilted to the Scheimpflug condition as
demonstrated by Prasad and Jensen [14] then focusing will
be improved. Aberrations still occur in the image but these
can also be reduced by the use of a liquid prism [14]. More
importantly with the angular system, the angle at which the
extreme rays enter the lens does not significantly change
with increasing α. Therefore in this case it is possible to
operate the angular system at α > 16◦ without having to
increase the f number. Prasad and Jensen [14] suggested
optimum f numbers of f 8. Hence using the same laser
power, a higher out-of-plane accuracy will be possible with
an angular system.
If CCD cameras without any image plane tilt and with
an array size of 8 × 6 mm2 are used to image a similar
field of view as the 500 × 400 format cameras, magnifications
of around M = 1/16 are required. These magnifications
correspond to an acceptable depth of field at f 8. At f 16 the
increase in depth of field would allow the camera angle to
be increased to α = 26◦ . This corresponds to a centreline
error ratio of er = 2 and is an improvement in out-of-
plane accuracy of 40% when compared to the previous
translational system [9]. Therefore, although a CCD system
will not offer the spatial resolution of a 500 ×400 film system,
it can offer improved out-of-plane accuracy for the same
laser power.
7. Conclusions
This paper has introduced a geometric error model for
analysis and design of stereoscopic PIV systems. The
model allows displacement errors in either translational
or angular systems to be analysed for any given angle or
camera separation and for any off-axis position. Subsequent
investigations used the model to examine the relative
performance of both types of stereo PIV systems based
on an error ratio parameter. This error ratio was defined as
the ratio of the out-of-plane to the in-plane errors. Results
from the investigation have shown that the centreline error
ratios follow similar trends but off-axis error ratios follow
different trends due to the imaging geometry. Comparisons
with previous work have suggested an angular-based stereo
PIV system would offer greater out-of-plane accuracy for a
given field of view and laser power whether using a film-
or CCD-based recording system. Improvements in out-of-
plane accuracy in this case may be 40% greater than an
equivalent translational system.
References
[1] Adrian R J 1991 Particle-imaging techniques for
experimental fluid mechanics Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 23
261–304
899
N J Lawson and J Wu
[2] Pickering C J D and Halliwell N A 1985 Particle image
velocimetry: a new field measurement technique Optical
Measurement in Fluid Dynamics, Inst. Phys. Conf. Series
vol 77 (Bristol: Adam Hilger)
[3] Mao Z Q, Halliwell N A and Coupland J M 1993 Particle
image velocimetry: high-speed transparency scanning
and correlation-peak location in optical processing
systems Appl. Opt. 32 (26) 5089–91
[4] Meinhart C D, Prasad A K and Adrian R J 1993 A parallel
digital processor system for particle image velocimetry
Meas. Sci. Technol. 4 619–26
[5] Coupland J M and Halliwell N A 1992 Particle image
velocimetry: three-dimensional fluid velocity
measurements using holographic recording and optical
correlation Appl. Opt. 31 1005–7
[6] Barnhart D H, Adrian R J and Papen G C 1994
Phase-conjugate holographic system for high
resolution particle image velocimetry Appl. Opt. 33
7159–70
[7] Raffel M, Gharib M, Ronneberger O and Kompenhans J
1995 Feasibility study of three-dimensional PIV by
correlating images of particles within parallel light
sheets Exp. Fluids 19 69–77
[8] Brucher C 1996 3D PIV via spatial correlation in a
color-coded light sheet Exp. Fluids 21 312–14
[9] Prasad A K and Adrian R J 1993 Stereoscopic particle
image velocimetry applied to liquid flows Exp. Fluids 15
49–60
900
[10] Arroyo M P and Greated C A 1991 Stereoscopic particle
image velocimetry Meas. Sci. Technol. 2 1181–6
[11] Grant I, Zhao Y, Tan Y and Stewart J N 1991 Three
component flow mapping: experiences in stereoscopic
PIV and holographic velocimetry Laser Anemom. Adv.
Appl. 1 365–71
[12] Westerweel J and Nieuwstadt F T M 1991 Performance
tests on 3D velocity measurements with a two-camera
digital particle image velocimeter Laser Anemometry
Advances and Applications vol 1, ed A Dybbs and B
Ghorashi (New York: ASME) pp 349–55
[13] Grant I, Fu S, Pan X and Wang X 1995 The application of
an in-line, stereoscopic, PIV system to 3-component
velocity measurements Exp. Fluids 21 214–21
[14] Prasad A K and Jensen K 1995 Scheimpflug stereocamera
for particle image velocimetry in liquid flows Appl. Opt.
34 7092–9
[15] Keane R D and Adrian R J 1990 Optimisation of particle
image velocimeters. Part I: double pulsed systems Meas.
Sci. Technol. 1 1202–15
[16] Prasad A K, Adrian R J, Landreth C C and Offutt P W 1992
Effect of resolution on the speed and accuracy of particle
image velocimetry interrogation Exp. Fluids 13 105–16
[17] Diner D B and Fender D H 1993 Human Engineering in
Stereoscopic Viewing Devices (New York: Plenum)
pp 49–65
[18] Longhurst R S 1973 Geometrical and Physical Optics 2nd
edn (Longhurst) pp 17–41