Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32549583›Full record

ReviewActa mechanica2020

Measurement in opaque flows: a review of measurement techniques for dispersed multiphase flows.

Christian Poelma

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Acta mechanica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Christian PoelmaMultiphase Systems (3ME-P&E), Delft University of Technology, Leeghwaterstraat 21, 2628 CA Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8676-9221

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A review is presented of measurement techniques to characterise dispersed multiphase flows, which are not accessible by means of conventional optical techniques. The main issues that limit the accuracy and effectiveness of optical techniques are briefly discussed: cross-talk, a reduced signal-to-noise ratio, and (biased) data drop-out. Extensions to the standard optical techniques include the use of fluorescent tracers, refractive index matching, ballistic imaging, structured illumination, and optical coherence tomography. As the first non-optical technique, a brief discussion of electrical capacitance tomography is given. While truly non-invasive, it suffers from a low resolving power. Ultrasound-based techniques have rapidly evolved from Doppler-based profiling to recent 2D approaches using feature tracking. The latter is also suitable for time-resolved flow studies. Magnetic resonance velocimetry can provide time-averaged velocity fields in 3D for the continuous phase. Finally, X-ray imaging is demonstrated to be an important tool to quantify local gas fractions. While potentially very powerful, the impact of the techniques will depend on the development of acquisition and measurement protocols for fluid mechanics, rather than for clinical imaging. This requires systematic development, aided by careful validation experiments. As theoretical predictions for multiphase flows are sparse, it is important to formulate standardised 'benchmark' flows to enable this validation.

Identifiers

PMID32549583
PMCPMC7271021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.