
Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems (IT2 FLSs) already become an emerging technology in recent years. As the most popular type-reduction (TR) algorithms, Karnik-Mendel (KM) algorithms own the advantage of maintaining the uncertainties flow in systems. This paper analyzes the initialization for KM types of algorithms. Furthermore, the weighting approaches of them are also given by means of the Newton-Cotes quadrature formulas. Importantly, the reasonable initialization weighted enhanced Karnik-Mendel (RIWEKM) algorithms are provided to complete the centroid type-reduction of IT2 FLSs. Three computer simulation experiments illustrate that, the proposed RIWEKM algorithms own both smaller absolute errors and faster convergence speeds in contrast to the EKM and RIEKM algorithms.
Citation: Yang Chen, Jiaxiu Yang, Chenxi Li. Design of reasonable initialization weighted enhanced Karnik-Mendel algorithms for centroid type-reduction of interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 9846-9870. doi: 10.3934/math.2022549
[1] | Aliyu Ismail Ishaq, Abdullahi Ubale Usman, Hana N. Alqifari, Amani Almohaimeed, Hanita Daud, Sani Isah Abba, Ahmad Abubakar Suleiman . A new Log-Lomax distribution, properties, stock price, and heart attack predictions using machine learning techniques. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(5): 12761-12807. doi: 10.3934/math.2025575 |
[2] | Mohammed Alharbey, Turki Mohammed Alfahaid, Ousama Ben-Salha . Asymmetric volatility spillover between oil prices and regional renewable energy stock markets: A time-varying parameter vector autoregressive-based connectedness approach. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 30639-30667. doi: 10.3934/math.20231566 |
[3] | Pedro J. Gutiérrez-Diez, Jorge Alves-Antunes . Stock market uncertainty determination with news headlines: A digital twin approach. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(1): 1683-1717. doi: 10.3934/math.2024083 |
[4] | Zhi Liu . Forecasting stock prices based on multivariable fuzzy time series. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(6): 12778-12792. doi: 10.3934/math.2023643 |
[5] | Chenyang Hu, Yuelin Gao, Eryang Guo . Fractional portfolio optimization based on different risk measures in fuzzy environment. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(4): 8331-8363. doi: 10.3934/math.2025384 |
[6] | Javed Hussain, Saba Shahid, Tareq Saeed . Pricing forward-start style exotic options under uncertain stock models with periodic dividends. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 24934-24954. doi: 10.3934/math.20241215 |
[7] | Yunjae Nam, Dongsun Lee . Efficient one asset replacement scheme for an optimized portfolio. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 15881-15903. doi: 10.3934/math.2022869 |
[8] | Hasnain Iftikhar, Murad Khan, Josué E. Turpo-Chaparro, Paulo Canas Rodrigues, Javier Linkolk López-Gonzales . Forecasting stock prices using a novel filtering-combination technique: Application to the Pakistan stock exchange. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(2): 3264-3288. doi: 10.3934/math.2024159 |
[9] | Zifu Fan, Youpeng Tao, Wei Zhang, Kexin Fan, Jiaojiao Cheng . Research on open and shared data from government-enterprise cooperation based on a stochastic differential game. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 4726-4752. doi: 10.3934/math.2023234 |
[10] | Peng Yang . Robust optimal reinsurance-investment problem for n competitive and cooperative insurers under ambiguity aversion. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(10): 25131-25163. doi: 10.3934/math.20231283 |
Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems (IT2 FLSs) already become an emerging technology in recent years. As the most popular type-reduction (TR) algorithms, Karnik-Mendel (KM) algorithms own the advantage of maintaining the uncertainties flow in systems. This paper analyzes the initialization for KM types of algorithms. Furthermore, the weighting approaches of them are also given by means of the Newton-Cotes quadrature formulas. Importantly, the reasonable initialization weighted enhanced Karnik-Mendel (RIWEKM) algorithms are provided to complete the centroid type-reduction of IT2 FLSs. Three computer simulation experiments illustrate that, the proposed RIWEKM algorithms own both smaller absolute errors and faster convergence speeds in contrast to the EKM and RIEKM algorithms.
