Parametric estimation of gyrotactic microorganism hybrid nanofluid flow between the conical gap of spinning disk-cone apparatus

Abstract

The silver, magnesium oxide and gyrotactic microorganism-based hybrid nanofluid flow inside the conical space between disc and cone is addressed in the perspective of thermal energy stabilization. Different cases have been discussed between the spinning of cone and disc in the same or counter wise directions. The hybrid nanofluid has been synthesized in the presence of silver Ag and magnesium oxide MgO nanoparticulate. The viscous dissipation and the magnetic field factors are introduced to the modeled equations. The parametric continuation method (PCM) is utilized to numerically handle the modeled problem. Magnesium oxide is chemically made up of Mg²⁺ and O^2- ions that are bound by a strong ionic connection and can be made by pyrolyzing Mg(OH)² (magnesium hydroxide) and MgCO³ (magnesium carbonate) at high temperature (700-1500 °C). For metallurgical, biomedical and electrical implementations, it is more efficient. Similarly, silver nanoparticle's antibacterial properties could be employed to control bacterial growth. It has been observed that a circulating disc with a stationary cone can achieve the optimum cooling of the cone-disk apparatus while the outer edge temperature remains fixed. The thermal energy profile remarkably upgraded with the magnetic effect, the addition of nanoparticulate in base fluid and Eckert number.

Figure 1

The hybrid nanofluid flow arrangement between the disc and cone.

Figure 2

The behavior of axial velocity profile $f\left(\eta \right)$ versus (a) magnetic field M (b) volume friction of silver ${\varphi }_{\mathit{Ag}}$ (c) volume friction of magnesium oxide ${\varphi }_{\mathit{MgO}}$ (d) cone angular velocity $R{e}_{\mathrm{\Omega }}$ (e) disk angular velocity $R{e}_{\omega }$.

Figure 3

The behavior of radial velocity profile $g\left(\eta \right)$ versus (a) magnetic field M (b) disk rotation (c) cone rotation (d) both disk and cone co-rotation (e) both disk and cone counter rotation.

Figure 4

The behavior of tangential velocity profile $h\left(\eta \right)$ versus (a) magnetic field M (b) volume friction of silver ${\varphi }_{\mathit{Ag}}$ (c) volume friction of magnesium oxide ${\varphi }_{\mathit{MgO}}$ (d) cone angular velocity $R{e}_{\mathrm{\Omega }}$ (e) disk angular velocity $R{e}_{\omega }$.

Figure 5

The behavior of thermal energy profile $\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\eta \right)$ versus (a) magnetic field M (b) volume friction of silver ${\varphi }_{\mathit{Ag}}$ (c) volume friction of magnesium oxide ${\varphi }_{\mathit{MgO}}$ (d) Eckert number Ec (e) Prandtl number Pr.

Figure 6

The behavior of thermal energy profile $\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\eta \right)$ versus (a) disk rotation (b) cone rotation (c) both disk and cone co-rotation (d) both disk and cone counter-rotation.

Figure 7

The behavior of mass transfer profile $\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\eta \right)$ and motile microorganism $ƛ\left(\eta \right)$ versus (a) Schmidt number Sc (b) volume friction of silver ${\varphi }_{\mathit{Ag}}$ (c) Reynold number Re (d) Peclet number Pe.