ReviewActa mechanica2020
Measurement in opaque flows: a review of measurement techniques for dispersed multiphase flows.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiple viewpoint visualization of small scale flow phenomena: application to cavitation on an ultrasonic horn tip.Ultrasonics sonochemistry · 2026Article
- Synchrotron X-ray multi-projection imaging (XMPI) for high-resolution 4D characterization of multiphase flows.Experiments in fluids · 2026Article
- Convective mixing in porous media: a review of Darcy, pore-scale and Hele-Shaw studies.The European physical journal. E, Soft matter · 2023Review
- The structure of near-wall re-entrant flow and its influence on cloud cavitation instability.Experiments in fluids · 2022Article
- A conveyor belt experimental setup to study the internal dynamics of granular avalanches.Experiments in fluids · 2021Article
- Ultrasonic particle volume fraction profiling: an evaluation of empirical approaches.Experiments in fluids · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.