Abbreviations: A∗: permeability component; β0: the strength magnetic field; β1: The ratio of nanolayer thickness to Particle radius; σel: electrical conductivity; p: pressure; ˆT: fluids temperature; ks1: thermals conductivity of first Particle; ks2: thermals conductivity of second Particle; kbf: thermals conductivity of base fluids; knf: thermals conductivity of the nanofluid; knfl: thermals conductivity of the Nanofluid with effect of nanolayer; khnf: thermals conductivity of the Hybrid nanofluid; khnfl: effective nanolayer thermal conductivity of hybrid nanofluid; kpe: equivalent thermals conductivity of equivalent Particle; kpe1: equivalent thermals conductivity of first equivalent Particle; kpe2: equivalent thermals conductivity of second equivalent Particle; S: shape factor; σhnf: thermals conductivity of the hybrid nanofluid; σs1: thermals conductivity of first nanoparticle; σs2: thermals conductivity of second nanoparticle; ρs1: density of the first nanoparticle; ρs2: density of the second nanoparticle; cp: Specifics heats at constant pressures; (cp)nf: Specifics heats for the Nanofluid; M∗: the magnetic parameter; Sc: Schmidt number; Re: the permeability Reynolds number; Pr: the Prandtl number; μhnf: the viscosity of the hybrid nanofluid; ρhnf: the density of the hybrid nanofluid; αhnf: the thermal diffusivity of hybrid nanofluid; υhnf: the kinematic viscosity of hybrid nanofluid; HNF: hybrid nanofluid; ENTC: effective nanolayer thermal conductivity; NENTC: non-effective nanolayer thermal conductivity; SFC: Skin friction coefficients; MNC: Matrix nanocomposite; α∗: the wall expansion ratio; η: scaled boundary layer coordinate; θ: self-similar temperature; μ: dynamic viscosity; υ: kinematic viscosity; ρ: density; φs1: first nanoparticle volume fraction; φs2: second nanoparticle volume fraction; nf: nanofluid; hnf: hybrid nanofluid; hnfl: effective hybrid nanofluid; s1: first nanoparticle; s2: second nanoparticle
Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is an excellent claimant in extensive applications, such as mechanical systems, biomaterials, chemical, and electrical, because of its low frictional coefficient and dielectric constant, few moistures absorption, chemical inertness, and excellent thermal stability [1]. Plunkett [2] initially described PTFE, which has remarkable physical properties in addition to the highly fluorinated saturated organic compounds. Polymer matrix nanocomposites (PMNC) is the material which composes of polymeric matrix distributed in silica, CNT, or organic substances. The distribution and reinforcement of matrix material particles at the nano-scale lead to a significant improvement in the mechanical properties of the produced composite. PMNC is appreciative in transportation, aircraft, defensive weapons etc. The most widely used reinforcement in PMNC is CNT due to their remarkable mechanical and electrical properties [3]. Chen et al. [4] have examined the behavior of CNT-filled composites of PTFE. Lin et al. [5] have investigated the Functionalization of Polymeric Carbon Nanocomposites from CNT with polymer matrix.
Yu et al. [6] demonstrated that liquid molecules near particle surfaces form layered structures and behave like solids. Despite the fact that the related layer of fluid molecules at the interface is only a few nanometers thick, it may play a significant role in heat transmission from concrete to a surrounding fluid. As a result, the theoretical investigation by Yu and Choi [7] suggested that the nanolayer which exists between the base fluid and NPs is a key factor. Xue [8] suggested a thermal conductivity (TC) model based on the theory of Maxwell and theory of the average polarization. An elliptical interfacial layer was examined Yu and Choi [9]. However, with the various sorts and forms of particles, it is not clear what his model's depolarization factor would be. Furthermore, it is complicated to determine the TC of complex NPs (NPs with an interfacial layer). The experimental data is matched with the expected TC values by using a thicker interfacial layer thickness (h = 03nm), which cannot be accurate for smaller particles. The influence of nanolayer near the particles to the Maxwell equation for the effective TC of solid–fluid interruption. The TC of the nanolayer was assumed to be similar as that of the particles in their model. This is impracticable due to the fact that interfacial layer is formed via way of means of fluid molecules surrounding the particle surface, and the awareness of these adsorbed molecules with inside the interfacial layer is smaller than that of the solid particle. As a result, the interfacial layer's TC should be smaller than that of solid particles but greater than that of liquid.
Permeable co-axial disks have remarkable applications in the fields of biomechanics, the processes of crystal growth, oceanography, mass and heat transfer, lubricants, viscometer, rotating machineries, and storage devices for computers. Several researchers have focused on issues with disks with various wall conditions. As an example, the impact of shape and size on the dispersion of metallic/ceramic matrix nanocomposite material in magnetized hybrid nanofluids flow via permeable coaxial disks was examined by Qureshi et al. [10]. Abdelmalek et al. [11] investigated the effects of several magnetized hybrid nanoparticles on the fluid flow between two orthogonal spinning disks. Banchok et al. [12] investigated heat transfers in nanofluid flow over a rotating porous disk. The Heat and Mass Transfer Analysis of Unsteady Non-Newtonian Fluid Flow between Porous Surfaces in the Presence of Magnetic Nanoparticles was investigated by Qureshi et al. [13]. By using the Darcy-Forchheimer relation, Bilal et al. [14] investigated the mathematical analysis of hybridized ferromagnetic nanofluid with the induction of copper oxide nanoparticles in permeable surfaces.
