4.6 Article

Evaluating the unsteady MHD micropolar fluid flow past stretching/shirking sheet with heat source and thermal radiation: Implementing fourth order predictor-corrector FDM

期刊

MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTERS IN SIMULATION
卷 181, 期 -, 页码 333-350

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.matcom.2020.09.014

关键词

Non-uniform heat source/sink; Joule heating; MHD; Micropolar fluid; Fourth-order predictor-corrector FDM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research investigates the impact of thermal radiation and non-uniform heat source/sink on unsteady MHD micropolar fluid flow over a stretching/shrinking sheet, using numerical methods to solve the coupled ODEs. The study finds good agreement under certain conditions with existing outcomes.
The idea of the current investigation is to analyze the effect of thermal radiation and non-uniform heat source/sink on unsteady MHD micropolar fluid flow past a stretching/shirking sheet. The governing non-linear PDEs are transformed into a set of non-linear coupled ODEs which are then solved numerically by using the fourth order predictor-corrector finite difference method (PC4-FDM). The effect of non-dimensional governing parameters on momentum, angular momentum, energy and mass descriptions is examined and displayed with the aid of their graphical depictions. Also, friction factor, heat and mass transfer rates have been enumerated and shown through tables. Under some special conditions, current outcomes are compared with the existing outcomes to examine the exactness and validity of the current study. An excellent agreement is found with the existing outcomes. Finally, it is observed that velocity increases with an increase in both micro-polar parameter and thermal buoyancy parameter. In addition, for the temperature profiles opposite behavior is observed for increment in both unsteadiness parameter and thermal buoyancy parameter. (C) 2020 International Association for Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (IMACS). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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