Heat Generation, Thermal Radiation and Chemical Reaction Effects On MHD Mixed Convection Flow Over An Unsteady Stretching Permeable Surface

Heat Generation, Thermal Radiation and Chemical Reaction Effects on MHD Mixed Convection Flow over an Unsteady Stretching
Permeable
Surface

Insan Akademika
Publications
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCE
P-ISSN: 2301-4458
E-ISSN: 2301-8038

Vol. 01, No. 02
Oct 2012
www.insikapub.com

363
Heat Generation, Thermal Radiation and Chemical Reaction Effects on MHD
Mixed Convection Flow over an Unsteady Stretching Permeable Surface

Md. Shakhaoath Khan
1
,
Ifsana Karim
2
, and Md. Haider Ali Biswas
3

1,2,3
Mathematics Discipline; Science Engineering and Technology School
Khulna University, Khulna-9208, Bangladesh

shakhaoathmathku@yahoo.com, simimathku@gmail.com, mhabiswas@yahoo.com

Key words Abstract

Magnetohydrodynamics;
Thermal radiation;
Heat generation;
Chemical reaction;
Mixed Convective flow;
Unsteady flow;
Stretching permeable
surface

The unsteady MHD mixed convective laminar boundary layer ow of an
incompressible viscous uid over continuously stretching permeable surface in the
presence of thermal radiation, heat generation and chemical reaction is studied.
The unsteadiness in the momentum, temperature and concentration elds is
because of the time-dependent stretching velocity and surface temperature and
concentration. Similarity transformations are used to convert the governing time
dependent boundary layer equations into to a system of nonlinear ordinary
coupled differential equations containing Magnetic parameter, Thermal
convective parameter, Mass convective parameter, Suction parameter, Radiation
parameter, Eckert number, Prandtl number, Heat source parameter, Chemical
reaction parameter, Schmidt number, Soret number and Unsteadiness parameter.
TheNactsheim-Swigert shooting technique together with Runge-Kutta six order
iteration schemes has been used for numerical procedure. Comparisons with
previously published work are performed and are found to be in excellent
agreement. The effects on the velocity, temperature and concentration
distributions as well as skin-friction coefficients, Nusselt number and Sherwood
number of the various important parameters are discussed graphically.

2012 Insan Akademika All Rights Reserved

1 Introduction

The study of convective heat and mass transfer uid ow over stretching surface in the presence of thermal
radiation, heat generation and chemical reaction is gaining a lot of attention. This study has many
applications in industries, many engineering disciplines. These flows occur in many manufacturing processes
in modern industry, such as hot rolling, hot extrusion, wire drawing and continuous casting. For example, in
many metallurgical processes such as drawing of continuous filaments through quiescent fluids and
annealing and tinning of copper wires, the properties of the end product depends greatly on the rare of
cooling involved in these processes. Sakiadis (1961) was the first one to analyze the boundary layer flow on
continuous surfaces. After that, Crane (1970) studied the boundary layer flow past a stretching plate. A few
researchers give attention to consider the unsteady ows over stretching surface. Wang (1990) studied
unsteady boundary layer ow of a nite liquid lm by restricting the motion to a specied family of time
International Journal of Basic and Applied Science,
Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 363-377

Khan et al.

