| Literature DB >> 34997077 |
Hina Gul1, Muhammad Ramzan2, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar3, Roshan Noor Mohamed4, Hassan Ali S Ghazwani5.
Abstract
The nanofluid flows play a vital role in many engineering processes owing to their notable industrial usage and excessive heat transfer abilities. Lately, an advanced form of nanofluids namely "hybrid nanofluids" has swapped the usual nanofluid flows to further augment the heat transfer capabilities. The objective of this envisaged model is to compare the performance of two renowned hybrid nanofluid models namely Hamilton-Crosser and Yamada-Ota. The hybrid nanoliquid (TiO2-SiC/DO) flow model is comprised of Titanium oxide (TiO2) and Silicon carbide (SiC) nanoparticles submerged into Diathermic oil (DO). The subject flow is considered over a stretched surface and is influenced by the magnetic dipole. The uniqueness of the fluid model is augmented by considering the modified Fourier law instead of the traditional Fourier law and slip conditions at the boundary. By applying the suitable similarity transformations, the system of ordinary differential equations obtained from the leading partial differential equations is handled by the MATLAB solver bvp4c package to determine the numerical solution. It is divulged that the Yamada-Ota model performs considerably better than the Hamilton-Crosser flow model as far as heat transfer capabilities are concerned. Further, the velocity reduces on increasing hydrodynamic interaction and slip parameters. It is also noted that both temperature profiles increase for higher hydrodynamic interaction and viscous dissipation parameters. The envisioned model is authenticated when compared with an already published result in a limiting case.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 34997077 PMCID: PMC8741974 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-04019-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Comparison of the current work with the closely related published papers.
| References | C–C heat flux | Slip boundary condition | ( | Hybrid nanofluid | Yamada–Ota model | Hamilton–Crosser model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| [ | No | No | No | Yes | No | No |
| [ | No | No | No | Yes | No | No |
| [ | No | No | No | Yes | No | No |
| Present | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Figure 1Schematic flow diagram.
Thermophysical properties of [28].
| Physical properties | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 855 | 3370 | 4230 | |
| 2030 | 1340 | 692 | |
| 0.133 | 150 | 8.4 |
Thermophysical properties of Hybrid nanoliquid[32].
| Density | |
| Heat capacity | |
| Variable viscosity | |
| Thermal conductivity | |
| Hamilton and Crosser model | |
| Yamada–Ota model |
Figure 2Flow plan of numerical program.
Figure 3Hydrodynamic interaction () on the velocity profile .
Figure 4Slip parameter () on the velocity profile .
Figure 5Hydrodynamic interaction () on the thermal profile .
Figure 6Curie temperature () on the thermal profile .
Figure 7Viscous dissipation () on the thermal profile .
Figure 8Thermal relaxation parameter () on the thermal profile .
Figure 9Skin friction for hydrodynamic interaction parameter .
Figure 10Nusselt number for Viscous dissipation parameter .
Figure 11Residual error in the numerical solution by shooting method against .
By ignoring the extra parameters, Chen[33] and Ramzan et al.[4] compared thermal efficiency for different amplitudes of Prandtl number ().
| Chen[ | Ramzan et al.[ | Present | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.71 | 1.0885 | 1.088497 | 1.08850 |
| 1.00 | 1.3333 | 1.333296 | 1.33271 |
| 3.00 | 2.5097 | 2.509689 | 2.50968 |
| 10.00 | 4.7968 | 4.796794 | 4.79679 |