Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-l4t7p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-14T12:21:15.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Low-frequency wake modulation governs back-side particle deposition on cylinders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2026

Johannes Hansson*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology , 41296 Gothenburg, Sweden
Srdjan Sasic
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology , 41296 Gothenburg, Sweden
Henrik Ström*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology , 41296 Gothenburg, Sweden
*
Corresponding authors: Henrik Ström, henrik.strom@chalmers.se; Johannes Hansson, johanneh@chalmers.se
Corresponding authors: Henrik Ström, henrik.strom@chalmers.se; Johannes Hansson, johanneh@chalmers.se

Abstract

We compute particle deposition rates on the back side of a cylinder at Reynolds numbers $\textit{Re}={1685}$, $6600$ and $10\,000$ using direct numerical simulation and Lagrangian particle tracking. We find that the deposition rates for $\textit{Re}={6600}$ and $10\,000$ are highly variable in time, with differences of up to a factor 27 in deposition rates between alternating low- and high-deposition-rate periods. The deposition-rate fluctuations are found at frequencies lower than the vortex-shedding frequency and therefore require long simulation times to be discovered. Additionally, we find that these fluctuations correlate positively with the drag and negatively with the cylinder base pressure. These observations imply that the back-side deposition process is governed by the low-frequency modulation of the cylinder wake. The high-deposition-rate regime is associated with a shorter wake and a more efficient turbulent transport of particles towards the cylinder surface, where the wake length modulation appears to have a more prominent effect. Consequently, the wake modulation controls the deposition rate but does not significantly affect the deposition mechanism. The back-side deposition has a maximum at Stokes number $St = 0.07$, as particles of lower Stokes number have too little inertia to deposit effectively and the deposition rate decorrelates from the wake fluctuations for larger Stokes numbers. These results highlight the strong sensitivity of the back-side deposition process to accurate descriptions of the wake turbulence over long enough times. These observations are critical when constructing accurate datasets for data-assisted methods to predict long-term back-side deposition on bluff bodies.

JFM classification

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Back-side particle deposition efficiencies $\eta _{\textit{back}}$ as a function of the Stokes number on a circular cylinder in the range $\textit{Re}=1065$ to $\textit{Re}=28\,000$ (Li et al.2008; Haugen & Kragset 2010; Weber et al.2013).

Figure 1

Figure 2. The computational domain used in this study. Distances are given in terms of cylinder diameters $D$. The $z$ direction (out of the plane of the paper) goes from $z/D = 0$ to $z/D = 6$ and features periodic boundary conditions at the front and back.

Figure 2

Table 1. Duration of the simulations performed (in convective time units).

Figure 3

Table 2. Computed flow metrics and literature values for Re = 6600 and 10 000. The values reported as $\pm$ for Gopalkrishnan (1993) are standard deviations for 122 repeated experiments, indicative of the experimental accuracy. The value for $C_{\!D}$ std for Dong & Karniadakis (2005) is obtained from statistical analysis of the signal for $C_{\!D}$ presented in their figure 2.

Figure 4

Figure 3. Mean base pressure $\bar {C}_{\!p} = ({\bar {p} - p_{\infty }})/(1/2) \rho U^2$, where $\bar {p}$ is the mean pressure at the rear stagnation point of the cylinder and $p_{\infty }$ is the free-stream static pressure. Our results on Mesh A and Mesh B are shown alongside the results of the two finest meshes employed by Dong & Karniadakis (2005), named DNS-A3 and DNS-B3, at $ \textit{Re} = 10\,000$, and the experimental data of Norberg (2003) at $ \textit{Re} = 8000$. The error bars on our results show the standard deviation of the fluctuating base pressure signal.

Figure 5

Figure 4. Time-resolved back-side particle deposition rates using a sliding window of $\textit{tU}/D = 15$, approximately three vortex-shedding periods. Deposition rates are highly time-dependent and increase with the Reynolds number. Results obtained using Mesh B.

Figure 6

Figure 5. Time-resolved back-side particle deposition rates for window widths of (a) $\textit{tU}/D = 5$ and (b) $\textit{tU}/D = 1/2$, approximately 1 and $1/10$ vortex-shedding periods. The overall characteristics of the graphs (presence of significant low-frequency fluctuations) are invariant with regards to window size in the range $1/2 \leqslant \textit{tU}/D \leqslant 15$. Results obtained at $ \textit{Re} = 10\,000$ using Mesh B.