364 Insan Akademika Publications

dependence. Andersson et al. (1996) investigated the unsteady stretching ow in the case of power-law uid
lm whereas Andersson et al. (2000) extended Wangs unsteady thin lm stretching problem to the case of
heat transfer. Recently, Ishak et al. (2009) presented the heat transfer characteristics caused by an unsteady
stretching permeable surface with prescribed wall temperature. Sharidan et al. (2006) analyzed a similarity
analysis to investigate the unsteady boundary layer over a stretching sheet. Wang (2009) studied viscous
ow due to stretching sheet with surface slip and suction.
The thermal radiation and heat generation effects on MHD convective flow is new dimension added to the
study of stretching surface has important applications in physics and engineering particularly in space
technology and high temperature processes such as it plays an important role in controlling the heat transfer
process in polymer processing industry. The effect of radiation on heat transfer problems have been studied
by Hossain and Takhar (1996), Takhar et al. (1996). Seddeek (2002) analyzed the effects of radiation and
variable viscosity on a MHD free convection flow past a semi-infinite flat plate with an aligned magnetic
field. In many chemical engineering processes, chemical reactions take place between a foreign mass and the
working fluid which moves due to the stretch of a surface. Kandasamy et al. (2006) analyzed effects of
chemical reaction, heat and mass transfer on boundary layer flow over a porous wedge with heat radiation in
the presence of suction or injection. Muhaimin et al. (2009) studied the effect of chemical reaction, heat and
mass transfer on nonlinear MHD boundary layer past a porous shrinking sheet with suction. Rajesh (2011)
investigates chemical reaction and radiation effects on the transient MHD free convection flow of dissipative
fluid past an infinite vertical porous plate with ramped wall temperature.
In the view of the above discussions the aim of the present study is to analyze the effects of heat generation,
thermal radiation and chemical reaction on MHD mixed convective boundary layer ow of an
incompressible viscous uid over an unsteady permeable stretching surface in presence of suction/ injection.
The conservation equations of mass, momentum, energy and concentration were transformed into a two-
point boundary value problem. These nonlinear equations along with the appropriate boundary conditions are
then solved by employing Nactsheim-Swigert shooting technique together with Runge-Kutta six order
iteration schemes (1965). Comparisons with previously published works of Grubka and Bobba (1985), Ishak
et al. (2009) and Dulal Pal (2011) are performed and excellent agreement between the results is obtained.

2 Mathematical Formulation

An unsteady two dimensional MHD mixed convective laminar boundary layer flow of a viscous
incompressible and electrically conducting fluid over a stretching permeable surface under the influence of
thermal radiation, heat generation and chemical reaction which issues from a thin slot is considered. The
physical configuration has shown in Figure 1.

Fig. 1: Physical configuration and coordinate system

Khan et al. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science,
Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 363-377

www.insikapub.com 365

The unsteadiness in the momentum, temperature and concentration elds is because of the time-dependent
stretching velocity ( ) ,
w
u x t and surface temperature ( ) ,
w
T x t and concentration ( ) ,
w
C x t .The x -axis is taken
along the stretching surface in the direction of the motion with the slot as the origin, and the y-axis is
perpendicular to the sheet in the outward direction towards the uid of ambient temperatureT
. The ow is
assumed to be conned in a region y > 0. We assume that the velocity is proportional to its distance from the
slit. A strong magnetic field is applied in the y- direction and the uniform magnetic field strength (magnetic
induction)
0
B can be taken as ( )
0
0, , 0 . B B = Under these assumptions along with the boundary layer
approximations and considering the viscous dissipation, the governing boundary layer equations for
momentum, heat and mass transfer in the presence of thermal radiation, heat generation and chemical
reaction take the following form of the governing equations is given by:

u v
0
x y

+ =

...(1)

*
( ) ( )
2
0
u u u u
u v g T T g C C B u
t x y y y

| | | |
+ + = + +
| |

\ \
...(2)

( )
2
2
r
2
p p p p
Q q T T T k T 1 u
u v T T
t x y C y C C y c y
| | | | | |
+ + = + +
| | |

\ \ \
o
...(3)

( )
2 2
m T
m r 2 2
m
D k C C C C T
u v D k C C
t x y y T y

+ + = +

...(4)

And the boundary condition for the model is:

( ) ( ) ( ) , , , , , ,
w w w w
u u x t v v T T x t C C x t = = = =

at y 0 =
...(5)

, , u 0 T T C C

=

as y
...(6)

where x and y represent coordinate axes along the continuous surface in the direction of motion and
perpendicular to it, respectively. u and v are the velocity components along x and y directions, respectively
and t is the time.
p
c is the specic heat at constant pressure, k is the thermal conductivity of the fluid, v is the
kinematic viscosity, is the dynamic viscosity and is density of uid, Q
o
heat generation constant,
m
D is
the coefficient of mass diffusivity,
T
is the thermal diffusion ratio,
m
T is the mean fluid temperature and
r
K is the rate of chemical reaction. ( ) ( ) , and ,
w w
T T x t C C x t = = temperature and concentration respectively of
the stretching surface, and T C

is the temperature and concentration respectively far away from the
stretching surface with and .
w w
T T C C

