Entropy optimized flow of Jeffrey fluid with radiation effect over a stretched surface

Abstract

The theme of this paper is to scrutinize hydromagnetic flow of Jeffrey fluid subject to stretched curved sheet. Heat expression is developed through dissipation, magnetic force and radiation. Entropy generation is also studied. First order isothermal reaction is examined. Nonlinear ordinary differential systems are found through adequate transformation. Here we have used the ND-based numerical solution method to develop numerical results. Impact of sundry variables on temperature, fluid flow, concentration and entropy rate are discussed. Performance of skin friction and heat transport rate via flow parameters are graphically studied. An increase in curvature variables lead to improve velocity and thermal field. Higher approximation of radiation enhances temperature. An intensification in drag force is seen versus Deborah number. Larger approximation of Brinkman number boosts up entropy analysis.

Keywords

Jeffrey fluid joule heating thermal radiation dissipation and entropy analysis

Introduction

Flow due to stretched surface is significant in fiber spinning, glass fiber, rubber sheet, nuclear reactor, fission reactions, glass blowing, paper production, hybrid-powered engines, annealing of copper wires, cooling of large metallic plates, micro-manufacturing and many others. Thermal and solutal transportation phenomena subject to stretched surface with suction and injection effects are investigated by Gupta and Gupta.¹ Khan et al.² reported the hydrothermal effect of nanomaterials toward a stretching surface with thermal transport rate. Thermal transfer analysis in magnetized viscoelastic fluid with variable heat source/sink over a stretched sheet is demonstrated by Abel and Nandeppanavar.³ Lok et al.⁴ analyzed the non-orthogonal flow subject to stretchable medium. Bao and Yang⁵ analyzed the bifurcation of the wrap flow in a generalized manner. Melting and activation energy analyses for viscoelastic bioconvective nanofluids toward a stretchable surface with random and thermophoretic motion is illustrated by Khan and Alzahrani.⁶ Thermal transfer analysis for time-dependent viscous fluid flow subject to stretching permeable cylinder is inspected by Si et al.⁷ Mustafa et al.⁸ examined a mathematical model for two-dimensional steady and incompressible nanomaterials flow. Some studies regarding stretched medium are presented in Refs.^9–24

Non-Newtonian liquids are to be more efficient than Newtonian liquids. Non-Newtonian liquids are those fluid which hold Newton law viscosity in nonlinear way. Exotic lubricants, paints, oils, clay coating, cosmetics and shampoos are examples of non-Newtonian liquids. Because of their applications in industry, engineering, physiology, and biosciences, non-Newtonian fluids have gained considerable attention. Hayat et al.²⁵ investigated the MHD Jeffrey liquid flow in the presence of a radially growing surface. Thermal and solutal transport analyses for Jeffery liquid due to a stretchable sheet is explained by Shehzad et al.²⁶ Abbasi et al.²⁷ analyzed the thermal influence in hydromagnetic Jeffrey nanoliquid flow with random and thermophoretic motion. Hydromagnetic peristaltic flow of Jeffrey liquid in a cylinder-shaped tube was investigated by Tripathi et al.²⁸ Maninaga Kumar and Kavitha²⁹ studied Jeffrey liquid flow between two fixed and revolving disk with suction two parallel circular disks. Farooq et al.³⁰ explored the features of Jeffrey liquid flow with isothermal chemical reactions. Mohd Zin et al.³¹ investigated heat conduction augmentation for time-dependent Jeffrey nanomaterials flow with Lorentz force. Hayat et al.³² analyzed the hydrothermal Jeffrey liquid flow subject to a variable stretching sheet. Few investigations regarding non-Newtonian are presented in Refs.^33–37

The Objective of this research is to explore entropy rate in magnetohydromagnetic Jeffrey liquid flow over a curved stretchable surface. Heat equation is discussed in presence of dissipation, Lorentz force and radiation. Furthermore, binary reaction is discussed. Here our prime concentration is on heat and entropy analysis. Ordinary differential equations are obtained through suitable parameters. Here we used ND-solve based numerical method to develop computational results. Variation of thermal field, entropy rate, concentration and fluid flow against emerging parameters are examined. Significance performance of drag force and Nusselt number graphically analyzed. Figure 1 sketch to show the residual error. Individual residual errors with CPU time are mentioned in Table 1.

