| Literature DB >> 26859675 |
Tasawar Hayat1,2, Sumaira Qayyum1, Maria Imtiaz1, Ahmed Alsaedi2.
Abstract
Two-dimensional stretched flow of Jeffrey fluid in view of Cattaneo-Christov heat flux is addressed. Effects of homogeneous-heterogeneous reactions are also considered. Suitable transformations are used to form ordinary differential equations. Convergent series solutions are computed. Impact of significant parameters on the velocity, temperature, concentration and skin friction coefficient is addressed. Analysis of thermal relaxation is made. The obtained results show that ratio of relaxation to retardation times and Deborah number have inverse relation for velocity profile. Temperature distribution has decreasing behavior for Prandtl number and thermal relaxation time. Also concentration decreases for larger values of strength of homogeneous reaction parameter while it increases for strength of heterogeneous reaction parameter.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26859675 PMCID: PMC4747563 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148662
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1ℏ – curves for θ′(0) and g′(0) when α = 0.2, β = 0.1, Pr = γ = 0.7 = k1 = k2 and Sc = 1.
Convergence of solutions when β = 0.1, α = 0.2, γ = Pr = 0.7 = k1 = k2 and Sc = 1.
| Order of approximation | − | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.45238 | 0.28048 |
| 4 | 0.49606 | 0.26213 |
| 10 | 0.49112 | 0.26099 |
| 12 | 0.49114 | 0.26103 |
| 15 | 0.49114 | 0.26104 |
| 20 | 0.49114 | 0.26104 |
| 25 | 0.49114 | 0.26104 |
| 30 | 0.49114 | 0.26104 |
| 35 | 0.49114 | 0.26104 |
| 40 | 0.49114 | 0.26104 |
Fig 2Impact of α on f′(η).
Fig 14Impact of Sc on g(0).
Numerical values of for various values of the physical parameters.
| 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.95743 |
| 0.3 | 0.91987 | |
| 0.4 | 0.88641 | |
| 0.5 | 0.85635 | |
| 0.2 | 0.2 | 1.00000 |
| 0.3 | 0.96077 | |
| 0.4 | 0.92582 | |
| 0.5 | 0.89442 | |
| 0.3 | 0.2 | 1.0408 |
| 0.3 | 1.0000 | |
| 0.4 | 0.96362 | |
| 0.5 | 0.93095 | |
| 0.4 | 0.2 | 1.0801 |
| 0.3 | 1.0378 | |
| 0.4 | 1.0000 | |
| 0.5 | 0.96608 |
Fig 3Impact of β on f′(η).
Fig 4Impact of Pr on θ(η).
Fig 7Impact of β on θ(η).
Fig 5Impact of γ on θ(η).
Fig 6Impact of α on θ(η).
Fig 8Impact of k1 on g(η).
Fig 12Impact of β on g(η).
Fig 9Impact of k2 on g(η).
Fig 10Impact of Sc on g(η).
Fig 11Impact of α on g(η).
Fig 13Impact of k1 on g(0).
Comparison of for different values.
| Abbasi et al. [ | Present results | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.2 | 1.09545 | 1.09545 |
| 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.89443 | 0.89442 |
| 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.84017 | 0.84016 |
| 1 | 0.2 | 0.77460 | 0.77460 |
| 0.4 | 0 | 0.84515 | 0.84515 |
| 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.96362 | 0.96362 |
| 0.4 | 0.6 | 1.06904 | 1.06904 |
| 0.4 | 1 | 1.19523 | 1.19523 |