> > The term
( )
( )
1
2
w
u
x w
v f 0
= represents the mass transfer at the

surface with
w
v 0 > for injection and
w
v 0 < for suction. The ow is caused by the stretching of the sheet
which moves in its own plane with the surface velocity ( , ) / ( )
w
u x t ax 1 ct = , where a (stretching rate) and c are
positive constants having dimension time
-1
(with , ct 1 c 0 < ). It is noted that the stretching rate / ( ) a 1 ct
increases with time since a> 0. The surface temperature and concentration of the sheet varies with the
distance x from the slot and time t in the form:

Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 363-377

Khan et al.


and
w w
bx bx
T T C C
1 ct 1 ct

= + = +

...(7)

where b is constant with b 0 . It should be noted that when t = 0 (initial motion), equations (1)-(4) describe
the case of steady ow over a stretching sheet. The particular form of ( ) ( ) ( ) , , , and ,
w w w
u x t T T x t C C x t = =
presented in this paper has been chosen in order to devise a similarity transformation (Ishak et al.(2009)),
which transform the governing partial differential equations (1)-(4) into a set of highly nonlinear ordinary
differential equations.

The Rosseland approximation (Rohsenow et al., 1998)isexpressed for radiative heat flux and leads to the
form as:

4
*
4
3
r
T
q
y
...(8)

Where s is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and
*
k is the mean absorption coefficient. The temperature
difference with in the flow is sufficiently small such that
4
T may be expressed as a linear function of the
temperature, then the Taylors series for
4
T about T
after neglecting higher order terms:

4 3 4
4 3 . T T T

=
...(9)

In order to attains a similarity solution to equations (1) to (4) with the boundary conditions (5) and (6) the
following dimensionless variables are used:

( )
( )
( )
, , , ( )
1 1
( ) , ( )
w w
a a
y x y t xf
ct ct
T T C C
T T C C
= =

`

= = = =

)
...(10)

Therefore,

( ) ( ) , , ( ) and , , ( )
1 1
bx bx
T x y t T C x y t C
ct ct

= + = +

...(11)

where ( ) , , x y t is the stream function dened by:

( )
/
( ), ( ).
1 1
ax a
u f v f
y ct x ct

| |
= = = =
|

\
...(12)

Which automatically satises the continuity Eq. (1). It must be noted that expression (11) on which the
analysis is based are valid only for ( ) since
1
t c ct 1
< < . Now from the above transformations the non

dimensional, nonlinear, coupled ordinary differential equations are obtained as:

/ /
/ / / / / / / /
2
T M
f
f ff f f Mf 0
2

| |
+ + + + =
|
\
...(13)
Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 363-377


( )
/
/ / / / / /
1 2
r r c
1 N P f f Q E f 0
2
| |
+ + + + + =
|
\
...(14)

/
/ / / / / /
0
2
x
c c c r c e
S f S f S S S R

| |
+ + + =
|
\
...(15)

where the notation primes denote differentiation with respect to and the parameters are defined as
c
a
= is
the parameter that measures the unsteadiness,
2
w
B x
M
u
o
= is the Magnetic Parameter,

2 2
( )
r w
T
e w
G g x T T
R u
= = is
the Thermal convective parameter,
*
( )
m w
M 2 2
e w
G g x C C
R u
= = is the Mass convective parameter,

r
p

= is the
Prandtl number,
( )
2
w
c
p w
u
E
c T T
is the Eckert number,

*
*
3
r
16 T
N
3 K k

= is the Radiation parameter, ,
p w
Q x
Q
C u
o
= is
the Heat source parameter,
c
m
S
D
= is the Schmidt number,

( )
( )
m T w
r
m w
D T T
S
T C C
is the Soret number and

2
r
w
k
u
=
is the Chemical reaction parameter.

The transformed boundary conditions:

/
/
f f , f 1, 1, 1, at 0
f 0 0, 0, as

= = = = =
`
= = =
)
o
...(16)

where ( ) f 0 f with f 0 and f 0 = < >
o o o
corresponding to injection and suction respectively.

Physical significance for this type of flow and heat transfer situation are the local skin-friction coefficient,
local Nusselt number and the local Sherwood number can be defined in dimensionless form as:

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
1 1 1
/ / / /
2 2 2
0 , 1 0 and 0
x x x
f e u e r h e
C R f N R N S R

= = + =
...(17)

where
( )
2
1
x
e
ax
R
ct
=
is the Local Reynolds number based on the surface velocity.

