Numerical analysis of thermal conductive hybrid nanofluid flow over the surface of a wavy spinning disk

Abstract

A three dimensional (3D) numerical solution of unsteady, Ag-MgO hybrid nanoliquid flow with heat and mass transmission caused by upward/downward moving of wavy spinning disk has been scrutinized. The magnetic field has been also considered. The hybrid nanoliquid has been synthesized in the presence of Ag-MgO nanoparticles. The purpose of the study is to improve the rate of thermal energy transmission for several industrial purposes. The wavy rotating surface increases the heat transmission rate up to 15%, comparatively to the flat surface. The subsequent arrangement of modeled equations is diminished into dimensionless differential equation. The obtained system of equations is further analytically expounded via Homotopy analysis method HAM and the numerical Parametric continuation method (PCM) method has been used for the comparison of the outcomes. The results are graphically presented and discussed. It has been presumed that the geometry of spinning disk positively affects the velocity and thermal energy transmission. The addition of hybrid nanoparticles (silver and magnesium-oxide) significantly improved thermal property of carrier fluid. It uses is more efficacious to overcome low energy transmission. Such as, it provides improvement in thermal performance of carrier fluid, which play important role in power generation, hyperthermia, micro fabrication, air conditioning and metallurgical field.

Figure 1

Wavy disk.

Figure 2

${\varphi }_1$ out-turn versus axial velocity $f\left(\eta \right)$. When $Pr=6.7,\beta =0.7,{\varphi }_2=0.9,S=2.2,\omega =1.0.$

Figure 3

${\varphi }_2$ out-turn versus the axial velocity $f\left(\eta \right)$. When $Pr=6.7,\beta =0.7,{\varphi }_1=0.7,S=2.2,\omega =1.0.$

Figure 4

S out-turns versus the axial velocity $f\left(\eta \right)$. When $Pr=6.7,\beta =0.7,{\varphi }_1=0.7,{\varphi }_2=0.9,\omega =1.0.$

Figure 5

$\omega$ out-turn versus the radial velocity $g\left(\eta \right)$ When $Pr=6.7,\gamma =0.3,\beta =0.7,{\varphi }_1=0.7,{\varphi }_2=0.9.$

Figure 6

$\beta$ out-turn versus the azimuthal velocity $h\left(\eta \right)$. When $Pr=6.7,{\varphi }_1=0.7,{\varphi }_2=0.9,S=2.2,\omega =1.0.$

Figure 7

S out-turns versus the azimuthal velocity $h\left(\eta \right)$. When $Pr=6.7,\beta =0.7,{\varphi }_1=0.7,{\varphi }_2=0.9,\omega =1.0.$

Figure 8

$\gamma$ out-turn versus temperature profile $\theta \left(\eta \right)$. When $Pr=6.7,\beta =0.7,{\varphi }_1=0.7,{\varphi }_2=0.9,\omega =1.0.$

Figure 9

${\varphi }_1$ out-turn versus the temperature profile $\theta \left(\eta \right)$. When $Pr=6.7,\beta =0.7,{\varphi }_2=0.9,S=2.2,\omega =1.0.$

Figure 10

${\varphi }_2$ out-turn versus the temperature $\theta \left(\eta \right)$. When $Pr=6.7,\beta =0.7,{\varphi }_1=0.7,S=2.2,\omega =1.0.$

Figure 11

Pr out-turn versus the temperature $\theta \left(\eta \right)$. When $\beta =0.7,{\varphi }_1=0.7,{\varphi }_2=0.9,S=2.2,\omega =1.0.$

Figure 12

$h_f$ When $\beta =0.7,{\varphi }_1=0.7,{\varphi }_2=0.9,S=2.2,\omega =1.0.$

Figure 13

$h_g$ When $\beta =0.7,{\varphi }_1=0.7,{\varphi }_2=0.9,S=2.2,\omega =1.0.$

Figure 14

$h_{\mathrm{\Theta }}$ When $\beta =0.7,{\varphi }_1=0.7,{\varphi }_2=0.9,S=2.2,\omega =1.0.$