Figure 7

Figure 6. Deposition locations on the back of the cylinder for a period of high and a period of low deposition rate, at $ \textit{Re}={10\,000}$ using Mesh B. (a) Period of low deposition rate: $ {150} \leqslant \textit{tU}/D \leqslant {175}$; 1243 deposited particles. (b) Period of high deposition rate: $ {250} \leqslant \textit{tU}/D \leqslant {275}$; 2777 deposited particles. (c) Normalised deposition density as a function of angle relative to the front stagnation point.

Figure 8

Figure 7. Power spectral density of the deposition rate signal at $ \textit{Re} = {6600}$ using Mesh B.

Figure 9

Figure 8. Particle residence time in the wake before deposition in the $ \textit{Re} = {10\,000}$ case. Most particles spend time equivalent to approximately one vortex-shedding period ($\textit{tU}/D \approx {5}$) or less in the cylinder wake, whereas some particles remain in the wake for a very long time before deposition. Insets: particle tracks for 20 randomly selected particles, categorised by wake residence time. The particles that deposit quickly, with less than one vortex-shedding period of wake residence time, are illustrated in the top inset. The particles that linger more than four vortex-shedding periods in the wake before depositing are illustrated in the bottom inset. Results obtained using Mesh B.

Figure 10

Table 3. Wake shear-layer fluctuations at probe locations $P1$ and $P2$ and wake recirculation length for different deposition rate (wake behaviour) regimes. Results obtained using Mesh B.

Figure 11

Figure 9. Drag coefficient (orange) and particle deposition rates (blue) for (a) $ \textit{Re}={6600}$ and (b) $ \textit{Re}={10\,000}$ at $St = 0.07$. The deposition rate signal is seen to follow a similar transient behaviour to the drag coefficient signal. Results obtained using Mesh A.

Figure 12

Figure 10. Base pressure (orange) and particle deposition rates (blue) for (a) $ \textit{Re}={6600}$ and (b) $ \textit{Re}={10\,000}$ at $St = 0.07$. A drop in base pressure is almost immediately followed by an increase in particle deposition rate. Results obtained using Mesh B.

Figure 13

Figure 11. Back-side particle deposition efficiency as a function of Stokes number for $ \textit{Re} = 10\,000$ and $ \textit{Re} = 6600$, obtained using Mesh A.

Figure 14

Figure 12. Back-side deposition rate for $St = 0.045,\ 0.07,\ 0.1,\ 0.15$ and $0.2$ at $ \textit{Re} = 6600$, obtained using Mesh A. Also shown are the drag and base pressure signals from the same simulation.

Figure 15

Figure 13. Pearson correlation coefficient between the deposition rate signal and the $C_{\!D}$ signal and the base pressure signal, as a function of Stokes number, for $ \textit{Re} = 6600$ and $ \textit{Re} = 10\,000$. Results obtained using Mesh A.

Figure 16

Table 4. Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the deposition rate signal and various other signals (leftmost column), as a function of Stokes number at $ \textit{Re} = 6600$ using Mesh B. The point locations are taken from Lehmkuhl et al. (2013): $P$1 $= (0.71D, 0.66D, 3D)$, $P$2 $= (1.3D, 0.69D, 3D)$ and $P$3 $= (2D, 0, 3D)$. It is clear that signals related to wake length ($u_x$ at $P$3 in this table and base pressure in figure 13) correlate more strongly with the deposition rate than signals related to turbulent fluctuations in the shear layer (velocity signals sampled at $P$1 and $P$2 in this table).

Figure 17

Table 5. Timings of convergence of cumulative averages in figure 15 to within $\pm 5$ %. The signal collection starts at $\textit{tU}/D = 107.0$.

Figure 18

Figure 14. Back-side deposition rate for $St = 0.045,\ 0.07,\ 0.1,\ 0.15$ and $0.2$ at $ \textit{Re} = 10\,000$, obtained using Mesh A. Also shown are the drag and base pressure signals from the same simulation.

Figure 19

Figure 15. Normalised cumulative average of the back-side particle deposition rate for various Stokes numbers at $ \textit{Re} = 10\,000$, obtained using Mesh A. The shaded band represents a $\pm 5$ % variation about the mean.