It is to be noted that the present problem reduces to steady-state ow for 0 = in absence of Magnetic
parameter, Thermal convective parameter, Mass convective parameter, Radiation parameter, Eckert number,
Schmidt number, Soret number, Heat source parameter and Chemical reaction parameter then the closed-
form solutions for ow and thermal elds in terms of Kummers functions are respectively given by Ishaket
al. (2009);

( ) ( )
( )
( )
2
2
1, 1, /
1
,
1, 1, /
r r r
r r r
M P P Pe
f e
M P P P
+
= =
+
...(18)

Where ( ) , , M a b z denotes the conuent hypergeometric function according to Abramowitz and Stegun(1965).
Now using equation (16) we have from equation (18) as; ( ) ( )
1
0 with 0 0 1 and 1 f f
o

= = > < < >

Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 363-377

Khan et al.


correspond to injection and suction, respectively. Also the skin friction coefcient ( )
/ /
0 f and local Nusselt
number ( )
/
0 are given by:

( ) ( )
( )
( )
2
/ / /
2
1, 1, /
0 ,
1, 1, /
r r r
r
r r r
M P P P
f P
M P P P
+
= =
+
...(19)

3 Numerical Simulation

The non dimensional, nonlinear coupled ordinary differential equations (13) to (15) with boundary condition
(16) are solved numerically using standard initially value solver the shooting method. For the purpose of this
method, the Nactsheim-Swigert shooting iteration technique together with Runge-Kutta six order iteration
scheme is taken and determines the temperature and concentration as a function of the coordinate .
Extension of the iteration shell to above equation system of differential equation (16) is straightforward, there
are three asymptotic boundary condition and hence three unknown surface conditions
/ / /
( ), ( ) f 0 0 and
/
( ) 0 .

4 Result and Discussions

The problem considering for MHD mixed convection fluid flow over an unsteady stretching permeable
surface with thermal radiation, heat generation and chemical reaction. The numerical values of velocity
( )
/
f ,
temperature ( ) and concentration ( ) due to steady ( ) 0 = and unsteady case ( ) 0 with the boundary
layer have been computed for different parameters as the Magnetic parameter ( ) M , Thermal convective
parameter ( )
T
, Mass convective parameter ( )
M
, Suction parameter ( ) , Radiation parameter ( )
r
N , Eckert
number ( )
c
E , Prandtl number ( )
r
P , Heat source parameter ( ) Q , Schmidt number ( )
c
S , Soret number ( )
r
S and
Chemical reaction parameter ( ) .The Unsteadiness parameter value 0.0 = is the steady-state solution. Also
the Skin-friction coefficient, Surface heat and mass transfer rates are plotted against Unsteadiness parameter
( ).

In order to assess the accuracy of the numerical results as the results for the reduced Nusselt number ( )
/
0
for different values of Suction parameter ( ) , Prandtl number ( )
r
P and Unsteadiness parameter ( ) the present
results compared with Grubka and Bobba (1985), Ishak et al.(2009) and Dulal Pal (2011). Comparison with
the existing results shows an excellent agreement, as presented in Table 1.

Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 363-377


Table 1. Comparison of results of the wall temperature gradient ( )
/
0 with previously published data for
the values of
T M c c r
M E Q S S 0.0. = = = = = = = =

r
P
Grubka and
Bobba (1985)
Ishak
et al.(2009)
Exact solution
of Ishak
et al.(2009)
Dulal Pal (2011)
* *
A B Nr 0.0 = = =
Present results
0.0 0.5 0.72 0.4570 0.457026833 0.457026833 0.457026986
1.00 0.5000 0.500000000 0.500000000 0.500000000
10.0 0.6452 0.645161289 0.645161290 0.645162987
1.0 0.01 0.0197 0.0197 0.019706354 0.019706795 0.019709754
0.72 0.8086 0.8086 0.808631350 0.808631352 0.808679760
1.00 1.0000 1.0000 1.000000000 1.000000000 1.000000000
3.00 1.9232 1.9337 1.923682594 1.923682561 1.923683398
10.0 3.7207 3.7207 3.720673901 3.720673903 3.720689456
100.0 12.2940 - 12.29408326 12.29408344 12.29409945
2.0 0.72 1.4944 1.494368413 1.494368414 1.494398634
1.00 2.0000 2.000000000 2.000000000 2.000000000
10.0 16.0842 16.08421885 16.08421882 16.08443212
1.0 0.5 1.00 0.8095 0.809511470 0.809516743
1.0 1.3205 1.320522071 1.320535432
2.0 2.2224 2.222355356 2.222367892

The physical representation is shown in Figures 2-25.