The flow behavior of a moving conducting fluid is described by magnetohydrodynamics, which polarizes it. Magnetic field effects are studied in industrial operations such as fuel manufacturing, electrical generators, crystal fabrication, nuclear power plants, and aerodynamics, among others. Elfven et al. [15] established the field of magnetohydrodynamics. Aly et al. [16] presented a numerical study of a hybrid magnetic nanomaterial in a stretching medium that is permeable. The MHD nanofluids natural convection in an insertion below have an effect on thermal radiation usage of the controlled volume-based finite element approach, as well as the form factor of NPs using the Duan Rach Approach was investigated by Chamkha et al. [17]. For turbine cooling applications, Dogonchi and Ganji [18] have explored the equations for the transfer of heat in an axisymmetric channel with permeable walls for a non-Newtonian fluid flow. Krishna [19] has analyzed the heat transfer of aluminium oxide and copper nanofluids flowing through a stretched porous surface in a steady MHD flow. Devi and Devi [20] investigated the magnetohydrodynamics flow of copper-alumina/H2O hybrid nanofluids computationally. Krishna et al. [21] have recently investigated the radiative MHD Casson hybrid nanofluids flow across an immense exponentially improved perpendicular permeable surface. Abbas et al. [22] investigated heat transfer in MHD hybrid nanofluid flow across a nonlinear stretched curved surface with thermal slip. Upreti et al. [23] investigated the entropy generation and unstable squeezing flow of MHD hybrid nanofluids within parallel plates. Heat transfer in three-dimensional hybrid nanofluids flow due to convective surface and base fluids was investigated by Upreti et al. [24]. Abbas et al. [25] investigated the techniques of data collection of Cu−Al2O3/H2O flow over a vertical wedge in water. Nadeem et al. [26] investigated the flow of a nanomaterial with a base viscoelastic MHD micropolar fluid over a stretched surface. Anwar et al. [27] investigated the computational analysis of induced MHD nonlinear stretching sheet flow. MHD hybrid nanofluid flow investigated by many researchers [28,29,30,31,32,33,34].
The above mentioned literature revealed to the authors that no research has been done on the dispersion of polymer/CNT matrix nanocomposite material through permeable surfaces subject to magnetized hybrid nanofluids flow with the influence of morphological nanolayer. Further, in the present study, we examined numerically the prominence of the permeability function consisting of the permeable Reynold number associated with the expansion/contraction ratio. The governing equations are transformed into dimensionless ordinary differential equations (ODEs) via similarity variable transformation technique. The Runge-Kutta and shooting procedures are implemented to achieve the solution of ODEs. Variations in skin friction coefficient and Nusselt number at the lower and upper walls of disks, as well as heat transfer rate measurements are computed using important engineering physical factors. A comparison table and graph of effective nanolayer thermal conductivity and non-effective nanolayer thermal conductivity are presented.
Flows between two disks have many important applications in the fields of biomechanics, the processes of crystal growth, oceanography, mass and heat transfer, lubricants, viscometer, rotating machineries, and storage devices for computers. The disks in thrust bearings are separated through a lubricant pumped via disks. Furthermore, in modern lubrication technology fluids with polymer additives have been used as enhanced lubricating oils. In this problem, we assume the laminar, viscous, incompressible, unsteady, 2D flow of hybrid nanofluid (HNF) containing PTFE-SWCNT/H2O between two porous disks which are orthogonally moving in the presence of an external magnetic field utilized in the z-direction. 2r1 is the diameter of the boundary disks. 2k(t) is the distance between the disks. The disks move uniformly at a time-dependent rate k'(t) down or up and have the same permeability. The physical model uses a cylindrical coordinate system (r, θ, z) velocity ˆu in the line of r and velocity ˆw in the line of z, but velocity v̂ disappears. The Tl represents the temperature at the lower disk and Tu represents the temperature at the upper disk shown in Figure 1. The thermophysical properties of nanoparticles and bases fluids are mentioned in the Tables 1 and 2. The governing equations are as follows [35]:
∂ˆu∂r+ˆur+∂ˆw∂z=0, | (1) |
ρhnf(∂ˆu∂t+ˆu∂ˆu∂r+ˆw∂ˆu∂z)=−∂P∂r+μhnf(∂2ˆu∂r2+1r∂ˆu∂r−ˆur2+∂2ˆu∂z2)−σhnfβ20ˆu, | (2) |
ρhnf(∂ˆw∂t+ˆu∂ˆw∂r+ˆw∂ˆw∂z)=−∂P∂z+μhnf(∂2ˆw∂r2+1r∂ˆw∂r−ˆwr2+∂2ˆw∂z2), | (3) |
(ρCp)hnf(∂ˆT∂t+ˆu∂ˆT∂r+ˆw∂T∂z)=Khnfl∂2ˆT∂z2, | (4) |
where ρhnf is the density of HNF, β0 is magnetic field strength, σhnf is the electrically conductivity of hybrid nanofluid, T̂ is the temperature, P is the pressure, (ρCp)hnf is the heat capacitance of HNF, Khnfl is the ENTC and μhnf is the viscosity of HNF. Which are given in Table 1.