Figure 1.

Total residual error.

Table 1.

Individual residual errors.

$m$	$ε_{m}^{f}$	$ε_{m}^{θ}$	$ε_{m}^{ϕ}$	$CPU$ $time (\sec)$
2	0.0000321452	0.000231405	0.003245	0.503205
6	0.000012451	0.000103214	0.000213541	12.2789
10	0.0000014563	0.0000542145	0.000101254	51.918
14	5.8656 $\times 10^{- 7}$	0.0000321451	0.0000124573	149.511
16	3.4021 $\times 10^{- 8}$	0.0000124532	0.0000045213	256.601

Statement

Here an incompressible magnetohydromagnetic flow of Jeffrey fluid toward a bended surface is considered. Dissipation, Lorentz force and radiation impacts are deliberated in heat equation. Isothermal chemical reaction is considered. Entropy communication is developed through thermodynamics second law. Consider stretching velocity is $U_{w} = (as)$ . Magnetic force of strength ( $B_{0}$ ) is applied.

Governing equations satisfy

R \frac{\partial u}{\partial s} + \frac{\partial}{\partial r} [(r + R) v] = 0,

(1)

\begin{matrix} ρ (v \frac{\partial v}{\partial r} + \frac{Ru}{r + R} \frac{\partial v}{\partial s} - \frac{u^{2}}{r + R}) = - \frac{\partial p}{\partial r} - \frac{τ_{ss}}{r + R} + \frac{R}{r + R} \frac{\partial τ_{sr}}{\partial r} \\ + \frac{1}{r + R} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} [((r + R) τ_{rr})] \end{matrix}},

(2)

\begin{matrix} ρ (u \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} + \frac{Ru}{r + R} \frac{\partial u}{\partial s} + \frac{uv}{r + R}) = - \frac{R}{r + R} \frac{\partial p}{\partial s} - \frac{R}{r + R} \frac{\partial τ_{ss}}{\partial s} \\ + \frac{1}{{(r + R)}^{2}} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} [{(r + R)}^{2} τ_{rs} - σ B_{0}^{2} u] \end{matrix}},

(3)

\begin{matrix} v \frac{\partial T}{\partial r} + \frac{\partial T}{\partial s} \frac{uR}{r + R} = \frac{κ}{(ρ c_{p})} (\frac{\partial^{2} T}{\partial r^{2}} + \frac{\partial T}{\partial r} \frac{1}{r + R}) + S : L \\ + \frac{16 σ^{*} T_{\infty}^{3}}{3 (ρ c_{p}) k^{*}} \frac{\partial^{2} T}{\partial r^{2}} + \frac{σ}{(ρ c_{p})} B_{0}^{2} u^{2} \end{matrix}},

(4)

v \frac{\partial C}{\partial r} + \frac{\partial C}{\partial s} \frac{uR}{r + R} = D_{B} (\frac{\partial^{2} C}{\partial r^{2}} + \frac{1}{r + R} \frac{\partial C}{\partial r}) - k_{r}^{2} (C - C_{\infty}),

(5)

with

\begin{matrix} u = as, v = 0, C = C_{w}, T = T_{w}, at r = 0 \\ u \to 0, \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} \to 0, C \to C_{\infty} T \to T_{\infty}, as r \to \infty \end{matrix}}

(6)

Here $S : L$ is defined as

\begin{matrix} S : L = \frac{u}{1 + λ_{1}} \\ (\begin{matrix} {(\frac{\partial u}{\partial r})}^{2} - \frac{u}{r + R} \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} + {(\frac{u}{r + R})}^{2} + λ_{2} (\frac{uv}{r + R} \frac{\partial^{2} u}{\partial r^{2}} + \frac{uv}{{(r + R)}^{2}} \frac{\partial u}{\partial r}) \\ λ_{2} (\frac{u^{2} R}{{(r + R)}^{3}} \frac{\partial u}{\partial s} - \frac{u^{2} v}{{(r + R)}^{3}} - \frac{u^{2} R}{{(r + R)}^{2}} \frac{\partial^{2} u}{\partial r \partial s} + v \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} \frac{\partial^{2} u}{\partial r^{2}}) \\ λ_{2} (\frac{uv}{{(r + R)}^{2}} \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} - \frac{v}{r + R} {(\frac{\partial u}{\partial r})}^{2} - \frac{uR}{{(r + R)}^{2}} \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} \frac{\partial u}{\partial s}) \end{matrix}) \end{matrix}}