Figure 2 displays the dimensionless velocity distribution ( )
/
f for different values of where
T M r r c r c
M 2.0, 4.0, 2.0,Q 1.0, 2.0,N 1.0,P 2.0,S 0.6,S 2.0, 0.5,E 0.01. = = = = = = = = = = = Then for above case It can
be observed that velocity profiles are increases as the increase.

Figure 3 exhibits the dimensionless velocity distribution ( )
/
f for different values of where
T M r r c r c
M 2.0, 4.0, 2.0,Q 1.0, 0.5,N 1.0,P 2.0,S 0.6, S 2.0, 0.5,E 0.01. = = = = = = = = = = = Then for above case it can
be found that velocity profiles are decreases as the increase.

Figure 4 represent the dimensionless velocity distribution ( )
/
f for different values of
T
where
M r r c r c
be conclude that velocity profiles are increases as the
T
increase.

Figure 5 depicts the dimensionless velocity distribution ( )
/
f for different values of
M
where
T r r c r c
M 2.0, 2.0, 2.0,Q 1.0, 0.5,N 1.0,P 2.0,S 0.6, S 2.0, 0.5,E 0.01. = = = = = = = = = = = Then for above case it can be
observed that velocity profiles are increases as the
M
increase.

Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 363-377

Khan et al.


Figure 6 shows the dimensionless velocity distribution ( )
/
f for different values of M where
M T r r c r c
2.5, 2.0, 2.0,Q 1.0, 0.5,N 1.0,P 2.0,S 0.6, S 2.0, 0.5,E 0.01. = = = = = = = = = = = Then for above case it can
be observed that velocity profiles are decreases as the M increase.

Figure 7 portrays the dimensionless temperature distribution ( ) for different values of where
T M r r c r c
M 2.0, 4.0, 2.0,Q 1.0, 2.0,N 1.0,P 2.0,S 0.6,S 2.0, 0.5,E 0.01. = = = = = = = = = = = Then for above case it can
be observed that temperature profiles are decreases as the increase.

Figure 8 illustrates the dimensionless temperature distribution ( ) for different values of
T
where
M r r c r c
be observed that temperature profiles are decreases as the
T
increase.

Figure 9 displays the dimensionless temperature distribution ( ) for different values of Q where
M T r r c r c
M 2.0, 2.0, 2.5, 2.0, 0.5,N 1.0,P 2.0,S 0.6, S 2.0, 0.5,E 0.01. = = = = = = = = = = = Then for above case it can
be observed that temperature profiles are increases as the Q increase.

Figure 10 exhibits the dimensionless temperature distribution ( ) for different values of
r
N where
M T r c r c
M 2.0, 2.0, 2.5, 2.0, 0.5,Q 0.5,P 2.0,S 0.6, S 2.0, 0.5,E 0.01 = = = = = = = = = = = Then for above case it can be
observed that radiation leads to a significant change in temperature profiles, increases as the
r
N increase.

Figure 11 represents the dimensionless temperature distribution ( ) for different values of
r
S where
M T r c r c
M 2.0, 2.0, 2.5, 2.0, 0.5,Q 0.5,P 2.0,S 0.6, N 1.0, 0.5,E 0.01. = = = = = = = = = = = Then for above case it can be
observed that temperature profiles are increases as the
r
S increase.

Figure 12 depicts the dimensionless concentration distribution ( ) for different values of where
T M r r c r c
M 2.0, 4.0, 2.0,Q 1.0, 2.0,N 1.0,P 2.0,S 0.6,S 2.0, 0.5,E 0.01. = = = = = = = = = = = Then for above case it can
be observed that concentration profiles are increases as the increase.

Figure 13 shows the dimensionless concentration distribution ( ) for different values of where
T M r r c r c
be observed that concentration profiles are decreases as the increase.

