| Literature DB >> 33265502 |
Mohammad Ishaq1, Gohar Ali1, Zahir Shah2, Saeed Islam2, Sher Muhammad1,3.
Abstract
This research paper investigates entropy generation analysis on two-dimensional nanofluid film flow of Eyring-Powell fluid with heat amd mass transmission over an unsteady porous stretching sheet in the existence of uniform magnetic field (MHD). The flow of liquid films are taken under the impact of thermal radiation. The basic time dependent equations of heat transfer, momentum and mass transfer are modeled and converted to a system of differential equations by employing appropriate similarity transformation with unsteady dimensionless parameters. Entropy analysis is the main focus in this work and the impact of physical parameters on the entropy profile are discussed in detail. The influence of thermophoresis and Brownian motion has been taken in the nanofluids model. An optima approach has been applied to acquire the solution of modeled problem. The convergence of the HAM (Homotopy Analysis Method) has been presented numerically. The disparity of the Nusslet number, Skin friction, Sherwood number and their influence on the velocity, heat and concentration fields has been scrutinized. Moreover, for comprehension, the physical presentation of the embedded parameters are explored analytically for entropy generation and discussed.Entities:
Keywords: Eyring–Powell fluid; HAM; MHD; entropy generation; nanofluid; thermal radiation; thin film; unsteady porous stretching sheet
Year: 2018 PMID: 33265502 PMCID: PMC7512932 DOI: 10.3390/e20060412
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Figure 1Combine h curve of function and at 7th order approximation, when , , .
Figure 2h curve of function at 7th order approximation, when , , .
Figure 3Geometry of the model.
Figure 4Impact of A on .
Figure 5Impact of on .
Figure 6Impact of k on .
Figure 7Impact of M on .
Figure 8Impact of on .
Figure 9Impact of A on .
Figure 10Impact of on .
Figure 11Impact of M on .
Figure 12Impact of Nb on .
Figure 13Impact of Nt on .
Figure 14Impact of Pr on .
Figure 15Impact of Rd on .
Figure 16Impact of Sc on .
Figure 17Impact of A on .
Figure 18Impact of on .
Figure 19Impact of Nb on .
Figure 20Impact of Nt on .
Figure 21Impact of Pr on .
Figure 22Impact of Rd on .
Figure 23Impact of Sc on .
Figure 24Entropy profile for various values of Br.
Figure 25Entropy profile for various values of k.
Figure 26Entropy profile for various values of M.
Figure 27Entropy profile for various values of Rd.
Figure 28Entropy profile for various values of Re.
Comparision of values of film thickness for various values of A.
| A | Wang [ | Narayana and Sibanda [ | Qasim [ | Present Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 0.4 | 5.122490 | 4.981455 | 4.981454 | 5.523451 |
| 0.6 | 3.131250 | 3.131713 | 3.131710 | 4.002111 |
| 0.8 | 2.151990 | 2.151994 | 2.151994 | 3.992358 |
| 1.0 | 1.543620 | 1.543618 | 1.543616 | 3.113001 |
| 1.2 | 1.127780 | 1.127780 | 1.127781 | 1.625391 |
| 1.4 | 0.821032 | 0.821032 | 0.821032 | 1.896541 |
| 1.6 | 0.576173 | 0.576173 | 0.576173 | 0.876512 |
| 1.8 | 0.356389 | 0.356389 | 0.356389 | 0.266156 |
Comparision of values of skin friction coefficient and for various values of A.
| A | Wang [ | Narayana and Sibanda [ | Qasim [ | Present Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 0.4 | −6.699120 | −5.6494483 | −5.6494474 | −4.33027 |
| 0.6 | −3.742330 | −3.7427896 | −3.7427863 | −3.94882 |
| 0.8 | −2.680940 | −2.6809660 | −2.6809656 | −2.64208 |
| 01 | −1.972380 | −1.9723877 | −1.9723819 | −1.33999 |
| 1.2 | −1.442631 | −1.4426237 | −1.4426252 | −0.92157 |
| 1.4 | −1.012784 | −1.0127798 | −1.0127802 | −0.56897 |
| 1.6 | −0.642397 | −0.6423970 | −0.6423970 | −0.34227 |
| 1.8 | −0.309137 | −0.3091369 | −0.3091367 | −0.03027 |
The wall temperature for dissimilar values of M, A, Pr and Nt when , , , .
| M | Nt | A | Pr | Tawade et al. (2016) Results | Qasim et al. (2016) Results | Present (2017) Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
| 0 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.257696 | 0.9604803 | 0.223456 |
| 1 | 0.420739 | 0.6925326 | 0.432111 | |||
| 2 | 0.01 | 0.526782 | 0.0978841 | 0.712351 | ||
| 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.695757 | 0.0248625 | 1.023001 | ||
| 1.0 | 0.1 | 1.030899 | 0.0083111 | 1.625341 | ||
| 0.2 | 0.931433 | 0.0013612 | 1.236540 |
The Nusslet number and Sherwood numbers versus various values of embedded parameters when .
| Ec |
| Pr | Nt | −Θ′(0) | −Θ′(0) | −Φ′(0) | −Φ′(0) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tawad et al. (2016) Results | Present (2017) Results | Qasim et al. (2016) Results | Present (2017) Results | ||||
| 0.0 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 2.46682 | 0.682385 | 4.69946 | 6.68238 |
| 0.5 | 1.66004 | 0.541422 | 5.63125 | 4.94142 | |||
| 1.0 | 1.17173 | 0.440569 | 5.73992 | 5.44569 | |||
| 0.2 | 2.08356 | 0.321022 | 4.96867 | 5.12101 | |||
| 0.3 | 1.37004 | 0.300420 | 5.68398 | 5.70742 | |||
| 0.4 | 0.94740 | 0.291420 | 5.75820 | 5.29140 | |||
| 0.5 | 2.46062 | 0.371420 | 4.65665 | 5.37143 | |||
| 1.5 | 1.65905 | 0.182285 | 5.59404 | 6.78223 | |||
| 5.0 | 1.17298 | 0.011422 | 5.70473 | 7.01147 | |||
| 0.4 | 1.96299 | 0.612427 | 5.01443 | 4.11207 | |||
| 0.6 | 1.28112 | 0.691428 | 5.66638 | 4.69458 | |||
| 0.8 | 0.87980 | 0.500987 | 5.73093 | 7.50097 |
Convergence of , and by HAM when , , .
| Solution Approximation | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −0.05401 | −0.10070 | −1.10075 |
| 4 | −0.10218 | −0.18890 | −1.38506 |
| 7 | −0.10813 | −0.19903 | −1.88867 |
| 10 | −0.10888 | −0.20281 | −1.99293 |
| 13 | −0.10894 | −0.20154 | −2.01113 |
| 14 | −0.10896 | −0.20475 | −2.01406 |
| 17 | −0.10897 | −0.20478 | −2.01451 |
| 20 | −0.10897 | −0.20479 | −2.01458 |
| 25 | −0.10897 | −0.20479 | −2.01458 |