(7)

Here ( $u$ , $v$ ) indicate the velocity component, $(r$ , $s)$ curvilinear coordinates, $σ$ the electrical conductivity, $ρ$ the density, $R$ the radius, $(ρ c_{p})$ heat capacity of fluid, $σ^{*}$ the Stefan-Boltzman constant, $T$ temperature, $k_{r}$ reaction rate, $k$ the thermal conductivity, $C$ concentration, $k^{*}$ the mean absorption coefficient, $C_{\infty}$ the ambient concentration, $λ_{2}$ the retardation time, $D_{B}$ the mass diffusivity, $λ_{1}$ the ratio of relaxation to retardation time, $C_{w}$ the wall concentration, $T_{\infty}$ the ambient temperature and $T_{w}$ the wall temperature.

By using the concept of boundary layer, we have

R \frac{\partial u}{\partial s} + \frac{\partial}{\partial r} [(r + R) v] = 0,

(8)

\frac{ρ u^{2}}{r + R} = \frac{\partial p}{\partial r},

(9)

\begin{matrix} ρ (u \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} + \frac{uv}{r + R} + \frac{Ru}{r + R} \frac{\partial u}{\partial s}) = - \frac{R}{r + R} \frac{\partial p}{\partial s} - σ B_{0}^{2} u + \frac{u}{1 + λ_{1}} (\frac{\partial^{2} u}{\partial r^{2}} + \frac{2 R}{{(r + R)}^{2}} \frac{\partial v}{\partial s} + \frac{1}{r + R} \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} - \frac{u}{{(r + R)}^{2}}) \\ \frac{u}{1 + λ_{1}} [λ_{2} (\begin{matrix} + \frac{R}{r + R} \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} \frac{\partial^{2} u}{\partial r \partial s} + \frac{uR}{(r + R)} \frac{\partial^{3} u}{\partial r^{2} \partial s} - \frac{R}{{(r + R)}^{2}} \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} \frac{\partial u}{\partial s} + \frac{\partial v}{\partial r} \frac{\partial^{2} u}{\partial r^{2}} + v \frac{\partial^{3} u}{\partial r^{3}} \\ + \frac{u}{{(r + R)}^{2}} \frac{\partial v}{\partial r} - \frac{1}{r + R} \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} \frac{\partial v}{\partial r} + \frac{v}{r + R} \frac{\partial^{2} u}{\partial r^{2}} \end{matrix})] \end{matrix}},

(10)

\begin{matrix} v \frac{\partial T}{\partial r} + \frac{\partial T}{\partial s} \frac{uR}{r + R} = \frac{k}{(ρ c_{p})} (\frac{\partial^{2} T}{\partial r^{2}} + \frac{\partial T}{\partial r} \frac{1}{r + R}) + \frac{16 σ^{*} T_{\infty}^{3}}{3 (ρ c_{p}) k^{*}} \frac{\partial^{2} T}{\partial r^{2}} + \frac{σ}{(ρ c_{p})} B_{0}^{2} u^{2} + \\ \frac{u}{1 + λ_{1}} {(\frac{\partial u}{\partial r})}^{2} - \frac{u}{r + R} \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} + {(\frac{u}{r + R})}^{2} + \\ \frac{u}{1 + λ_{1}} [λ_{2} (\begin{matrix} \frac{uv}{r + R} \frac{\partial^{2} u}{\partial r^{2}} + \frac{uv}{{(r + R)}^{2}} \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} - \frac{u^{2} v}{{(r + R)}^{3}} - \frac{u^{2} R}{{(r + R)}^{2}} \frac{\partial^{2} u}{\partial r \partial s} + \frac{u^{2} R}{{(r + R)}^{3}} \frac{\partial u}{\partial s} \\ + v \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} \frac{\partial^{2} u}{\partial r^{2}} - \frac{v}{r + R} {(\frac{\partial u}{\partial r})}^{2} + \frac{uv}{{(r + R)}^{2}} \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} - \frac{uR}{{(r + R)}^{2}} \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} \frac{\partial u}{\partial s} \end{matrix})] \end{matrix}},