Figure 14 portrays the dimensionless concentration distribution ( ) for different values of
M
where
T r r c r c
M 2.0, 2.0, 2.0,Q 1.0, 0.5,N 1.0,P 2.0,S 0.6, S 2.0, 0.5,E 0.01. = = = = = = = = = = = Then for above case it can be
observed that concentration profiles are decreases as the
M
increase.

Figure 15 displays the dimensionless concentration distribution ( ) for different values of
c
S where
T r r M r c
M 2.0, 2.0, 2.0,Q 1.0, 0.5,N 1.0,P 2.0, 2.5, S 2.0, 0.5,E 0.01. = = = = = = = = = = = Then for above case it can
be observed that concentration profiles are decreases as the
c
S increase.

Figure 16 exhibits the dimensionless concentration distribution ( ) for different values of
r
S where
M T r c r c
M 2.0, 2.0, 2.5, 2.0, 0.5,Q 0.5,P 2.0,S 0.6, N 1.0, 0.5,E 0.01. = = = = = = = = = = = Then for above case it can be
observed that concentration profiles are increases as the
r
S increase.

Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 363-377


Since the physical interest of the problem, the skin-friction coefficient ( )
1
2
x f e
C R
| |
|
|
\
, the Nusselt number ( )
1
2
x u e
N R
| |
|
|
\

at the sheet and the Sherwood number ( )
1
2
x h e
S R
| |
|
|
\
at the sheet are plotted against Unsteadiness parameter ( ) and
illustrated in Figures 17-25.

Figure 17 represents the skin-friction coefficient ( )
1
2
x f e
C R
| |
|
|
\
for different values of
T
where M 2.0, 2.0, = =
M r r c r c
2.5,Q 1.0,N 1.0,P 2.0,S 0.6, S 2.0, 0.5,E 0.01. = = = = = = = = Then for above case it can be observed that skin-
friction coefficient are increases as the
T
increase.

Figure 18 depicts the skin-friction coefficient ( )
1
2
x f e
C R
| |
|
|
\
M
where
T
M 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, = = =
r r c r c
Q 1.0, N 1.0,P 2.0,S 0.6, S 2.0, 0.5,E 0.01 = = = = = = = Then for above case it can be observed that skin-friction
coefficient are increases as the
M
increase.

Figure19 shows the skin-friction coefficient ( )
1
2
x f e
C R
| |
|
|
\
for different values of M where
M T
2.5, 2.0, 2.0, = = =
r r c r c
Q 1.0, N 1.0,P 2.0,S 0.6, S 2.0, 0.5,E 0.01 = = = = = = = Then for above case it can be observed that skin-friction
coefficient are decreases as the M increase.

Figure 20 displays the rate of heat transfer ( )
1
2
x u e
N R
| |
|
|
\
T
where
M
2.5,Q 1.0, = =
r r c r c
N 1.0,P 2.0,S 0.6, S 2.0, 0.5,E 0.01. = = = = = = Then for above case it can be observed that heat transfer rate are
increases as the
T
increase.

Figure 21 represents the rate of heat transfer ( )
1
2
x u e
N R
| |
|
|
\
r
N where M 2.0, 2.0, = =
M T r c r c
2.5, 2.0,Q 0.5,P 2.0,S 0.6, S 2.0, 0.5,E 0.01 = = = = = = = = Then for above case it can be observed that heat
transfer rate are increases as the
r
N increase.

Figure 22 illustrates the rate of heat transfer ( )
1
2
x u e
N R
| |
|
|
\
r
S where M 2.0, 2.0, = =
M T r c r c
2.5, 2.0,Q 0.5,P 2.0,S 0.6, N 1.0, 0.5,E 0.01 = = = = = = = = Then for above case it can be observed that heat
transfer rate are decreases as the
r
S increase.

Figure 23 depicts the rate of mass transfer ( )
1
2
x h e
S R
| |
|
|
\
for different values of where
T
M 2.0, 4.0, = =
M r r c r c
2.0,Q 1.0, 2.0,N 1.0,P 2.0,S 0.6, S 2.0,E 0.01 = = = = = = = = Then for above case it can be observed that mass
transfer rate are decreases as the increase.

Figure 24 displays the rate of mass transfer ( )
1
2
x h e
S R
| |
|
|
\
c
S where M 2.0, 2.0, = =
T r r M r c
2.0,Q 1.0,N 1.0,P 2.0, 2.5, S 2.0, 0.5,E 0.01 = = = = = = = = Then for above case it can be observed that mass
transfer rate are decreases as the
c
S increase.

