ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
About 3D Incompressible Flow Reconstruction from 2D Flow Field Measurements.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper, an assessment of the uncertainty affecting a hybrid procedure (experimental/numerical) is carried out to validate it for industrial applications, at the least. The procedure in question serves to depict 3D incompressible flow fields by using 2D measurements of it and computing the third velocity component by means of the continuity equation. A quasi-3D test case of an incompressible flow has been inspected in the wake of a NACA 0012 airfoil immersed in a forced flow of water running in a rectangular open channel. Specifically, starting from a 2D measurement data in planes orthogonal to the stream-wise direction, the computational approach can predict the third flow velocity component. A 3D ADV instrument has been utilized to measure the flow field, but only two velocity components have been considered as measured quantities, while the third one has been considered as reference with which to compare the computed component from the continuity equation to check the accuracy and validity of the hybrid procedure. At this aim, the uncertainties of the quantities have been evaluated, according to the GUM, to assess the agreement between experiments and predictions, in addition to other metrics. This aspect of uncertainty is not a technical sophistication but a substantial way to bring to the use of a 1D and 2D measurement system in lieu of a 3D one, which is costly in terms of maintenance, calibration, and economic issues. Moreover, the magnitude of the most relevant flow indicators by means of experimental data and predictions have been estimated and compared, for further confirmation by means of a supervised learning classification. Further, the sensed data have been processed, by means of a machine learning algorithm, to express them in a 3D way along with accuracy and epoch metrics. Two additional metrics have been included in the effort to show paramount interest, which are a geostatistical estimator and Sobol sensitivity. The statements of this paper can be used to design and test several devices for industrial purposes more easily.
Indexed as
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.