(11)

v \frac{\partial C}{\partial r} + \frac{\partial C}{\partial s} \frac{uR}{r + R} = D_{B} (\frac{\partial^{2} C}{\partial r^{2}} + \frac{\partial C}{\partial r} \frac{1}{r + R}) - k_{r}^{2} (C - C_{\infty}),

(12)

with

\begin{matrix} u = as, v = 0, C = C_{w}, T = T_{w}, at r = 0 \\ u \to 0, \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} \to 0, C \to C_{\infty} T \to T_{\infty}, as r \to \infty \end{matrix}}

(13)

Letting

\begin{matrix} u = asf' (η), v = - \frac{R}{r + R} \sqrt{av} f (η), p = ρ a^{2} s^{2} P (η) \\ θ (η) = \frac{T - T_{\infty}}{T_{w - T \infty}}, ϕ (η) = \frac{C - C_{\infty}}{C_{w} - C_{\infty}}, η = \sqrt{\frac{a}{v}} r \end{matrix}},

(14)

We get

P' = \frac{{f'}^{2}}{η + K},

(15)

\begin{matrix} 2 P = ff ″ - {f'}^{2} + \frac{ff'}{η + K} - Mf' + \frac{1}{1 + λ_{1}} (\frac{η + K}{K} f ″' + \frac{1}{K} f ″ - \frac{1}{K (η + K)} f') \\ + \frac{1}{1 + λ_{1}} (β (\frac{1}{{(η + K)}^{3}} f' f ″ - \frac{1}{{(η + K)}^{2}} {f'}^{2} - f f^{iv} + {f ″}^{2} - \frac{1}{{(η + K)}^{2}} ff ″)) \end{matrix}},

(16)

\begin{matrix} \frac{1}{\Pr} (1 + Rd) (θ ″ + \frac{1}{η + K} θ') + \frac{K}{η + K} f θ' + MEc {f'}^{2} + \frac{Ec}{1 + λ_{1}} (\frac{1}{{(η + K)}^{2}} {f'}^{2} - \frac{1}{η + K} f' f ″ + {f ″}^{2}) \\ + \frac{Ec}{1 + λ_{1}} (β - \frac{K}{{(η + K)}^{2}} f {f ″}^{2} - \frac{K}{{(η + K)}^{3}} ff' f ″ + \frac{K}{{(η + K)}^{4}} f {f'}^{2} + \frac{K}{{(η + K)}^{3}} {f'}^{3} - \frac{K}{{(η + K)}^{2}} {f'}^{2} f ″) \end{matrix}},

(17)

ϕ ″ + \frac{1}{η + K} ϕ' + \frac{K}{η + K} Scf ϕ' - k_{1} Sc ϕ = 0,

(18)

with

\begin{matrix} f' (0) = 1, f (0) = 0, f' (\infty) = 0, f ″ (\infty) = 0 \\ ϕ (0) = 1, ϕ (\infty) = 0, θ (0) = 1, θ (\infty) = 0 \end{matrix}} .

(19)

In which $M$ (= $\frac{σ B_{0}^{2}}{a ρ})$ denotes the magnetic variable, $K = (\sqrt{\frac{a}{v}} R),$ is curvature variable, $Rd (= \frac{16 σ^{*} T_{\infty}^{3}}{3 k k^{*}})$ the radiation variable, $β = (a λ_{2})$ Deborah number, $\Pr (= \frac{ν}{α})$ the Prandtl number, $Ec = \frac{u_{w}^{2}}{c_{p} (T_{w} - T \infty)}$ the Eckert number, $k_{1} (= \frac{k_{r}^{2}}{a})$ the reaction parameter and $Sc (= \frac{D_{B}}{v})$ the Schmidt number.