Figure 25 shows the rate of mass transfer ( )
1
2
x h e
S R
| |
|
|
\
r
S where M 2.0, 2.0, = =
M T r c r c
2.5, 2.0,Q 0.5,P 2.0,S 0.6, N 1.0, 0.5,E 0.01 = = = = = = = = Then for above case it can be observed that mass
transfer rate are increases as the
r
S increase.

Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 363-377

Khan et al.


Fig. 2: Velocity profiles for different values of
Unsteadiness parameter ( ) .
Fig. 3: Velocity profiles for different values
of Suction parameter ( ) .

Thermal convective parameter ( )
T
.
Fig. 5: Velocity profiles for different values
of Mass convective parameter ( ).
M

Magnetic parameter ( ). M
Fig. 7: Temperature profiles for different
values of Unsteadiness parameter ( ) .

Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 363-377


Fig. 8: Temperature profiles for different values
of Thermal convective parameter ( )
T
.
values of Heat source parameter ( ) Q .

values of Radiation parameter ( )
r
N .
values of Soret number ( ).
r
S

Fig. 12: Concentration profiles for different
values of Unsteadiness parameter ( ) .
values of Chemical reaction parameter ( ).

Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 363-377

Khan et al.


values of Mass convective parameter ( ).
M

values of Schmidt number ( ).
c
S

r
S
Fig. 17: Skin-friction coefficient for different
values of Thermal convective parameter ( ).
T

values of Mass convective parameter ( ).
M

values of Magnetic parameter ( ). M

Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 363-377


Fig. 20: Heat transfer rate for different values of
Thermal convective parameter ( )
T
.
Fig. 21: Heat transfer rate for different
values of Radiation parameter ( )
r
N .

Fig. 22: Heat transfer rate for different values of
Soret number ( ).
r
S
Fig. 23: Mass transfer rate for different
values of Chemical reaction parameter ( ).

Fig. 24: Mass transfer rate for different values of
Schmidt number ( ).
c
S
Fig. 25: Mass transfer rate for different
r
S

Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 363-377

Khan et al.


5 Conclusion

The objective of the present work is studying the effect of thermal radiation, heat generation and chemical
reaction on MHD mixed convective flow of heat and mass transfer over an unsteady stretching permeable
surface. The governing equations are approximated to a system of non-linear ordinary coupled differential
equations by similarity transformation. Numerical calculations has been carried out for various values of
the dimensionless parameters of the problem. The conclusions of present study given below:
a. The momentum and concentration boundary layer thickness increases with increase in the unsteadiness
parameter whereas the thermal boundary layer thickness decreases.
b. As Suction parameter increases the momentum boundary layer thickness decreases gradually.
c. The momentum boundary layer thickness and skin-friction coefficient reduces as magnetic parameter is
increased.
d. For increasing Thermal convective parameter the momentum boundary layer thickness rises steeply
whereas the thermal boundary layer reduces. Also the skin-friction coefficient and heat transfer rate are
rises.
e. The thermal boundary layer thickness and heat transfer rate increases with increase in the radiation
parameter.
f. Concentration boundary layer reduces whereas momentum boundary layer rises as the Mass convective
parameter is increased. Also the rising effect found for skin-friction coefficient.
g. As heat source parameter increases the thermal boundary layer thickness increases gradually.
h. The thermal and concentration boundary layer thickness and surface mass transfer rates raise where as
heat transfer rate decreases as Soret number increase.
i. The concentration boundary layer thickness and surface mass transfer rates reduces as Schmidt number
increase.
j. The concentration boundary layer thickness and surface mass transfer rates reduces as Chemical
reaction parameter increase.

