Cargando…

Unsteady mix convectional stagnation point flow of nanofluid over a movable electro-magnetohydrodynamics Riga plate numerical approach

The flow at a time-independent separable stagnation point on a Riga plate under thermal radiation and electro-magnetohydrodynamic settings is examined in this research. Two distinct base fluids-H(2)O and C(2)H(6)O(2) and TiO(2) nanostructures develop the nanocomposites. The flow problem incorporates...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nasir, Saleem, Berrouk, Abdallah S., Gul, Taza, Zari, Islam, Alghamdi, Wajdi, Ali, Ishtiaq
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10326002/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37414797
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-37575-2
Descripción
Sumario:The flow at a time-independent separable stagnation point on a Riga plate under thermal radiation and electro-magnetohydrodynamic settings is examined in this research. Two distinct base fluids-H(2)O and C(2)H(6)O(2) and TiO(2) nanostructures develop the nanocomposites. The flow problem incorporates the equations of motion and energy along with a unique model for viscosity and thermal conductivity. Similarity components are then used to reduce these model problem calculations. The Runge Kutta (RK-4) function yields the simulation result, which is displayed in graphical and tabular form. For both involved base fluid theories, the nanofluids flow and thermal profiles relating to the relevant aspects are computed and analyzed. According to the findings of this research, the C(2)H(6)O(2) model heat exchange rate is significantly higher than the H(2)O model. As the volume percentage of nanoparticles rises, the velocity field degrades while the temperature distribution improves. Moreover, for greater acceleration parameters, TiO(2)/ C(2)H(6)O(2)has the highest thermal coefficient whereas TiO(2)/ H(2)O has the highest skin friction coefficient. The key observation is that C(2)H(6)O(2) base nanofluid has a little higher performance than H(2)O nanofluid.