By avoiding the pressure from equations (13) and (14) we get

\begin{matrix} f^{iv} {(η + K)}^{5} + {(η + K)}^{2} f' + 2 {(η + K)}^{4} f ″' \\ + 3 (η + K) ff ″ - {(η + K)}^{3} f ″ \\ + β K (2 ({(η + K)}^{4} f ″ f ″' - {(η + K)}^{4} f' f^{iv} - {(η + K)}^{4} f f^{v} \\ + 3 (η + K) f^{' 2} \\ - 3 {(η + K)}^{2} f' f ″ + (1 + λ_{1}) K ({(η + K)}^{4} ff ″' \\ - 3 {(η + K)}^{2} ff ″' - 3 ff') \\ - {(η + K)}^{4} f' f ″ - {(η + K)}^{3} f^{' 2} - {(η + K)}^{2} ff' \\ + {(η + K)}^{3} ff ″ \\ + {(η + K)}^{4} f')) M ({(η + K)}^{5} f ″ = 0, \end{matrix}} .

(20)

Engineering quantities

The velocity and temperature gradient are defined as

C_{fs} = \frac{τ_{rs}}{\frac{ρ}{2} u_{w}^{2}}, Nu = \frac{s q_{w}}{k (T_{w} - T_{\infty})},

(21)

with $τ_{rs}$ (shear stress) and $q_{w}$ (heat flux) are expressed as

\begin{matrix} τ_{rs} = {\frac{μ}{1 + λ_{1}} [(1 + λ_{2} (v \frac{\partial}{\partial r} + \frac{Ru}{r + R} \frac{\partial}{\partial s}))] [\frac{\partial u}{\partial r} - \frac{u}{r + R} + \frac{R}{r + R} \frac{\partial v}{\partial s}] |}_{r = 0} \\ q_{w} = {- k (1 + \frac{16 σ^{*} T_{\infty}^{3}}{4 k k^{*}}) \frac{\partial T}{\partial r} |}_{r = 0} \end{matrix}},

(22)

One can found

\begin{matrix} C_{fs} {Re}_{x}^{1 / 2} = \frac{2}{1 + λ_{1}} f ″ (0) - \frac{1}{K} f' (0) + \frac{2 β}{1 + λ_{1}} \\ (f' (0) f ″ (0) - f (0) f ″' (0 - \frac{1}{K} f' {(0)}^{2})) \\ - \frac{2 β}{1 + λ_{1}} (\frac{1}{K^{2}} f' (0) f (0) - \frac{1}{K} f ″ (0) f (0)) \end{matrix}}

(23)

N u_{x} / {Re}_{x}^{- 1 / 2} = - (1 + Rd) θ' (0) .

(24)

Entropy generation

It is expressed as

\begin{matrix} E_{G} = \frac{k}{T_{\infty}^{2}} [{(\frac{\partial T}{\partial r})}^{2} + \frac{16 σ^{*} T_{\infty}^{3}}{3 k k^{*}} \frac{\partial^{2} T}{\partial r^{2}}] + \frac{μ}{T_{\infty}} S : L + \frac{σ B_{0}^{2}}{T_{\infty}} u^{2} \\ + \frac{R_{1} D_{B}}{C_{\infty}} {(\frac{\partial C}{\partial r})}^{2} + \frac{R_{1} D_{B}}{C_{\infty}} (\frac{\partial C}{\partial r} \frac{\partial T}{\partial r}) \end{matrix}},

(25)

We have

\begin{matrix} N_{G} = α_{1} (1 + Rd) θ^{' 2} + MBr f^{' 2} + L^{*} θ^{' 2} ϕ' + L^{*} \frac{α_{2}}{α_{1}} {ϕ'}^{2} \\ + \frac{Br}{1 + λ_{1}} (f ″ - \frac{1}{η + K} f' f ″ + \frac{f^{' 2}}{{(η + K)}^{2}}) + \frac{β Br}{1 + λ_{1}} (f f^{' 2} \frac{K}{{(η + K)}^{4}}) \\ + \frac{β Br}{1 + λ_{1}} (- \frac{K}{{(η + K)}^{2}} f f^{'' 2} - \frac{K}{{(η + K)}^{3}} ff' f ″ - \frac{K}{{(η + K)}^{2}} f^{' 2} f ″ + f^{' 3} \frac{K}{{(η + K)}^{3}}) \end{matrix}} .

