| Literature DB >> 36014667 |
Asia Ali Akbar1, N Ameer Ahammad2, Aziz Ullah Awan1, Ahmed Kadhim Hussein3,4, Fehmi Gamaoun5, ElSayed M Tag-ElDin6, Bagh Ali7,8.
Abstract
This article addresses the dynamic of three-dimensional rotating flow of Maxwell nanofluid across a linearly stretched sheet subject to a water-based fluid containing copper nanoparticles. Nanoparticles are used due to their fascinating features, such as exceptional thermal conductivity, which is crucial in modern nanotechnology and electronics. The primary goal of this comprehensive study is to examine the nanoparticles size and shape factors effect on the base fluid temperature. The mathematical model contains the governing equations in three dimensional partial differential equations form, and these equations transformed into dimensionless ordinary dimensional equations via suitable similarity transformation. The bvp4c technique is harnessed and coded in Matlab script to obtain a numerical solution of the coupled non-linear ordinary differential problem. It is observed that the greater input of rotating, Deborah number, and magnetic parameters caused a decline in the fluid primary and secondary velocities, but the nanoparticles concentration enhanced the fluid temperature. Further, a substantial increment in the nanofluid temperature is achieved for the higher nanoparticle's diameter and shape factors.Entities:
Keywords: magnetohydrodynamics; nanofluid; nanoparticles diameter; rotating Maxwell fluid; stretching surface
Year: 2022 PMID: 36014667 PMCID: PMC9413123 DOI: 10.3390/nano12162801
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.719
Figure 1Geometric configuration and coordinate scheme.
Base liquid and nanoparticles’ thermo-physical properties at [51].
| Characteristics | Copper (Cu) | Water ( |
|---|---|---|
| 5.96 × | 5.5 × | |
| k (W/m·K) | 401 | 0.613 |
| 385 | 4179 | |
| 8933 | 997.1 |
Figure 2Shape of nanoparticles along with shape factor [53,54,55].
Comparative results for and for diverse amounts of in case of .
|
| Wang et al. [ | Ali et al. [ | Hussain et al. [ | Zaimi et al. [ | Present Outcomes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 0.0 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 1.0014 | 0.00000 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 1.000483 | 0.000000 |
| 0.2 | – | – | – | – | 1.03318 | 0.23856 | 1.0331 | 0.2385 | 1.032664 | 0.238519 |
| 0.4 | – | – | – | – | 1.01011 | 0.43193 | 1.1009 | 0.4310 | 1.101120 | 0.431088 |
| 0.5 | 1.1384 | 0.5128 | 1.13844 | 0.51283 | 1.13889 | 0.51832 | 1.1384 | 0.5128 | 1.138478 | 0.512684 |
| 0.6 | – | – | – | – | 1.17676 | 0.58742 | 1.1764 | 0.5874 | 1.176356 | 0.587333 |
| 1.0 | 1.3250 | 0.8371 | 1.32501 | 0.83715 | 1.32596 | 0.83725 | 1.3250 | 0.8371 | 1.325027 | 0.837108 |
| 2.0 | 1.6523 | 1.2873 | 1.65232 | 1.28732 | 1.65235 | 1.28726 | 1.6523 | 1.2873 | 1.652351 | 1.287258 |
| 5.0 | – | – | 2.39026 | 2.15024 | – | – | 2.3901 | 2.1506 | 2.390139 | 2.150526 |
Numerical findings of for diverse inputs in case of .
|
| Pr = 0.7 | Pr = 2.0 | Pr = 7.0 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref. [ | Ref. [ | Present Outcomes | Ref. [ | Ref. [ | Present Outcomes | Ref. [ | Ref. [ | Present Outcomes | |
| 0.0 | 0.454 | 0.455 | 0.4625 | 0.911 | 0.911 | 0.9111 | 1.895 | 1.894 | 1.8952 |
| 0.5 | 0.389 | 0.390 | 0.4129 | 0.852 | 0.853 | 0.8526 | 1.851 | 1.850 | 1.8511 |
| 1.0 | 0.321 | 0.321 | 0.3640 | 0.770 | 0.770 | 0.7720 | 1.788 | 1.788 | 1.7876 |
| 2.0 | 0.242 | 0.242 | 0.2420 | 0.638 | 0.638 | 0.6461 | 1.664 | 1.664 | 1.6643 |
Figure 3The and curves for distinct Deborah number values.
Figure 4The and curves for distinct rotating parameter values.
Figure 5The and curves for distinct magnetic parameter M values.
Figure 6The and curves for distinct slip parameter values.
Figure 7The and curves for distinct diameter values.
Figure 8The and curves for distinct values.
Figure 9The effect of on temperature curve.
Figure 10The effect of Magnetic parameter M, nanoparticle diameter , and shape factor on temperature profile.
Fluctuation in Nusselt number , skin friction coefficients values for various values of parameters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 0.2 | 3.0 | −0.65067 | −0.05407 | 1.30214 |
| 0.3 | −0.65914 | −0.15648 | 1.27998 | ||||||
| 0.5 | −0.67319 | −0.24585 | 1.24195 | ||||||
| 1.0 | −0.71575 | −0.41292 | 1.11751 | ||||||
| 1.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 0.2 | 3.0 | −0.70802 | −0.37761 | 1.14342 |
| 0.4 | −0.72304 | −0.44709 | 1.09144 | ||||||
| 0.8 | −0.73658 | −0.51275 | 1.03800 | ||||||
| 1.2 | −0.74907 | −0.57582 | 0.98133 | ||||||
| 1.0 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 0.2 | 3.0 | −0.71575 | −0.41292 | 1.11751 |
| 2.0 | −0.76868 | −0.33217 | 1.04024 | ||||||
| 3.0 | −0.81508 | −0.27519 | 0.96197 | ||||||
| 4.0 | −0.85483 | −0.23418 | 0.88949 | ||||||
| 1.0 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.05 | 0.2 | 3.0 | −1.18117 | −0.63742 | 1.47403 |
| 0.3 | −0.88707 | −0.49844 | 1.26405 | ||||||
| 0.5 | −0.71575 | −0.41292 | 1.11751 | ||||||
| 0.7 | −0.60204 | −0.35395 | 1.00642 | ||||||
| 1.0 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 0.2 | 3.0 | −0.71575 | −0.41292 | 1.11751 |
| 0.10 | −0.63744 | −0.38135 | 1.09187 | ||||||
| 0.15 | −0.58681 | −0.35826 | 1.06654 | ||||||
| 0.20 | −0.55147 | −0.34034 | 1.04249 | ||||||
| 1.0 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 0.2 | 3.0 | −0.71575 | −0.41292 | 1.11750 |
| 2.2 | −1.44491 | −0.81254 | 1.46309 | ||||||
| 4.2 | −2.43049 | −1.34328 | 1.65391 | ||||||
| 6.2 | −3.28989 | −1.80224 | 1.74346 | ||||||
| 1.0 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 0.2 | 3.0 | −0.71575 | −0.41292 | 1.11751 |
| 3.7 | −0.71575 | −0.41292 | 1.12687 | ||||||
| 4.9 | −0.71575 | −0.41292 | 1.14205 | ||||||
| 5.7 | −0.71575 | −0.41292 | 1.15161 |
Figure 11Variations in and trend for different values of M and .
Figure 12Variations in trend for different amounts of M and .