| Literature DB >> 31434973 |
Muhammad Ramzan1,2, Mutaz Mohammad3, Fares Howari4.
Abstract
The captivating attributes of carbon nanotubes (CNT) comprising chemical and mechanical steadiness, outstanding electrical and thermal conductivities, featherweight, and physiochemical consistency make them coveted materials in the manufacturing of electrochemical devices. Keeping in view such exciting features of carbon nanotubes, our objective in the present study is to examine the flow of aqueous based nanofluid comprising single and multi-wall carbon nanotubes (CNTs) past a vertical cone encapsulated in a permeable medium with convective heat and solutal stratification. The impacts of heat generation/absorption, gyrotactic-microorganism, thermal radiation, and Joule heating with chemical reaction are added features towards the novelty of the erected model. The coupled differential equations are attained from the partial differential equations by exercising the local similarity transformation technique. The set of conservation equations supported by the associated boundary conditions are worked out numerically by employing bvp4c MATLAB function. The sway of numerous appearing parameters in the analysis on the allied distributions is scrutinized and the fallouts are portrayed graphically. The physical quantities of interest including Skin friction coefficient, the rate of heat and mass transfers are assessed versus essential parameters and their outcomes are demonstrated in tabulated form. It is witnessed that the velocity of the fluid decreases for boosting values of the magnetic and suction parameters in case of both nanotubes. Moreover, the density of motile microorganism is decreased versus larger estimates of bio-convection constant. A notable highlight of the presented model is the endorsement of the results by matching them to an already published material in the literature. A venerable harmony in this regard is achieved.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31434973 PMCID: PMC6704177 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-48645-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Schematic model representing the flow problem.
Characteristics of H2O and both types of CNTs i.e., SWCNTs, and MWCNTs.
| Cp (J/kg K) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| H2O | 4179 | 997 | 0.613 |
| SWCNTs | 425 | 2600 | 6600 |
| MWCNTs | 796 | 1600 | 3000 |
Comparison with Khan et al.[56] in limiting case for the values of versus and .
|
| − | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Khan | Existing Results | Khan | Existing Results | |||||
| SWCNT | MWCNT | SWCNT | MWCNT | SWCNT | MWCNT | SWCNT | MWCNT | |
| 0.01 | 0.33894 | 0.33727 | 0.338996 | 0.337275 | 1.10553 | 1.07905 | 1.105529 | 1.079048 |
| 0.1 | 0.40811 | 0.39008 | 0.408111 | 0.390076 | 4.80627 | 4.27718 | 4.806269 | 4.277177 |
| 0.2 | 0.50452 | 0.46466 | 0.504521 | 0.464661 | 12.30317 | 10.56783 | 12.30316 | 10.56780 |
Figure 2Outcome of on .
Figure 3Outcome of M on .
Figure 4Outcome of k1 on .
Figure 5Outcome of v0 on .
Figure 6Outcome of N on .
Figure 7Outcome of R on .
Figure 8Outcome of B1 on .
Figure 9Outcome of R on .
Figure 10Outcome of S on .
Figure 11Outcome of n on .
Figure 12Outcome of C on .
Figure 13Outcome of δ on .
Figure 14Outcome of P on .
Figure 15Outcome of L on .
Figure 16Outcome of α on .
Figure 19Outcome of λ on .
Figure 17Outcome of ζ on .
Figure 18Outcome of Ra on .
Values of Skin friction versus various estimates of different parameters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWCNTs | MWCNTs | |||||
|
| 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 0.30353 | 0.061725 |
|
| 0.32300 | 0.062952 | ||||
|
| 0.34039 | 0.066716 | ||||
| 0.2 | 0.30318 | 0.062753 | ||||
| 0.3 | 0.30331 | 0.063878 | ||||
| 0.4 | 0.30354 | 0.065125 | ||||
| 0.5 | 0.37751 | 0.043884 | ||||
| 0.6 | 0.36265 | 0.023883 | ||||
| 0.7 | 0.34774 | 0.003161 | ||||
| 0.2 | 0.26144 | 0.258220 | ||||
| 0.3 | 0.21970 | 0.216980 | ||||
| 0.4 | 0.17832 | 0.176110 | ||||
| 0.5 | 1.46240 | 1.254000 | ||||
| 0.6 | 1.38720 | 1.193200 | ||||
| 0.7 | 1.32120 | 1.138400 | ||||
Values of Nusselt number versus various estimates of different parameters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWCNTs | MWCNTs | ||||||
|
| 0.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.46994 | 0.53224 | |
|
| 0.48506 | 0.55144 | |||||
|
| 0.50430 | 0.57400 | |||||
| 0.2 | 0.49596 | 0.56679 | |||||
| 0.3 | 0.52110 | 0.60050 | |||||
| 0.4 | 0.54547 | 0.63345 | |||||
| 0.5 | 0.32314 | 0.35182 | |||||
| 0.7 | 0.39319 | 0.43630 | |||||
| 1.0 | 0.46994 | 0.53224 | |||||
| 1.0 | 0.46994 | 0.53224 | |||||
| 2.0 | 0.48446 | 0.55417 | |||||
| 3.0 | 0.49215 | 0.56583 | |||||
| 0.1 | 0.46994 | 0.46814 | |||||
| 0.5 | 0.56501 | 0.56242 | |||||
| 1.0 | 0.60506 | 0.60231 | |||||
Values of Sherwood number −g′(0) versus various estimates of different parameters.
|
|
|
|
| − | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWCNTs | MWCNTs | ||||
|
| 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.31891 | 0.31882 |
|
| 0.50221 | 0.50155 | |||
|
| 0.74207 | 0.74087 | |||
| 0.1 | 0.80642 | 0.80511 | |||
| 0.2 | 0.88714 | 0.88613 | |||
| 0.3 | 0.95695 | 0.95612 | |||
| 0.2 | 0.73573 | 0.73379 | |||
| 0.3 | 0.66795 | 0.66532 | |||
| 0.4 | 0.60326 | 0.59988 | |||
| 0.6 | 0.79903 | 0.79771 | |||
| 0.7 | 0.79130 | 0.78997 | |||
| 0.8 | 0.78319 | 0.78185 | |||
Values of Motile density number versus various estimates of different parameters.
|
|
|
|
| − | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWCNTs | MWCNTs | ||||
|
| 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.71908 | 0.71883 |
|
| 0.79036 | 0.70040 | |||
|
| 0.86372 | 0.86334 | |||
| 0.1 | 0.45916 | 0.45897 | |||
| 0.2 | 0.52402 | 0.52381 | |||
| 0.3 | 0.58896 | 0.58874 | |||
| 0.2 | 0.75780 | 0.75713 | |||
| 0.3 | 0.75339 | 0.75276 | |||
| 0.4 | 0.74899 | 0.74840 | |||
| 0.2 | 0.74834 | 0.74807 | |||
| 0.3 | 0.77760 | 0.77732 | |||
| 0.4 | 0.80685 | 0.80657 | |||