(26)

In above expression $N_{G} (= \frac{E_{G} T_{\infty} ν}{ak (T_{w} - T_{\infty})})$ denotes the entropy rate, $R_{1}$ the gas constant, $α_{1} (= \frac{(T_{w} - T_{\infty})}{T_{\infty}})$ the thermal ratio variable, $L^{*} (= \frac{R_{1} D_{B} (C_{w} - C_{\infty})}{k_{f}})$ the diffusion parameter, $Br (= \frac{μ u_{w}^{2}}{k (T_{w} - T_{\infty})})$ the Brinkman number and $α_{2} (= \frac{(C_{w} - C_{\infty})}{C_{\infty}})$ the solutal ratio variable.

Figure 1 sketch to show the residual error.

Individual residual errors with CPU time are mentioned in Table 1.

Graphical results

Effect of sundry variable on temperature, fluid flow, entropy rate and concentration are examined. Thermal transport rate and friction force are addressed.

Velocity

Impact of fluid flow versus curvature parameter is portrayed in Figure 2. An increment in velocity profile is observed for increasing the curvature parameter ( $K$ ). Physical performance of fluid flow versus Deborah number is drafted in Figure 3. An amplification in ( $β$ ) leads to diminish $f' (η)$ .

K via f' (η) . .

β via f' (η) . .

Figure 2.

K via f′ (η).

Figure 3.

β via f′ (η).

Temperature

Influence of ( $K$ ) on temperature is designed in Figure 4. An augmentation in $θ (η)$ is observed for curvature variable ( $K$ ). Impact of radiation on $θ (η)$ is represented in Figure 5. Clearly temperature improves for thermal radiation variable. Figure 6 highlighted the characteristic of ( $\Pr$ ) on thermal field. It is observed that larger ( $\Pr$ ) declines the temperature. Larger estimation of magnetic ( $M$ ) parameter rises temperature (see Figure 7).

Figure 4.

K via θ(η).

Figure 5.

R_d via θ(η).

Figure 6.

Pr via θ(η).

Figure 7.

M via θ(η).

Concentration

Impact of concentration versus curvature parameter is shown in Figure 8. An increment in concentration is noted through increasing the curvature parameter ( $K$ ). Figure 9 highlighted the characteristic of concentration via Schmidt number. Clearly concentration boosts up versus larger Schmidt variable.

Figure 8.

ϕ(η) via K.

Figure 9.

ϕ(η) via Sc.

Entropy generation

Figure 10 show the effect of $N_{G}$ against temperature difference parameter ( $α_{1}$ ). A progress in entropy rate is seen for temperature difference parameter. Figure 11 shows the increasing effect of entropy ( $N_{G}$ ) rate against higher Brinkman ( $Br$ ) number. Figure 12 highlighted the behavior of relaxation time variable ( $λ_{1}$ ) on entropy rate. Here entropy ( $N_{G}$ ) rate declines for ( $λ_{1}$ ). Impact of ( $N_{G}$ ) versus magnetic ( $M$ ) parameter is interpreted in Figure 13. Higher approximation of ( $M$ ) increases the entropy ( $N_{G}$ ) generation.

Figure 10.

N_G via α₁.

Figure 11.

N_G via B_r.

Figure 12.

N_G via λ₁.

Figure 13.

N_G via M.

Quantities of interest

Figures 14 to 17 highlighted the characteristics of influential variables on drag force ( $C_{fs}$ ) and Nusselt number ( $Nu$ ).

Figure 14.

C_rs via β.

Figure 15.

C_rs via λ₁.

Figure 16.

N_u via M.

Figure 17.

N_u via M.

Velocity gradient

Influence of Deborah number ( $β$ ) and relaxation time ( $λ_{1}$ ) variables on velocity gradient is illustrated in Figures 14 and 15. Clearly drag force increased via Deborah number ( $β$ ) and relaxation time ( $λ_{1}$ ) variables.

