Abstract

Imaging through optically dense sprays is challenging due to the detection of multiple light scattering, which blurs the recorded images and limits visibility. Structured laser illumination planar imaging (SLIPI) is a technique that is capable of reducing the intensity contribution that stems from multiple scattering in a light sheet imaging configuration. The conventional SLIPI approach is based on recording three modulated sub-images successively, each having a different spatial phase, and has, therefore, been mostly used for temporally averaged imaging. To circumvent this limitation and image spray dynamics, ‘instantaneous’ two-phase (2p) and single-phase (1p) SLIPI approaches have recently been developed. The purpose of the work presented here is to compare these two approaches in terms of optical design, image post-processing routines, multiple scattering suppression ability, and spatial resolution. The two approaches are used to image a transient direct-injection spark-ignition ethanol spray, for both liquid laser-induced fluorescence and Mie scattering detection. The capabilities of the approaches for multiple scattering suppression and image formation have also been numerically modeled by means of Monte Carlo simulation. This article shows that both approaches efficiently suppress the contribution from multiple light scattering, providing images with an intensity profile close to the corresponding single scattering case. Experimentally, this suppression renders both an improvement in image contrast and the removal of undesired stray light components that could be interpreted as signal. However, while 2p-SLIPI preserves most of the initial spatial resolution, 1p-SLIPI results in a loss of spatial resolution, where high-frequency image information is not visible anymore. Thus, there is a trade-off between preserving the most detailed information of the spray structure—with 2p-SLIPI—and being able to record an SLIPI image from a single modulated image only—with 1p-SLIPI. The comparison and technical overview of these two methods presented in this paper can facilitate in selecting which approach is the most suitable for a given application for spray visualization.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.