| Literature DB >> 34238991 |
Najiyah Safwa Khashi'ie1, Iskandar Waini2, Norihan Md Arifin3, Ioan Pop4.
Abstract
The proficiency of hybrid nanofluid from Cu-Al2O3/water formation as the heat transfer coolant is numerically analyzed using the powerful and user-friendly interface bvp4c in the Matlab software. For that purpose, the Cu-Al2O3/water nanofluid flow between two parallel plates is examined where the lower plate can be deformed while the upper plate moves towards/away from the lower plate. Other considerable factors are the wall mass suction/injection and the magnetic field that applied on the lower plate. The reduced ordinary (similarity) differential equations are solved using the bvp4c application. The validation of this novel model is conducted by comparing a few of numerical values for the reduced case of viscous fluid. The results imply the potency of this heat transfer fluid which can enhance the heat transfer performance for both upper and lower plates approximately by 7.10% and 4.11%, respectively. An increase of squeezing parameter deteriorates the heat transfer coefficient by 4.28% (upper) and 5.35% (lower), accordingly. The rise of suction strength inflates the heat transfer at the lower plate while the presence of the magnetic field shows a reverse result.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34238991 PMCID: PMC8266913 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93644-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Detail description of references concerning the internal flow between two plates.
| References | Single/Hybrid Nanofluid | Description of lower and upper plates | Additional physical parameters | Method of solution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raees et al.[ | Unsteady flow of single nanofluid (Buongiorno model) | Both lower and upper plates are impermeable | Bioconvection | Homotopy Analysis Method |
| Hayat et al.[ | Unsteady flow of single nanofluid (Buongiorno model) | Lower plate is permeable and stretchable | Magnetic field | Homotopy Analysis Method |
| Hayat et al.[ | Unsteady flow of single nanofluid (Buongiorno model) | Lower plate is permeable and stretchable | Magnetic field and couple stress viscosity effect | Homotopy Analysis Method |
| Acharya et al.[ | Single nanofluid flow (Buongiorno model) | – | Bioconvection, magnetic field, chemical reaction and second order slip | Runge–Kutta-Fehlberg method |
| Salehi et al.[ | Unsteady flow of hybrid Fe3O4-MoS2/mixture of ethylene glycol–water (correlations of hybrid nanofluid as in Devi and Devi[ | Lower plate is impermeable and static | Magnetic field and heat generation | Akbari and Ganji's method |
| Acharya[ | Hybrid Cu-Al2O3/water (correlations of hybrid nanofluid as in Takabi and Salehi[ | Lower plate is stretchable Upper plate is permeable | Solar radiation | Shooting method |
| Ikram et al.[ | Hybrid Ag-TiO2/water (correlations of hybrid nanofluid as in Takabi and Salehi[ | – | Magnetic field, natural convection and heat generation | Laplace transform method |
| Islam et al.[ | Micropolar hybrid GO-Cu/water (correlations of hybrid nanofluid as in Takabi and Salehi[ | Lower plate is stretchable Upper plate is permeable | Magnetic field, thermal radiation and rotating system | Homotopy Analysis Method |
Figure 1Physical illustration with coordinate system.
Hybrid nanofluid’s correlations[13].
| Properties | Hybrid Nanofluid |
|---|---|
| Density | |
| Heat Capacity | |
| Dynamic Viscocity | |
| Thermal Conductivity | |
| Electrical Conductivity |
Thermophysical properties for pure water and nanoparticles[45,46].
| Thermophysical Properties | H2O | Nanoparticles | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Al2O3 | Cu | ||
| 997.1 | 3970 | 8933 | |
| 4179 | 765 | 385 | |
| 0.6130 | 40 | 400 | |
| 0.05 | 3.69 | 5.96 |
Comparative values of -lower plate and -upper plate when , , with various and .
| Present | Hayat et al.[ | Present | Hayat et al.[ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.5 | −7.4111525 | −7.411153 | 4.7133028 | 4.713303 |
| 1 | 0.5 | −7.5916177 | −7.591618 | 4.7390165 | 4.739017 |
| 4 | 0.5 | −8.1103342 | −8.110334 | 4.8202511 | 4.820251 |
| 9 | 0.5 | −8.9100956 | −8.910096 | 4.9648698 | 4.964870 |
| 4 | 0.0 | −4.5878911 | −4.587891 | 1.8424469 | 1.842447 |
| 4 | 0.3 | −6.6656620 | −6.665662 | 3.6536948 | 3.653695 |
| 4 | 0.6 | −8.8514442 | −8.851444 | 5.3912475 | 5.391248 |
| 4 | 1.0 | −11.9485843 | −11.948584 | 7.5934262 | 7.593426 |
Comparative values of -upper plate when and with various , and .
| Present | Hayat et al.[ | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 1.814634 | 1.81463 |
| 0.25 | 1 | 0 | -1.171551 | -1.17155 |
| 0.25 | 1 | 0.5 | 1.808177 | 1.80818 |
| 0.25 | 0 | 0.5 | 4.719656 | 4.79166 |
| 0.25 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.283948 | 0.28395 |
| 0.25 | 1 | 1 | 4.573016 | 4.57302 |
| 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1.789372 | 1.78937 |
Numerical values of , , and with various values of the control parameters.
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | -2.021410 | 0.988195 | 1.161853 | 0.898716 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -4.085563 | 1.953179 | 1.336614 | 0.802165 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0 | 1 | -4.189890 | 2.002674 | 1.363747 | 0.831425 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 1 | -4.194140 | 2.000385 | 1.365114 | 0.832586 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1 | -4.302130 | 2.051712 | 1.393870 | 0.863450 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1 | -1.240570 | -1.220273 | 1.323125 | 0.828030 |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1 | -1.322328 | -1.301313 | 1.318921 | 0.831390 |
| 1 | 1 | 0.2 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1 | -2.688739 | -0.003914 | 1.893656 | 0.668863 |
| 1 | 1 | -0.2 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1 | -0.003540 | -2.635965 | 0.887339 | 1.001950 |
Heat transfer analysis with the addition of the control parameters.
| Parameters | Develop/reduce the thermal rate at lower plate | Difference percentage of | Develop/reduce the thermal rate at upper plate | Difference percentage of |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Squeezing | Reduce | -5.35% | Reduce | -4.28% |
| Magnetic | Reduce | -0.32% | Develop | 0.40% |
| Suction | Develop | 30.35% | Reduce | -24.30% |
| Injection | Reduce | -48.64% | Develop | 17.02% |
Figure 2Effect of squeezing parameter on when , , and .
Figure 7Effect of stretching parameter on when , and .
Figure 3Effect of squeezing parameter on when , , and .
Figure 4Effect of suction/injection parameter on when , and .
Figure 5Effect of suction/injection parameter on when , and .
Figure 6Effect of stretching parameter on when , and .