Nusselt number

Effect of thermal transport rate against ( $K$ ) and ( $M$ ) is portrayed in Figures 16 and 17. An inverse result for thermal transport rate is seen through ( $M$ ) and ( $K$ ).

Concluding remarks

Main findings are given below.

Velocity distribution is boosted for curvature ( $K$ ) variable, while an opposite effect is seen for Deborah ( $β$ ) number.

An intensification in ( $θ (η)$ )is seen for ( $M$ ) and ( $Rd$ ).

Reduction in temperature is noted for Prandtl number.

Concentration decreases verses Schmidt number, while opposite result seen for curvature parameter.

An amplification in entropy rate is noted through thermal ratio variable and Brinkman number.

An amplification in entropy is noticed for magnetic variable.

An intensification in drag force is observed for relaxation time and Deborah number.

Heat transfer rate boosts up versus curvature variable, while reverse trend holds for magnetic variable.

Footnotes

Handling Editor: Chenhui Liang

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Financial support of Pakistan Academy of Sciences through Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan is gratefully acknowledged.

ORCID iD

Sohail A Khan

References

Gupta

. Heat and mass transfer on a stretching sheet with suction or blowing. Can J Chem Eng 1977; 55: 744–746.

Khan

Hayat

Alsaedi

. Entropy optimization in passive and active flow of liquid hydrogen based nanoliquid transport by a curved stretching sheet. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 2020; 119: 104890.

Abel

Nandeppanavar

. Heat transfer in MHD viscoelastic boundary layer flow over a stretching sheet with non-uniform heat source/sink. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 2009; 14: 2120–2131.

Lok

Amin

Pop

. Non-orthogonal stagnation point flow towards a stretching sheet. Int J Non Linear Mech 2006; 41: 622–627.

Bao

Yang

. Bifurcation analysis of the generalized stretch-twist-fold flow. Appl Math Comput 2014; 229: 16–26.

Khan

Alzahrani

. Bio-convective thermal melting applications of viscoelastic nanoparticles due to moving wedge. Case Stud Therm Eng 2021; 28: 101493.

Zheng

, et al. The exterior unsteady viscous flow and heat transfer due to a porous expanding stretching cylinder. Comput Fluids 2014; 105: 280–284.

Mustafa

Khan

Hayat

, et al. On Bödewadt flow and heat transfer of nanofluids over a stretching stationary disk. J Mol Liq 2015; 211: 119–125.

Bejan

. A study of entropy generation in fundamental convective heat transfer. J Heat Transf 1979; 101: 718–725.

10.

Bejan

. Method of entropy generation minimization, or modeling and optimization based on combined heat transfer and thermodynamics. Rev Gén Therm 1996; 35: 637–646.

11.

Sakly

Ben Nejma

. Heat and mass transfer of combined forced convection and thermal radiation within a channel: Entropy generation analysis. Appl Therm Eng 2020; 171: 114903.

12.

Xie

Jian

. Entropy generation of magnetohydrodynamic electroosmotic flow in two-layer systems with a layer of non-conducting viscoelastic fluid. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2018; 127: 600–615.

13.

Arun

Satheesh

. Mesoscopic analysis of MHD double diffusive natural convection and entropy generation in an enclosure filled with liquid metal. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 2019; 95: 155–173.

14.

Shah

Khan

Hayat

, et al. Theoretical and mathematical analysis of entropy generation in fluid flow subject to aluminum and ethylene glycol nanoparticles. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2019; 182: 105057.

15.

Khan

Kadry

Chu

, et al. Modeling and numerical analysis of nanoliquid (titanium oxide, graphene oxide) flow viscous fluid with second order velocity slip and entropy generation. Chin J Chem Eng 2021; 31: 17–25.

16.

Khan

Hayat

Alsaedi

, et al. Melting heat transportation in radiative flow of nanomaterials with irreversibility analysis. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 2021; 140: 110739.

17.

Riaz

Gul

Khan

, et al. Mathematical analysis of entropy generation in the flow of viscoelastic nanofluid through an annular region of two asymmetric annuli having flexible surfaces. Coatings 2020; 10: 213.

