| Literature DB >> 33986435 |
Yong-Min Li1, M Ijaz Khan2, Sohail A Khan3, Sami Ullah Khan4, Zahir Shah5,6, Poom Kumam7,8.
Abstract
Entropy optimization in convective viscous fluids flow due to a rotating cone is explored. Heat expression with heat source/sink and dissipation is considered. Irreversibility with binary chemical reaction is also deliberated. Nonlinear system is reduced to ODEs by suitable variables. Newton built in shooting procedure is adopted for numerical solution. Salient features velocity filed, Bejan number, entropy rate, concentration and temperature are deliberated. Numerical outcomes for velocity gradient and mass and heat transfer rates are displayed through tables. Assessments between the current and previous published outcomes are in an excellent agreement. It is noted that velocity and temperature show contrasting behavior for larger variable viscosity parameter. Entropy rate and Bejan number have reverse effect against viscosity variable. For rising values of thermal conductivity variable both Bejan number and entropy optimization have similar effect.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33986435 PMCID: PMC8119489 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-89739-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Sketch of problem[9,10].
Comparison of surface drag force with Saleem and Nadeem[44] and Chamka et al.[45].
| Saleem and Nadeem[ | Chamka et al.[ | Recent results | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.7 | 0.0 | 1.0255 | 0.6154 | 1.0255 | 0.6158 | 1.0255 | 0.6156 |
| 1.0 | 2.2010 | 0.8493 | 2.2012 | 0.8496 | 2.2010 | 0.8494 | |
| 10.0 | 8.5042 | 1.3992 | 8.5041 | 1.3995 | 8.5043 | 1.3992 | |
| 10.0 | 0.0 | 1.0255 | 0.6158 | 1.0256 | 0.6158 | 1.0256 | 0.6158 |
| 1.0 | 1.5630 | 0.6835 | 1.5636 | 0.6837 | 1.5631 | 0.6835 | |
| 10.0 | 5.0820 | 0.9845 | 5.0821 | 0.9840 | 5.0822 | 0.9842 | |
Comparison of Nusselt number with Saleem and Nadeem[44] and Chamka et al.[45].
| Saleem and Nadeem[ | Chamka et al.[ | Recent results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.4299 | 0.4299 | 0.4298 |
| 1.0 | 0.6121 | 0.6120 | 0.6122 | |
| 10.0 | 1.3992 | 1.0097 | 1.3993 | |
| 10.0 | 0.0 | 1.4111 | 1.4110 | 1.4119 |
| 1.0 | 1.5661 | 1.5662 | 1.5664 | |
| 10.0 | 2.3581 | 2.3580 | 2.3583 |
Figure 2against A.
Figure 3against A.
Figure 4against N.
Figure 5against N.
Figure 6against .
Figure 7against .
Figure 8against A.
Figure 9against Br.
Figure 10against .
Figure 11against .
Figure 12against .
Figure 13against .
Figure 14against .
Figure 15against A.
Figure 16against A.
Figure 17against .
Figure 18against .
Figure 19against L.
Figure 20against L.
Figure 21against Br.
Figure 22against Br.
Computational outcomes of .
| Surface drag force | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.2 | 1.1345 | 0.46536 |
| 3 | 2.02356 | 0.76543 | |
| 5 | 3.0145 | 1.45362 | |
| 2 | 0.2 | 0.89654 | 0.80983 |
| 0.4 | 0.75643 | 0.69954 | |
| 0.6 | 0.65874 | 0.56432 | |
Computational outcomes of .
| 0.0 | 0.7 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 0.6126 |
| 0.5 | 0.5325 | |||
| 1.0 | 0.4765 | |||
| 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 1.6875 |
| 3.0 | 1.7894 | |||
| 5.0 | 1.9283 | |||
| 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.7865 |
| 2.0 | 0.6923 | |||
| 3.0 | 0.6198 | |||
| 1.0 | 0.7 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 0.7967 |
| 0.4 | 0.6987 | |||
| 0.6 | 0.6089 |
Numerical value of .
| 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.56796 |
| 0.5 | 0.60289 | ||
| 1.0 | 0.64156 | ||
| 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.45342 |
| 0.3 | 0.49786 | ||
| 0.5 | 0.53675 | ||
| 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.5745 |
| 0.5 | 0.6745 | ||
| 0.8 | 0.7981 |