Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Detecting Turbulent Patterns in Particulate Pipe Flow by Streak Angle Visualization

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Particle streak angles, measured with a low-cost laser and camera, classify laminar, transitional, and turbulent particulate pipe flow.

desk verdict A simple, low-cost streak-angle classifier that mostly works as advertised, but the KL-based critical Reynolds estimate is not yet solid enough to be the paper's headline. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01753 v1 pith:YS2PW3FV submitted 2025-01-03 physics.flu-dyn

Rishav Raj , Abhiram Thiruthummal , Alban Potherat This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords laser-camerasetupstreakvisualizationturbulencedetectionparticulatepipeflowlaminar-turbulenttransitionparticleanglesKullback-LeiblerdivergencecriticalReynoldsnumber
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper contends that the statistical spread of particle streak angles is enough to tell laminar, transitional, and turbulent regimes apart in a particulate pipe flow. Using a 50 mW laser sheet and an ordinary camera, it records short-exposure streaks of neutrally buoyant particles (Stokes number 0.2–0.6) and measures each streak's angle relative to the pipe axis. Laminar flow gives angles clustered near zero; turbulent flow gives a wide spread. The paper shows that the standard deviation of these angles, computed over a moving five-frame window, separates the regimes with a threshold of 0.04 and that transient turbulent puffs appear as clear peaks; it then uses the Kullback-Leibler divergence between measured and reference angle distributions to locate the critical Reynolds number. The claim matters because the method works at low particle concentrations, where PIV, LDV, and similar techniques lose reliability, and it can be built from inexpensive parts.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the distribution of streak angles $\theta_i$ measured by the Hough transform on background-subtracted, thresholded camera frames. From each five-frame window the paper forms the sample standard deviation $\sigma$ and uses $\sigma=0.04$, calibrated from reference laminar and turbulent runs, as the regime threshold. The second piece of machinery is the Kullback-Leibler divergence $D_{KL}(P\parallel Q)=\int p(x)\log[p(x)/q(x)]\,dx$ between the current angle distribution and fixed reference distributions; evaluated against both a laminar and a turbulent reference, the point where the two divergence curves cross defines the critical Reynolds number. This two-stage pipeline carries the entire argument: the threshold does the classification, the divergence does the transition-point estimate, and both are validated against independent PIV and pressure-drop measurements.