References

Andersson, H. I., Aarseth, J.B., Braud, N., and Dandapat, B.S., (1996). Flow of a power law uid lm on an
unsteady stretching surface, J Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech, Vol (62), pp. 1-8.
Andersson, H. I. Aarseth J.B. and Dandapat, B.S., (2000). Heat transfer in a liquid lm on an unsteady
stretching surface, Int J Heat Mass Transfer, Vol (43), pp. 69-74.
Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I. A., (1965). Handbook of mathematical functions. Dover, New York.
Crane, L. J., (1970). Flow past a Stretching Plate, Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics (ZAMP), Vol
(21), pp. 590-595.
Dulal Pal, (2011). Combined effects of non-uniform heat source/sink and thermal radiation on heat transfer
over an unsteady stretching permeable surface, Commun Nonlinear SciNumerSimulat, Vol (16), pp.
1890-1904.
Grubka, L. J. and Bobba, KM., (1985).Heat transfer characteristics of a continuous stretching surface with
variable temperature, ASME J Heat Transfer, Vol (107), pp. 248-250.
Hossain M. A. and Takhar H. S., (1996).Radiation effect on mixed convection along a vertical plate with
uniform surface temperature, Int J Heat Mass Transfer, Vol (31), pp. 243248.
Ishak, A. Nazar, R. and Pop, I., (2009). Heat transfer over an unsteady stretching permeable surface with
prescribed wall temperature, Nonlinear Anal: Real World Appl, Vol (10), pp. 2909-2913.
Vol 01, No. 02, Oct 2012, pp. 363-377


Kandasamy, R. Wahid Abd.B. Md.Raj, and Azme B. Khamis, (2006). Effects of chemical reaction, heat and
mass transfer on boundary layer flow over a porous wedge with heat radiation in the presence of
suction or injection, Theoret. Appl. Mech., Vol (33) No (2), pp.123.
Muhaimin, RamasamyKandasamy, I. Hashim and Azme B. Khamis, (2009) On the effect of chemical
reaction, heat and mass transfer on nonlinear MHD boundary layer past a porous shrinking sheet
with suction, Theoret. Appl. Mech., Vol (36) No (2), pp.101-117.
Nachtsheim P. R. and Swigert, P., (1965). Satisfaction of the asymptotic boundary conditions in numerical
solution of the system of non-linear equations of boundary layer type, NASA, TND-3004.
Rajesh, V., (2011), Chemical Reaction and Radiation Effects on the Transient MHD Free Convection Flow
of Dissipative Fluid Past an Infinite Vertical Porous Plate With Ramped Wall Temperature,
Chemical Industry & Chemical Engineering Quarterly, Vol (17) No (2), pp. 189-198.
Rohsenow, W. M. Harnett J. P. and Cho, Y. I., (1998). Handbook of Heat transfer, 3rd edition (McGraw-
Hill, New York).
Sakidis, B.C., (1961). Boundary-layer behavior on a continuous solid surface: II- The boundary layer on a
continuous flat surface, AIChE Journal, Vol (7), pp. 221-225.
Sharidan, S. Mahmood, T. and Pop, I., (2006). Similarity solutions for the unsteady boundary layer ow and
heat transfer due to a stretching sheet, Int J ApplMechEng, Vol (11), pp. 647-654.
Seddeek, M. A., (2002). Effects of radiation and variable viscosity on a MHD free convection flow past a
semi-infinite flat plate with an aligned magnetic field in the case of unsteady flow, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer, Vol (45), pp. 931-935.
Takhar, H. S. Gorla R. S. R. and Soundalgekar, V. M., (1996). Radiation effects on MHD free convection
ow of a gas past a semi-innite vertical plate, Int J N. Meth Heat Fluid Flow, Vol (6), pp. 77-83.
Wang, C. Y., (1990). Liquid lm on an unsteady stretching surface, Q Appl Math, Vol (48), pp. 60110.
Wang, C. Y., (2009). Analysis of viscous ow due to stretching sheet with surface slip and suction,
Nonlinear Anal: Real World Appl, Vol (10), pp. 375-380.

Heat Generation, Thermal Radiation and Chemical Reaction Effects On MHD Mixed Convection Flow Over An Unsteady Stretching Permeable Surface

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heat Generation, Thermal Radiation and Chemical Reaction Effects On MHD Mixed Convection Flow Over An Unsteady Stretching Permeable Surface

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heat Generation, Thermal Radiation and Chemical Reaction Effects on MHD Mixed Convection Flow over an Unsteady Stretching

= represents the mass transfer at the

after neglecting higher order terms:

< < . Now from the above transformations the non

= is the Magnetic Parameter,

= = is the Mass convective parameter,

is the Eckert number,

= is the Schmidt number,

is the Soret number and

is the Local Reynolds number based on the surface velocity.

= = > < < >

You might also like