| Literature DB >> 35879600 |
Sharifah E Alhazmi1, Ali Imran2, Muhammad Awais3, Mazhar Abbas3, Weaam Alhejaili4, Haneen Hamam5, Awatif Alhowaity6, Asif Waheed3.
Abstract
A magneto couple stress nanofluid flow along with double diffusive convection is presented for peristaltic induce flow through symmetric nonuniform channel. A comprehensive mathematical model is scrutinized for couple stress nanofluid magneto nanofluids and corresponding equations of motions are tackled by applying small Reynolds and long wavelength approximation in viewing the scenario of the biological flow. Computational solution is exhibited with the help of graphical illustration for nanoparticle volume fraction, solutal concentration and temperature profiles in MATHEMTICA software. Stream function is also computed numerically by utilizing the analytical expression for nanoparticle volume fraction, solutal concentration and temperature profiles. Whereas pressure gradient profiles are investigated analytically. Impact of various crucial flow parameter on the pressure gradient, pressure rise per wavelength, nanoparticle volume fraction, solutal concentration, temperature and the velocity distribution are exhibited graphically. It has been deduced that temperature profile is significantly rise with Brownian motion, thermophoresis, Dufour effect, also it is revealed that velocity distribution really effected with strong magnetic field and with increasing non-uniformity of the micro channel. The information of current investigation will be instrumental in the development of smart magneto-peristaltic pumps in certain thermal and drug delivery phenomenon.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35879600 PMCID: PMC9314392 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-16600-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1Problem's geometry.
Comparison of temperature profile solution with .
| y | Afzal et al.[ | Current investigation | Absolute error |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.2 | 0.308818 | 0.308818 | |
| 0.4 | 0.530096 | 0.530096 | |
| 0.6 | 0.688648 | 0.688648 | |
| 0.8 | 0.802256 | 0.802256 | |
| 1 | 0.88366 | 0.88366 | |
| 1.2 | 0.941988 | 0.941988 | |
| 1.4 | 0.983782 | 0.983782 | |
| 1.6 | 1.01373 | 1.01373 | |
| 1.8 | 1.03519 | 1.03519 | |
| 2 | 1.05056 | 1.05056 |
Comparison of concentration profile solution with .
| y | Afzal et al.[ | Current investigation | Absolut error |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.2 | − 0.00705441 | − 0.00705441 | |
| 0.4 | 0.0559234 | 0.0559234 | |
| 0.6 | 0.169081 | 0.169081 | |
| 0.8 | 0.318195 | 0.318195 | |
| 1 | 0.493072 | 0.493072 | |
| 1.2 | 0.68641 | 0.68641 | |
| 1.4 | 0.892975 | 0.892975 | |
| 1.6 | 1.10902 | 1.10902 | |
| 1.8 | 1.33185 | 1.33185 | |
| 2 | 1.55955 | 1.55955 |
Comparison of nanoparticle volume fraction profile solution with .
| y | Afzal et al.[ | Current investigation | Absolute error |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.2 | − 1.27054 | − 1.27054 | |
| 0.4 | − 1.84077 | − 1.84077 | |
| 0.6 | − 1.90919 | − 1.90919 | |
| 0.8 | − 1.61805 | − 1.61805 | |
| 1 | − 1.06928 | − 1.06928 | |
| 1.2 | − 0.335902 | − 0.335902 | |
| 1.4 | 0.529746 | 0.529746 | |
| 1.6 | 1.49017 | 1.49017 | |
| 1.8 | 2.51851 | 2.51851 | |
| 2 | 3.59551 | 3.59551 |
Figure 2profile for m1.
Figure 3profile for N.
Figure 4impact for varying m1.
Figure 5impact for varying profile for N.
Figure 6variations for R.
Figure 7variations for M.
Figure 8variations for R.
Figure 9variations for M.
Figure 10variations for .
Figure 11θ variations for .
Figure 12θ variations for .
Figure 13θ variations for .
Figure 14profile for N.
Figure 15λ profile for N.
Figure 16λ variations for N.
Figure 17λ variations for N.
Figure 18Ω variations for N.
Figure 19Ω variations for N.
Figure 20Ω profile for N.
Figure 21Ω profile for N.
Figure 22Streamlines of K = 2.5.
Figure 23Streamlines of K = 3.5.
Figure 24Streamlines of M = 2.0.
Figure 25Streamlines of M = 2.2.
Figure 26Streamlines of m1 = 0.5.
Figure 27Streamlines of m1 = 1.0.
Figure 28Temperature as function of .
Figure 29Concentration as function of .