What would settle it

Set up the same rig at Re = 1530 with the larger 425–500 µm particles and compute the five-frame $\sigma$ from the streak images; if $\sigma$ routinely exceeds 0.04 while simultaneous PIV and pressure-drop measurements indicate laminar flow, the calibrated threshold does not generalise. A broader version scans the whole Re range for any condition where $\sigma>0.04$ coincides with a laminar PIV profile and laminar friction factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that particle trajectories, captured as light streaks, carry a usable one-dimensional signature of the fluid phase's state: the angular dispersion of streaks. For a laminar fluid the streaks are nearly parallel to the pipe axis; for a turbulent fluid they are visibly misaligned, and this difference persists across the Reynolds-number range studied (Re = 1120–2980). Quantifying the dispersion by the standard deviation $\sigma$ of streak angles over five consecutive frames, the paper establishes a calibrated threshold $\sigma = 0.04$ that classifies each frame as laminar, transitional (a puff), or turbulent, matching classifications from simultaneous PIV measurements and from friction-factor versus Reynolds-number curves. Going further, the paper computes the Kullback-Leibler divergence $D_{KL}(P\parallel Q)$ between the measured angle distribution and two reference distributions, one laminar (Re = 1120) and one turbulent (Re = 4500); the crossing of the two divergence curves gives a critical Reynolds number that depends on the perturbation amplitude, with stronger perturbations triggering an earlier transition. This critical value is consistent with the $Re_c \sim \epsilon^{-1}$ scaling for particulate pipe flow reported in earlier work.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 0.04 standard-deviation threshold, calibrated from just two reference runs, correctly separates laminar from turbulent behaviour for every Reynolds number, perturbation strength, particle size, and concentration studied here, even though the particles do not follow the fluid exactly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A laboratory can classify particulate pipe flow regimes with a 50 mW laser and a standard camera, without PIV-grade lasers, high-speed cameras, or synchronisation hardware.
  • At volume fractions around $10^{-3}$, where PIV and ultrasound methods lose sensitivity, the streak-angle classifier still separates laminar, puff, and turbulent states.
  • The KL-divergence crossover gives a quantitative critical Reynolds number from the same streak images, so no separate velocity-field measurement is needed to locate transition.
  • Peaks in the five-frame standard deviation signal reveal localized turbulent puffs and their passage, enabling time-resolved monitoring of transitional features.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the KL-divergence crossover already replaces the hand-set threshold with a data-driven criterion, a natural extension is a fully unsupervised classifier that needs no reference runs; the manual calibration step in the paper is the main obstacle to that.
  • The method's stated advantage at low concentration suggests a testable boundary: at higher volume fractions, particle-particle collisions may widen streak-angle distributions even in laminar flow, so the 0.04 threshold would need re-calibration or would fail.
  • Applying the same streak-angle pipeline to the 10 µm tracer particles, rather than the larger inertial particles, would connect the angle statistics directly to fluid-phase velocity fluctuations and could test whether the threshold reflects fluid turbulence or particle inertia.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a low-cost streak-visualization method for detecting laminar, transitional, and turbulent regimes in dilute particulate pipe flow. Particle streaks are recorded with a laser-and-camera setup, processed by background subtraction, adaptive thresholding, Canny edge detection, and a probabilistic Hough transform, and characterized by the distribution of streak angles relative to the pipe axis. The standard deviation of streak angles over a five-frame moving window is used to classify flow regimes against a reference threshold, and the Kullback-Leibler divergence between observed angle distributions and reference laminar/turbulent distributions is used to estimate the critical Reynolds number. The method is validated against Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) and pressure-drop friction-factor measurements for Reynolds numbers between 1120 and 2980 at a fixed volume fraction and particle size range.

