4.6 Article

Finite Element Analysis of Variable Viscosity Impact on MHD Flow and Heat Transfer of Nanofluid Using the Cattaneo-Christov Model

期刊

COATINGS
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/coatings10040395

关键词

variable viscosity; stratification; FEM; nanofluids; MHD; heat transfer

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51676152]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [zrzd2017012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this mathematical study, magnetohydrodynamic, time-independent nanofluid flow over a stretching sheet by using the Cattaneo-Christov heat flux model is inspected. The impact of the thermal, solutal boundary and gravitational body forces with the effect of double stratification on the mass flow and heat transfer phenomena is also observed. The temperature-dependent viscosity impact on heat transfer through a moving sheet with capricious heat generation in nanofluids have studied, and the viscosity of the fluid is presumed to deviate as the inverse function of temperature. With the appropriate transformations, the system of partial differential equations is transformed into a system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations. By applying the variational finite element method, the transformed system of equations is solved. The properties of the several parameters for buoyancy, velocity, temperature, stratification, and Brownian motion parameters have examined. The enhancement in the concentration and thermal boundary layer thickness of the nanofluid sheet due to the increment in the viscosity parameter, also increased the temperature and concentration of nanoparticles. Moreover, the fluid temperature declined with the increasing values of thermal relaxation parameter. This displays that the Cattaneo-Christov heat flux model provides a better assessment of temperature distribution. Moreover, confirmation of the code and precision of the numerical method has inveterate with the valuation of the presented results with previous studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据