| Literature DB >> 36224220 |
Ebrahem A Algehyne1,2, Nifeen H Altaweel1, Anwar Saeed3, Abdullah Dawar4, Muhammad Ramzan5, Poom Kumam6,7.
Abstract
Scientists and researchers are much interested in studying graphene and silver nanoparticles for the enhancement of heat transport due to their extensive variety of applications in different areas of industrial and engineering such as drug delivery, medical devices, ultra-light, excellent electrical conductivity, strong medical strength, health care, consumer, food, etc. Therefore, in the existing investigation, the MHD flow of a mixed convective hybrid nanoliquid with graphene and silver nanoparticles past a rotating disk is considered. Water and ethylene glycol (50:50) is used as a base liquid in the existing model. The mechanism for heat transport is computed with the existence of thermal radiation and thermal convective condition. Homogeneous and heterogeneous chemical reactions are assumed in the flow behavior. The mathematical formulation of the proposed problem is based on the nonlinear PDEs which are then transformed to nonlinear ODEs by manipulating the appropriate similarity transformation. The simulation of the existing problem has been performed with the help of the homotopy analysis technique. The outcomes of the different flow parameters on the velocities, temperature, concentration, skin friction coefficient, and Nusselt number of the hybrid nanofluid are attained via graphs and tables. Some significant results from the existing problem demonstrate that the rate of heat transport is greater for the thermal Biot number and nanoparticles volume fraction. Further, it is noticed that the velocity of the liquid particles becomes lower for a higher magnetic field parameter.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36224220 PMCID: PMC9556529 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-21080-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1-curves for , , and .
Thermophysical characteristic of the water, ethylene glycol and graphene nanoparticles[41–45].
| Thermophysical properties | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50%W + 50%EG | 1056 | 3288 | 0.425 | 0.00509 | 0.00341 | 29.86 |
| Graphene | 2250 | 2100 | 2500 | 1 × 107 | 2.84 × 10−4 | – |
| Silver | 10,500 | 235 | 429 | 63 × 10−6 | 1.89 × 10−5 | – |
Comparison of with reported results when all other parameters are zero.
| Bachok et al.[ | Maleque and Sattar[ | Kelson and Desseaux[ | Present results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0 | 0.71 | 0.3259 | 0.325769 | 0.325856 | 0.3258 |
Chang in due to , and .
| 0.1 | 1.670699 | ||
| 0.3 | 1.671767 | ||
| 0.5 | 1.672835 | ||
| 0.7 | 1.673903 | ||
| 0.2 | 1.670767 | ||
| 0.4 | 1.670905 | ||
| 0.6 | 1.671042 | ||
| 0.8 | 1.671180 | ||
| 0.01 | 1.224952 | ||
| 0.02 | 1.281557 | ||
| 0.03 | 1.343170 | ||
| 0.04 | 1.409918 |
Chang in due to , and .
| 1.0 | 0.152344 | ||
| 1.5 | 0.152346 | ||
| 2.0 | 0.152348 | ||
| 2.5 | 0.152349 | ||
| 1.0 | 1.720965 | ||
| 2.0 | 2.183312 | ||
| 3.0 | 3.249004 | ||
| 4.0 | 3.893915 | ||
| 0.01 | 0.109616 | ||
| 0.02 | 0.118770 | ||
| 0.03 | 0.128756 | ||
| 0.04 | 0.139692 |
Figure 2versus .
Figure 3versus .
Figure 4versus .
Figure 5versus .
Figure 6versus .
Figure 7versus .
Figure 8versus .
Figure 9versus .