Significance. If fully supported, the paper would offer a simple, inexpensive tool for regime detection in particulate pipe flows at low particle concentration, where established techniques such as PIV, LDV, and UIV are costly, intrusive, or ineffective. The use of two independent external benchmarks, PIV and pressure-drop friction factor, is a genuine strength, as is the explicit description of the image-processing pipeline and its parameters. However, the central classification claim currently rests on a calibration step whose reference runs are only partially documented, and the critical-Reynolds-number claim depends on an underspecified, reference-dependent KL-divergence estimator. The significance of the paper would be materially increased by resolving these issues.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.3, Eq. (6), Fig. 8] The KL-divergence calculation is not reproducible as reported. Equation (6) defines D_KL for continuous distributions, but the actual computation is performed on binned histograms of streak angles, and the bin width, the number of frames or particles used to form each distribution, and the treatment of zero-count bins are never stated. Plug-in KL estimates are known to be biased and binning-dependent, so without this information the curves in Fig. 8 could shift substantially. In addition, D_KL(P||Q) is asymmetric, so the crossover between D_KL(·||laminar) and D_KL(·||turbulent) is not a reference-independent measure of distance to either regime; swapping the references or using a symmetric divergence such as Jensen-Shannon could move the intersection. The claim that the crossover gives a critical Reynolds number consistent with previous studies is therefore not yet supported and needs either a precise estimator definition plus sensitivity checks or a reformulation of the criterion.
  2. [Section 5.2, Fig. 7] The classification threshold σ = 0.04 is calibrated from reference runs at Re = 1120 and Re = 7500, but the stated Reynolds-number range of the experiments is [1120, 2980], and no details of the Re = 7500 run are given. Moreover, Section 5.3 and Fig. 8 refer to a turbulent reference at Re = 4500, which is inconsistent with the Re = 7500 reference mentioned in Section 5.2 and is also outside the stated measurement range. The threshold is presented as a red line with no uncertainty quantification or sensitivity analysis, even though the classification of intermediate cases such as Re = 1980 depends directly on it. The authors should document both reference runs and provide at least a simple sensitivity check of the threshold.
  3. [Section 2 and all experimental results] The experimental setup section states that two particle diameter ranges are utilized, 425–500 µm and 212–250 µm, but every reported measurement in Table 3 and Figs. 4–8 is for the 212–250 µm range only. No data are presented for the larger particles, so the abstract's and conclusion's implicit generalization of the method across particle sizes is unsupported by the current results. Either include experiments with the second particle size or explicitly restrict the claims to the tested range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2, Eq. (4)-(5), Fig. 7] The notation in Eq. (5) uses \bar{\theta}_i, but the denominator and the surrounding text suggest a single global mean \bar{\theta}; please make the indexing consistent. Also, the y-axis label in all panels of Fig. 7 reads "< (radian)", which appears to be a typo for the standard deviation σ (in radians).
  2. [Section 3, Fig. 3 caption] The caption of Fig. 3(f) says "showing the two lines counted as one per actual streak," but the main text states that Canny edge detection followed by Hough transform is used precisely to avoid multiple lines per streak; please clarify what the caption means.
  3. [Section 4.1, Table 3] The PIV and streak-visualization flow states in Table 3 are identical by construction of the table, but the two systems are located 4.5 m apart and puffs can grow or decay between them. Please state how the comparison was synchronized and whether the pressure-drop data were used to resolve any ambiguity in evolving puffs.
  4. [Abstract and Conclusion] The claim that the method is especially efficient precisely where other methods are less effective at low particle concentration is not demonstrated, since only a single volume fraction Φ = 1.2×10^-3 is tested and no comparison with another method at that concentration is shown.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected in revision, including "intantaneous" (Section 5.1), "deteting" (Introduction), "rapdidly" (Introduction), and "the the flow" (Section 4.2).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the streak-angle classifier and KL-divergence transition estimator are calibrated tools validated against external measurements, not results derived from their own definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical classifications and estimates, not first-principles derivations. The standard-deviation threshold (σ = 0.04) is explicitly calibrated from reference laminar and turbulent runs, and the text states that it is a calibrated reference line, not a derived prediction. The resulting classifications for intermediate Reynolds numbers are cross-checked against independent PIV and pressure-drop measurements, which are external to the streak-angle pipeline. The KL-divergence-based critical Reynolds number is introduced as an operational criterion, but its consistency is assessed against friction-factor data and prior literature, so the estimate is not forced by the definition alone. The cited prior works by the authors provide experimental setup details and background physics, but no load-bearing conclusion rests solely on a self-citation. No equation or fitted parameter is silently renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported from the authors' previous work. Therefore, no specific circular reduction can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a calibrated threshold and chosen reference distributions from the same experiment. The method does not introduce new physical entities. The axioms are standard fluid dynamics plus the unverified mapping between particle trajectory statistics and fluid phase state. The free parameters are the threshold, the reference Reynolds numbers, and several image-processing settings.

free parameters (5)
  • Standard deviation threshold sigma = 0.04 rad
    Calibrated in Section 5.2 using reference runs at Re = 1120 (laminar) and Re = 7500 (turbulent); used to classify all intermediate cases.
  • Reference Reynolds numbers for KL divergence = Re = 1120 (laminar) and Re = 4500 (turbulent)
    Chosen by the authors to define reference probability distributions; the KL crossover point depends on these choices.
  • Adaptive threshold constant C = 8
    Empirically determined in Section 3 for the specific lighting and camera setup.
  • Moving window length for sigma = 5 frames
    Chosen as a trade-off between statistical convergence and temporal resolution (Section 5.2).
  • Hough transform parameters = accumulator threshold 30, min line length 30, max gap 20
    Set by the authors to balance detection accuracy and computational efficiency in Section 3.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Hagen-Poiseuille and Karman-Prandtl friction laws apply to the particulate flow for comparison
    Section 4.2 uses these single-phase laws to interpret measured friction factors.
  • domain assumption Particle streak angles reflect the laminar or turbulent state of the fluid phase for neutrally buoyant particles with St in [0.2, 0.6]
    Section 5.1 states this as the main question; no quantitative particle-fluid velocity correlation is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The calibrated sigma threshold (0.04) generalizes across all tested Re, perturbation strengths, and particle sizes
    Section 5.2 sets the threshold from two reference runs and applies it to all other cases without uncertainty or sensitivity analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper The crossover of KL divergences computed against laminar and turbulent references indicates the critical Reynolds number
    Section 5.3 defines this heuristic without a physical derivation or statistical test.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detecting Turbulent Patterns in Particulate Pipe Flow by Streak Angle Visualization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YS2PW3FV

