Error propagation dynamics of PIV-based pressure field calculation (3): What is the minimum resolvable pressure in a reconstructed field?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An analytical framework for the propagation of velocity errors into PIV-based pressure calculation is established. Based on this framework, the optimal spatial resolution and the corresponding minimum field-wide error level in the calculated pressure field are estimated. This minimum error is viewed as the smallest resolvable pressure. We find that the optimal spatial resolution is a function of the flow features, geometry of the flow domain, and the type of the boundary conditions, in addition to the error in the PIV experiments, making a general statement about pressure sensitivity is difficult. The minimum resolvable pressure is affected by competing effects from the experimental error due to PIV and the truncation error from the numerical solver. This means that PIV experiments motivated by pressure measurements must be carefully designed so that the optimal resolution (or close to the optimal resolution) is used. Flows (Re=1.27 × 104 and 5×104) with exact solutions are used as examples to validate the theoretical predictions of the optimal spatial resolutions and pressure sensitivity. The numerical experimental results agree well with the analytical predictions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".