18.

Naz

Noor

Shah

, et al. Entropy generation optimization in MHD pseudoplastic fluid comprising motile microorganisms with stratification effect. Alex Eng J 2020; 59: 485–496.

19.

López

Ibáñez

Pantoja

, et al. Entropy generation analysis of MHD nanofluid flow in a porous vertical microchannel with nonlinear thermal radiation, slip flow and convective-radiative boundary conditions. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2017; 107: 982–994.

20.

Khan

Qayyum

Kadry

, et al. Irreversibility analysis and heat transport in squeezing nanoliquid flow of non-Newtonian (second-grade) fluid between infinite plates with activation energy. Arab J Sci Eng 2020; 45: 4939–4947.

21.

Khan

Hayat

, et al. Darcy-Forchheimer hybrid (MoS₂, SiO₂) nanofluid flow with entropy generation. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2020; 185: 105152.

22.

Rashidi

Abelman

Freidooni Mehr

. Entropy generation in steady MHD flow due to a rotating porous disk in a nanofluid. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2013; 62: 515–525.

23.

Sheikholeslami

Bandpy

Ellahi

, et al. Simulation of MHD CuOo–water nanofluid flow and convective heat transfer considering Lorentz forces. J Magn Magn Mater 2014; 369: 69–80.

24.

Das

. Slip flow and convective heat transfer of nanofluids over a permeable stretching surface. Comput Fluids 2012; 64: 34–42.

25.

Hayat

Waqas

Shehzad

, et al. MHD stagnation point flow of Jeffrey fluid by a radially stretching surface with viscous dissipation and joule heating. J Hydrol Hydromech 2015; 63: 311–317.

26.

Shehzad

Alsaadi

Monaquel

, et al. Soret and Dufour effects on the stagnation point flow of Jeffery fluid with convective boundary condition. Eur Phys J Plus 2013; 128: 56.

27.

Abbasi

Shehzad

Hayat

, et al. Influence of heat and mass flux conditions in hydromagnetic flow of Jeffrey nanofluid. AIP Adv 2015; 5: 037111.

28.

Tripathi

Ali

Hayat

, et al. Peristaltic flow of MHD Jeffrey fluid through finite length cylindrical tube. Appl Math Mech 2011; 32: 1231–1244.

29.

Maninaga Kumar

Kavitha

. Three-dimensional flow of Jeffrey fluid between a rotating and stationary disks with suction. Ain Shams Eng J 2018; 9: 2351–2356.

30.

Farooq

Alsaedi

Hayat

. Note on characteristics of homogeneous-heterogeneous reaction in flow of Jeffrey fluid. Appl Math Mech 2015; 36: 1319–1328.

31.

Mohd Zin

Khan

Shafie

, et al. Analysis of heat transfer for unsteady MHD free convection flow of rotating Jeffrey nanofluid saturated in a porous medium. Results Phys 2017; 7: 288–309.

32.

Hayat

Waqas

Khan

, et al. Impacts of constructive and destructive chemical reactions in magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) flow of Jeffrey liquid due to nonlinear radially stretched surface. J Mol Liq 2017; 225: 302–310.

33.

Zhou

Sun

. Numerical investigation of non-Newtonian power law flows using B-spline material point method. J Non-Newton Fluid Mech 2021; 298: 104678.

34.

Hazeri-Mahmel

Shekari

Tayebi

. Three-dimensional analysis of forced convection of Newtonian and non-Newtonian nanofluids through a horizontal pipe using single- and two-phase models. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 2021; 121: 105119.

35.

Wen

Ding

. Experimental investigation into convective heat transfer of nanofluids at the entrance region under laminar flow conditions. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2004; 47: 5181–5188.

36.

Gao

Hartnett

. Non-Newtonian fluid laminar flow and forced convection heat transfer in rectangular ducts. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 1992; 19: 673–686.

37.

Ahmad

Yerlikaya

Paksoy

, et al. Enhanced photoelectrochemical water splitting using gadolinium doped titanium dioxide nanorod array photoanodes. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020; 45: 2709–2719.