@misc{pith2026250101753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detecting Turbulent Patterns in Particulate Pipe Flow by Streak Angle Visualization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YS2PW3FV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01753}
}
read the original abstract

Detecting the transition from laminar to turbulent flow in particulate pipe systems remains a complex issue in fluid dynamics, often requiring sophisticated and costly experimental apparatus. This research presents an innovative streak visualization method designed to offer a simple and robust approach to identify transitional turbulent patterns in particulate pipe flows with neutrally buoyant particles. The technique employs a laser arrangement and a low-cost camera setup to capture particle-generated streaks within the fluid, enabling real-time observation of flow patterns. Validation of the proposed method was conducted through comparison with established techniques like Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) and pressure drop measurements, confirming its accuracy and reliability. Experiments demonstrate the streak visualization method's capacity to differentiate between laminar, transitional, and turbulent flow regimes by analyzing the standard deviation of streak angles. The method is especially efficient at low particle concentration, ie precisely where other more established methods become less effective. Furthermore, this technique enables us to identify a critical Reynolds number using Kullback-Leibler divergence built on the statistical distribution of streak angles, which is consistent with previous studies. Because it is effective at low concentrations and robust, this streak visualization technique opens new perspectives for the characterization of particulate pipe flows not only in the confines of the laboratory but also in less controlled industrial multi-phase flows where determining the laminar or turbulent nature of the flow is a prerequisite for flowmeter calibration.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Static in Frames, Dynamic in Events: Rethinking Features in Event Cameras as Motion Cues

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Harris eigenvalues and spatiotemporal density values from event cameras encode motion direction and, when added to an optical flow network, improve accuracy in data-scarce settings.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    In: Zooplankton, pp

    Breithaupt, T., Ayers, J.: Visualization and quantitative analysis of biological flow fields using suspended particles. In: Zooplankton, pp. 117–129. Routledge, ??? (2021) 23

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Master’s thesis, University of Stavanger, Norway (2017)

    Pozniak, S.: Business value from visualisation technologies. Master’s thesis, University of Stavanger, Norway (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    In: Eurographics (State of the Art Reports) (2002)

    Post, F.H., Vrolijk, B., Hauser, H., Laramee, R.S., Doleisch, H.: Feature extraction and visualisation of flow fields. In: Eurographics (State of the Art Reports) (2002)

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Environmental Earth Sciences 79(2), 65 (2020)

    Bujack, R., Middel, A.: State of the art in flow visualization in the environmental sciences. Environmental Earth Sciences 79(2), 65 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Zhou, K.C., Huang, B.K., Gamm, U.A., Bhandari, V., Khokha, M.K., Choma, M.A.: Particle streak velocimetry-optical coherence tomography: a novel method for multidimensional imaging of microscale fluid flows. Biomed. Opt. Express 7(4), 1590–1603 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1364/BOE.7.001590

    work page doi:10.1364/boe.7.001590 2016

  6. [6]

    Journal of Manufacturing Processes 58, 668–676 (2020)

    Kumar, S., Vasumathi, M., et al.: Applying visualization techniques to study the fluid flow pattern and the particle distribution in the casting of metal matrix composites. Journal of Manufacturing Processes 58, 668–676 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics 54(1), 93–112 (1972)

