4.2 Article

Prabhakar fractional simulations for hybrid nanofluid with aluminum oxide, titanium oxide and copper nanoparticles along with blood base fluid

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17455030.2022.2063983

关键词

Nanoparticles; heat transfer; porous surface; Prabhakar fractional derivative; slip effects

资金

  1. Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia [TURSP2020/247]
  2. Taif University
  3. Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia [RGP-2/176/1443]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces a fractional model that analyzes and simulates the hybrid nanofluid problem with different nanoparticles, taking into account the blood base fluid. The study finds that the thermal increment of the hybrid nanofluid can be simulated by considering a magnetized moving surface and porous space. The model is made versatile by introducing velocity and thermal slip assumptions.
This fractional model addresses the analytical simulations for the hybrid nanofluid problem with different nanoparticles with consideration of blood base fluid. The thermal increment of the hybrid nanofluid model is inspected with consideration of aluminum oxide (Al2O3), titanium oxide (TiO2), and copper (Cu) nanoparticles. The conducted thermal phenomenon is assumed due to the magnetized moving surface with porous space. Moreover, the velocity and thermal slip assumptions are also introduced to make the model versatile. The Prabhakar fractional derivative simulations with recent mathematical expressions are followed for the analytical simulations. The implementation of the Prabhakar model is due to motivations toward fractional calculus for various kinds of physical problems. The integral technique via Laplace transformations is used. The numerical simulations are accomplished to compare and validate the attained results. The graphical illustrations examine the empirical results and the physical impact of various pertinent parameters of velocity and heat transfer profiles.

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

4.2
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