| Literature DB >> 35683646 |
Jianfeng Wang1, Zead Mustafa2, Imran Siddique3, Muhammad Ajmal3, Mohammed M M Jaradat2, Saif Ur Rehman3, Bagh Ali4,5, Hafiz Muhammad Ali6,7.
Abstract
The two-dimensional boundary layer flow of a Prandtl nanofluid was explored in the presence of an aligned magnetic field over an inclined stretching/shrinking sheet in a non-Darcy permeable medium. To transform the PDEs of the leading equations into ODEs, a coupled boundary value problem was formed and suitable similarity functions were used. To obtain numerical answers, an efficient code for the Runge-Kutta technique with a shooting tool was constructed with a MATLAB script. This procedure is widely used for the solution of such problems as it is efficient and cost-effective with a fifth-order accuracy. The significance of immersed parameters on the velocity, temperature, concentration, and bioconvection is shown through figures. Furthermore, the physical parameters of the skin friction coefficient and the Nusselt numbers are demonstrated in tables. The declining behavior of the flow velocity against the porosity parameter Kp and the local inertia co-efficient Fr is shown, and the both parameters of the Darcy resistance and Darcy-Forchheimer resistance are responsible for slowing the fluid speed. The increasing values of the Schmidt number Sc decrease the concentration of the nano entities.Entities:
Keywords: Prandtl nanofluid; bioconvection; inclined sheet; magnetohydrodynamic; stratification
Year: 2022 PMID: 35683646 PMCID: PMC9181878 DOI: 10.3390/nano12111791
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.719
Figure 1Physical representation of the problem.
Comparison of the values of when (stretching case), and all other parameters are considered to be zero.
|
| Abel [ | Iskandar [ | Bilal [ | Our Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0 | −0.999962 | −1.00000005 | −1.0000000 | −1.0000002 |
| 0.2 | −1.051948 | −1.05188989 | −1.0518899 | −1.0518896 |
| 0.4 | −1.101850 | −1.10190327 | −1.1019044 | −1.1019027 |
| 0.6 | −1.150163 | −1.15013734 | −1.1501382 | −1.1501488 |
| 0.8 | −1.196692 | −1.19671125 | −1.1967134 | −1.1967110 |
| 1.2 | −1.285257 | −1.28536326 | −1.2863640 | −1.2863740 |
Comparison of the values of S when (shrinking case), , and all other parameters are considered to be zero.
|
| Bhattacharyya [ | Iskandar [ | Bilal [ | (Our Results) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 | 2.414300 | 2.41421357 | 2.41421369 | 2.41423 |
| 3.0 | 3.302750 | 3.30277563 | 3.30277621 | 3.30278 |
| 4.0 | 4.236099 | 4.23606797 | 4.23606814 | 4.23607 |
Impact of various physical parameters on the skin friction .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 0.3 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.5154 |
| 2.0 | 0.6645 | |||||||
| 3.0 | 0.8036 | |||||||
| 0.3 | 0.5154 | |||||||
| 0.4 | 0.5234 | |||||||
| 0.5 | 0.5314 | |||||||
| 2.0 | 0.5154 | |||||||
| 3.0 | 0.5954 | |||||||
| 4.0 | 0.6641 | |||||||
| 1.0 | 0.5154 | |||||||
| 2.0 | 0.5159 | |||||||
| 3.0 | 0.5163 | |||||||
| 1.0 | 0.5154 | |||||||
| 2.0 | 0.5214 | |||||||
| 3.0 | 0.5274 | |||||||
| 0.1 | 0.5154 | |||||||
| 0.2 | 0.5037 | |||||||
| 0.3 | 0.4843 | |||||||
| 0.3 | 0.5154 | |||||||
| 0.4 | 0.5537 | |||||||
| 0.5 | 0.5922 | |||||||
| 0.2 | 0.5154 | |||||||
| 0.3 | 0.5188 | |||||||
| 0.4 | 0.5223 |
Impact of various physical parameters on the Nusselt number .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.5944 |
| 0.9 | 0.6647 | |||
| 1.0 | 0.7350 | |||
| 0.1 | 0.5944 | |||
| 0.2 | 0.5949 | |||
| 0.3 | 0.5904 | |||
| 0.1 | 0.5944 | |||
| 0.2 | 0.5754 | |||
| 0.3 | 0.5559 | |||
| 0.3 | 0.5944 | |||
| 0.4 | 0.5116 | |||
| 0.5 | 0.4292 |
Impact of various physical parameters on the density of the motile microorganisms .
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2838 |
| 0.2 | 0.3047 | ||
| 0.3 | 0.3258 | ||
| 0.3 | 0.2838 | ||
| 0.4 | 0.3246 | ||
| 0.5 | 0.3593 | ||
| 0.1 | 0.2838 | ||
| 0.2 | 0.2853 | ||
| 0.3 | 0.2868 |
Figure 2Effect of M on the velocity (a) and temperature (b) profile.
Figure 3Effect of on the velocity (a) and temperature (b) profile.
Figure 4Effect of on the velocity (a) and temperature (b) profile.
Figure 5Effect of on the velocity (a) and temperature (b) profile.
Figure 6Effect of on the velocity (a) and temperature (b) profile.
Figure 7Effect of on the velocity (a) and temperature (b) profile.
Figure 8Effect of on the velocity (a) and temperature (b) profile.
Figure 9Effect of on the velocity (a) and on concentration (b) profile.
Figure 10Effect of and on the velocity (a) and temperature (b) profile.
Figure 11Effect of and on the temperature (a) and bioconvection (b) profile.
Figure 12Effect of Peclet number (a) and density ratio (b) on the bioconvection profile.