    Salwen, H., Grosch, C.E.: The stability of poiseuille flow in a pipe of circular cross-section. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 54(1), 93–112 (1972)

    work page 1972

  8. [8]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics 98(2), 273–284 (1980)

    Salwen, H., Cotton, F.W., Grosch, C.E.: Linear stability of poiseuille flow in a circular pipe. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 98(2), 273–284 (1980)

    work page 1980

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Physical Review Letters 91(24), 244502 (2003)

    Hof, B., Juel, A., Mullin, T.: Scaling of transition thresholds in pipe flows. Physical Review Letters 91(24), 244502 (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    Manneville, P.: Turbulence in wall-bounded flows: A subcritical transition? European Journal of Mechanics-B/Fluids 49, 345–362 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Wygnanski, I.J., Champagne, F.: On transition in a pipe. part 1. the origin of puffs and slugs and the flow in a turbulent slug. Journal of Fluid Mechanics59(2), 281–335 (1973)

    1973

  4. [12]

    In: IUTAM Symposium on Laminar-turbulent Transition, pp

    Mullin, T., Peixinho, J.: Recent observations of the transition to turbulence in a pipe. In: IUTAM Symposium on Laminar-turbulent Transition, pp. 45–55 (2006). Springer

    2006

  5. [13]

    Eckhardt, B., Schneider, T.M., Hof, B., Westerweel, J.: Turbulence transition in pipe flow. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 39, 447–468 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics 803, 1 (2016)

    Barkley, D.: The rise of fully turbulent flow. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 803, 1 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Science 333(6039), 192–196 (2011)

    Avila, K., Moxey, D., De Lozar, A., Avila, M., Barkley, D., Hof, B.: The onset of turbulence in pipe flow. Science 333(6039), 192–196 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    Journal 24 of Fluid Mechanics 803, 1 (2016)

    Barkley, D.: Theoretical perspective on the route to turbulence in a pipe. Journal 24 of Fluid Mechanics 803, 1 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    applied mathematical sciences, vol

    Schmid, P.J., Henningson, D.S., Jankowski, D.: Stability and transition in shear flows. applied mathematical sciences, vol. 142. Appl. Mech. Rev. 55(3), 57–59 (2002)

    2002

  10. [18]

    Measurement Science and Technology 12(11), 2020– 2021 (2001)

    Pope, S.B.: Turbulent flows. Measurement Science and Technology 12(11), 2020– 2021 (2001)

    2001

  11. [19]

    Physical review letters 90(1), 014501 (2003)

    Matas, J.-P., Morris, J.F., Guazzelli, E.: Transition to turbulence in particulate pipe flow. Physical review letters 90(1), 014501 (2003)

    2003

  12. [20]

    Physical Review Letters 122(11), 114502 (2019)

    Agrawal, N., Choueiri, G.H., Hof, B.: Transition to turbulence in particle laden flows. Physical Review Letters 122(11), 114502 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    experimental results and interpretation

    Segr´ e’, G., Silberberg, A.: Behaviour of macroscopic rigid spheres in poiseuille flow part 2. experimental results and interpretation. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 14(1), 136–157 (1962)

    1962

  14. [22]

    Matas, J.-P., V., G., Morris, J.F., Guazzelli, E.: Trains of particle at finite reynolds number pipe flow. Phys. Fluids 16(11), 4192–4195 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    Nature 194, 1269–1271 (1962)

    Oliver, R.: Influence of particle rotation on radial migration in the poiseuille flow of suspensions. Nature 194, 1269–1271 (1962)

    1962

  16. [24]

    Nature 203, 1346–1348 (1964)

    Repetti, R.V., Leonard, E.F.: Segr´ e–silberberg’s annulus formation: a possible explanation. Nature 203, 1346–1348 (1964)

    1964

  17. [25]

    Schonberg, J.A., Hinch, E.J.: Inertial migration of a sphere in poiseuille flow. J. Fluid Mech 203, 517–524 (1989)

    1989

  18. [26]

