| Literature DB >> 29018240 |
M Ramzan1,2, Naeem Ullah3, Jae Dong Chung4, Dianchen Lu5, Umer Farooq5,6.
Abstract
A mathematical model has been developed to examine the magneto hydrodynamic micropolar nanofluid flow with buoyancy effects. Flow analysis is carried out in the presence of nonlinear thermal radiation and dual stratification. The impact of binary chemical reaction with Arrhenius activation energy is also considered. Apposite transformations are engaged to transform nonlinear partial differential equations to differential equations with high nonlinearity. Resulting nonlinear system of differential equations is solved by differential solver method in Maple software which uses Runge-Kutta fourth and fifth order technique (RK45). To authenticate the obtained results, a comparison with the preceding article is also made. The evaluations are executed graphically for numerous prominent parameters versus velocity, micro rotation component, temperature, and concentration distributions. Tabulated numerical calculations of Nusselt and Sherwood numbers with respective well-argued discussions are also presented. Our findings illustrate that the angular velocity component declines for opposing buoyancy forces and enhances for aiding buoyancy forces by changing the micropolar parameter. It is also found that concentration profile increases for higher values of chemical reaction parameter, whereas it diminishes for growing values of solutal stratification parameter.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29018240 PMCID: PMC5635031 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-13140-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Diagram of flow problem.
Figure 2Impact of λ on f ′(η).
Figure 3Impact of m on f ′(η).
Figure 4Impact of Kon f ′(η).
Figure 7Impact of m on w(η).
Figure 5Impact of K on w(η).
Figure 8Impact of s on w(η).
Figure 6Impact of M on w(η)w(η).
Figure 9Impact of λ on w(η).
Figure 10Impact of Rd on θ(η)θ(η).
Figure 11Impact of t on θ(η).
Figure 12Impact of n on ϕ(η).
Figure 13Impact of E on ϕ(η).
Figure 14Impact of A on ϕ(η).
Figure 15Impact of s on ϕ(η).
Figure 16Impact of K on C against λ.
Figure 17Impact of m on C against K.
Numerical values of the Nusselt number for different values of K, Rd, Tr, t, n, E and Pr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pr |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||
| 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 0.25853 | 0.25853 |
| 1.0 | 0.31100 | 0.28891 | ||||||
| 2.0 | 0.33718 | 0.31056 | ||||||
| 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 0.29685 | 0.27590 |
| 0.8 | 0.35016 | 0.32523 | ||||||
| 1.5 | 0.42917 | 0.39997 | ||||||
| 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 0.27741 | 0.25813 |
| 1.0 | 0.311001 | 0.28891 | ||||||
| 2.0 | 0.40634 | 0.37622 | ||||||
| 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 0.311001 | 0.28891 |
| 0.5 | 0.30667 | 0.28609 | ||||||
| 0.8 | 0.30354 | 0.28389 | ||||||
| 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 0.42718 | 0.40043 |
| 1.0 | 0.29033 | 0.26986 | ||||||
| 2.0 | 0.12583 | 0.11586 | ||||||
| 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.28457 | 0.26566 |
| 1.0 | 0.29418 | 0.27249 | ||||||
| 2.0 | 0.29746 | 0.22745 | ||||||
| 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 0.22634 | 0.21148 |
| 4.0 | 0.32208 | 0.30132 | ||||||
| 6.0 | 0.33727 | 0.32024 | ||||||
Numerical Values of Sherwood number for different values of the emerging parameters K, Sc, δ, n, s, A, E and Nb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||||
| 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.45565 | 0.45565 |
| 1.0 | 0.48025 | 0.46947 | |||||||
| 2.0 | 0.49116 | 0.48013 | |||||||
| 1.0 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.80638 | 0.78511 |
| 4.0 | 1.26455 | 1.24112 | |||||||
| 6.0 | 1.60863 | 1.58495 | |||||||
| 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.47130 | 0.45973 |
| 0.8 | 0.50686 | 0.49820 | |||||||
| 1.2 | 0.54168 | 0.53536 | |||||||
| 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.5 | −0.5 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.44206 | 0.42990 |
| 1.0 | 0.48025 | 0.46947 | |||||||
| 2.0 | 0.50840 | 0.49997 | |||||||
| 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.41257 | 0.40453 |
| 0.5 | 0.27215 | 0.26896 | |||||||
| 0.7 | 0.12552 | 0.12635 | |||||||
| 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.52108 | 0.51195 |
| 1.0 | 0.68425 | 0.67934 | |||||||
| 1.5 | 0.81176 | 0.80861 | |||||||
| 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.36175 | 0.34494 |
| 4.0 | 0.25122 | 0.22317 | |||||||
| 6.0 | 0.22293 | 0.18868 | |||||||
| 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.42484 | 0.42510 |
| 0.6 | 0.49533 | 0.48193 | |||||||
| 0.9 | 0.52169 | 0.50430 | |||||||
Comparison table for the Nusselt number for different values of Pr, Nt, E, A, n and λ setting K = Rd = Tr = s = t = 0.
| Pr |
|
|
|
|
| −θ′(0) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mustafa | Present | ||||||
| 2.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.706605 | 0.706615 |
| 4.0 | 0.935952 | 0.935943 | |||||
| 7.0 | 1.132787 | 1.132296 | |||||
| 10 | 1.257476 | 1.257213 | |||||
| 5.0 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.426267 | 1.426028 |
| 0.5 | 1.013939 | 1.013819 | |||||
| 0.7 | 0.846943 | 0.846943 | |||||
| 1.0 | 0.649940 | 0.649911 | |||||
| 5.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.941201 | 0.941201 |
| 1.0 | 1.013939 | 1.013912 | |||||
| 2.0 | 1.064551 | 1.064493 | |||||
| 4.0 | 1.114549 | 1.114329 | |||||
| 5.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.145304 | 1.145299 |
| 1.0 | 1.013939 | 1.013912 | |||||
| 2.0 | 0.926282 | 0.926264 | |||||
| 5.0 | 0.798671 | 0.798653 | |||||
| 5.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 2.0 | −1.0 | 0.5 | 1.030805 | 1.03800 |
| −0.5 | 0.999470 | 0.999468 | |||||
| 0.0 | 0.964286 | 0.964286 | |||||
| 1.0 | 0.886830 | 0.886829 | |||||
| 5.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 1.032281 | 1.032281 |
| 0.5 | 1.056704 | 1.056701 | |||||
| 3.0 | 1.154539 | 1.154527 | |||||
| 5.0 | 1.215937 | 1.215932 | |||||