    Hogg, A.J.: The inertial migration of non-neutrally buoyant spherical particles in two-dimensional shear flows. J. Fluid Mech. 272, 285–318 (1994)

    1994

  19. [27]

    Han, M., Kim, C., Kim, M., Lee, S.: Particle migration in tube flow of suspensions. J. Rheol. 43, 1157–1174 (1999)

    1999

  20. [28]

    Asmolov, E.S.: The inertial lift on a spherical particle in a plane poiseuille flow at large channel reynolds number. J. Fluid Mech. 381, 63–87 (1999)

    1999

  21. [29]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics 870, 247–265 (2019)

    Rouquier, A., Poth´ erat, A., Pringle, C.C.T.: An instability mechanism for particulate pipe flow. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 870, 247–265 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Physical Review Fluids 7(4), 042301 (2022)

    Hogendoorn, W., Chandra, B., Poelma, C.: Onset of turbulence in particle-laden pipe flows. Physical Review Fluids 7(4), 042301 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Physical Review Fluids 5(11), 112301 25 (2020)

    Leskovec, M., Lundell, F., Innings, F.: Pipe flow with large particles and their impact on the transition to turbulence. Physical Review Fluids 5(11), 112301 25 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    In: Focus on Scientific Visualization, pp

    Post, F.H., Van Walsum, T.: Fluid flow visualization. In: Focus on Scientific Visualization, pp. 1–40. Springer, ??? (1991)

    1991

  25. [33]

    AIAA journal 24(8), 1313–1323 (1986)

    Settles, G.S.: Modern developments in flow visualization. AIAA journal 24(8), 1313–1323 (1986)

    1986

  26. [34]

    Springer, ??? (2001)

    Settles, G.S.: Schlieren and Shadowgraph Techniques: Visualizing Phenomena in Transparent Media. Springer, ??? (2001)

    2001

  27. [35]

    Academic Press, ??? (1987)

    Merzkirch, W.: Flow Visualization. Academic Press, ??? (1987)

    1987

  28. [36]

    : Springer Handbook of Experimental Fluid Mechanics vol

    Tropea, C., Yarin, A.L., Foss, J.F., et al. : Springer Handbook of Experimental Fluid Mechanics vol. 1. Springer, ??? (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 8, 209–231 (1976)

    Comte-Bellot, G.: Hot-wire anemometry in fluid mechanics research. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 8, 209–231 (1976)

    1976

  30. [38]

    Pergamon Press, ??? (1971)

    Bradshaw, P.: An Introduction to Turbulence and Its Measurement. Pergamon Press, ??? (1971)

    1971

  31. [39]

    Energies 15(20), 7580 (2022)

    Ferrari, S., Rossi, R., Di Bernardino, A.: A review of laboratory and numerical techniques to simulate turbulent flows. Energies 15(20), 7580 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Annual review of fluid mechanics 23(1), 261–304 (1991)

    Adrian, R.J.: Particle-imaging techniques for experimental fluid mechanics. Annual review of fluid mechanics 23(1), 261–304 (1991)

    1991

  33. [41]

    Experiments in fluids 39, 159–169 (2005)

    Adrian, R.J.: Twenty years of particle image velocimetry. Experiments in fluids 39, 159–169 (2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    springer, ??? (2018)

    Raffel, M., Willert, C.E., Scarano, F., K¨ ahler, C.J., Wereley, S.T., Kompenhans, J.: Particle Image Velocimetry: a Practical Guide. springer, ??? (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics 60(2), 321–362 (1973)

    George, W.K., Lumley, J.L.: The laser-doppler velocimeter and its application to the measurement of turbulence. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 60(2), 321–362 (1973)

    1973

  36. [44]

    Springer, ??? (2013)

    Albrecht, H.-E., Damaschke, N., Borys, M., Tropea, C.: Laser Doppler and Phase Doppler Measurement Techniques. Springer, ??? (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    In: Fluid Mechanics Measurements, pp

    Adrian, R.J.: Laser velocimetry. In: Fluid Mechanics Measurements, pp. 175–299. Routledge, ??? (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    In: Photomechanics, pp

    Coupland, J.M.: Laser doppler and pulsed laser velocimetry in fluid mechanics. In: Photomechanics, pp. 373–412. Springer, ??? (2000)

    2000

  39. [47]

    The Journal of Chemical Physics 57(3), 1354–1355 (1972)

    Schultz, A., Cruse, H., Zare, R.: Laser-induced fluorescence: A method to measure 26 the internal state distribution of reaction products. The Journal of Chemical Physics 57(3), 1354–1355 (1972)

    1972

  40. [48]

    Experiments in Fluids 44, 851–863 (2008)

    Crimaldi, J.P.: Planar laser induced fluorescence in aqueous flows. Experiments in Fluids 44, 851–863 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    Experiments in Fluids 63(3), 56 (2022)

    Dash, A., Hogendoorn, W., Oldenziel, G., Poelma, C.: Ultrasound imaging velocimetry in particle-laden flows: counteracting attenuation with correlation averaging. Experiments in Fluids 63(3), 56 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Experiments in Fluids 58, 1–28 (2017)

    Poelma, C.: Ultrasound imaging velocimetry: a review. Experiments in Fluids 58, 1–28 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    Experiments in Fluids 43(6), 823–858 (2007)

    Elkins, C.J., Alley, M.T.: Magnetic resonance velocimetry: applications of mag- netic resonance imaging in the measurement of fluid motion. Experiments in Fluids 43(6), 823–858 (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 13(1), 19 (2011)

    Hartung, M.P., Grist, T.M., Fran¸ cois, C.J.: Magnetic resonance angiography: cur- rent status and future directions. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 13(1), 19 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    Review of Scientific Instruments 91(9) (2020)

    Singh, S., Poth´ erat, A., Pringle, C.C., Bates, I.R., Holdsworth, M.: Simultaneous eulerian–lagrangian velocity measurements of particulate pipe flow in transitional regime. Review of Scientific Instruments 91(9) (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Durst, F., Ray, S., ¨Unsal, B., Bayoumi, O.: The development lengths of laminar pipe and channel flows (2005)

    2005

  47. [55]

    https:// github.com/opencv/opencv-python

    OpenCV-Python: Open Source Computer Vision Library in Python. https:// github.com/opencv/opencv-python

  48. [56]

    Google Patents

    Hough, P.V.: Method and means for recognizing complex patterns. Google Patents. US Patent 3,069,654 (1962)

    1962

  49. [57]

    Communications of the ACM 15(1), 11–15 (1972)

    Duda, R.O., Hart, P.E.: Use of the hough transformation to detect lines and curves in pictures. Communications of the ACM 15(1), 11–15 (1972)

    1972

  50. [58]

    IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence (6), 679–698 (1986)

    Canny, J.: A computational approach to edge detection. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence (6), 679–698 (1986)

    1986

  51. [59]

    Computer vision and image understanding 78(1), 119–137 (2000)

    Matas, J., Galambos, C., Kittler, J.: Robust detection of lines using the progres- sive probabilistic hough transform. Computer vision and image understanding 78(1), 119–137 (2000)

    2000

  52. [60]

    Physical review letters 121(19), 194501 (2018)

    Hogendoorn, W., Poelma, C.: Particle-laden pipe flows at high volume fractions show transition without puffs. Physical review letters 121(19), 194501 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    Journal 27 of Fluid Mechanics 123, 456–478 (2008)

    Joseph, D.D., Yang, B.H.: Friction factor correlations for smooth pipes. Journal 27 of Fluid Mechanics 123, 456–478 (2008)

    2008

  54. [62]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics 839, 76–94 (2018)

    Mukund, V., Hof, B.: The critical point of the transition to turbulence in pipe flow. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 839, 76–94 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    Signal Processing 93(4), 621–633 (2013) 28

    Basseville, M.: Divergence measures for statistical data processing—an annotated bibliography. Signal Processing 93(4), 621–633 (2013) 28

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.