For nanofluid | For HNF |
ρnf=(1−φ)ρf+φρs1, | ρhnf=(1−φs1−φs2)ρf+φs1ρs1+φ2ρs2, |
(ρCp)nf=(1−φ)(ρCp)f+φ(ρCp)s1, | (ρCp)hnf=(1−φs1−φs2)(ρCp)f+φs1(ρCp)s1+φ2(ρCp)s2, |
μnf=μf(1−φ)2.5, | μhnf=μf(1−φ1−φ2)2.5, |
knflkbf=[kpe+(S−1)kbf−(S−1)(kbf−kpe)(1+β1)3φkpe+(S−1)kbf+(kbf−kpe)(1+β1)3φ], where kpe=[2(1−λ)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ)]λ−(1−λ)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ)ks, |
khnflkbf=[kpe2+(S−1)kbf−(S−1)(kbf−kpe2)(1+β1)3φs2kpe2+(S−1)kbf+(kbf−kpe2)(1+β1)3φs2], where \frac{{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{f}}}{{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{f}}}=\left[\frac{{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}1}+\left(\mathrm{S}-1\right){\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{f}}-\left(\mathrm{S}-1\right)\left({\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{f}}-{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}1}\,right){\left(1+{\mathrm{\beta }}_{1}\right)}^{3}{\mathrm{\varphi }}_{\mathrm{s}1}}{{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}1}+\left(\mathrm{S}-1\right){\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{f}}+\left({\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{f}}-{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}1}\,\right){\left(1+{\mathrm{\beta }}_{1}\right)}^{3}{\mathrm{\varphi }}_{\mathrm{s}1}}\right], where kpe1=[2(1−λ1)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ1)]λ1−(1−λ1)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ1)ks1, kpe2=[2(1−λ)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ)]λ−(1−λ)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ)ks2, |
σnfσf=σs1+2σf−2φ1(σf−σs1)σs1+2σf+φ1(σf−σs1). | σhnfσbf=σs2+2σbf−2φ2(σbf−σs2)σs2+2σbf+φ2(σbf−σs2), where σbfσf=σs1+2σf−2φ1(σf−σs1)σs1+2σf+φ1(σf−σs1). |
Physical properties | Base fluid | Nanoparticles | |
Water (H2O) | PTFE | SWCNT | |
CP(j/kgK) | 4179 | 970 | 425 |
ρ(kg/m3) | 997 | 2200 | 2600 |
K(W/mK) | 0.608 | 0.25 | 6600 |
In Table 1, φs1 and φs2 shows volume fraction, ρf is the base fluid density, ρs1 and ρs2 is the solid NP density, (ρCp)s1 and (ρCp)s1 is the thermal capacitance of solid NP, the thermal capacitance for base fluid is represented as (ρCp)f, khnfl is the ENTC of HNF, kf and kbf represent base fluid TC, knfl is the nanofluids TC with the effect of nanolayer, kpe1andkpe2 is equivalent TC of the equivalent solid NP, the ratio of the nanolayer thickness to the radius of NP is β1=hr, λ1=klayersks1 is the ratio of TC of nanolayer to TC of the first particle, λ=klayersks2 is the ratio of ENTC to TC of the second particle, ks1andks2 is TC of the first particle and second particle respectively, The particle radius is r, and the thickness of the nanolayer is h, σhnf is the electrical conductivity of hybrid nanofluid, σnf is the electrical conductivity of nanofluid, σs1 and σs2 are the electrical conductivity of first and second nanoparticles, respectively, σbf is the electrical conductivity of base fluid.
Table 2, CP shows Specifics heats at constant pressures, ρ is the density, and K is the thermal capacitance of base fluid and solid NP.
The upper boundary and lower boundary have the following boundary conditions:
atZ=−k(t),ˆu=0,ˆw=−A∗k′(t)andˆT=Tl,atZ=k(t),ˆu=0,ˆw=A∗k′(t)andˆT=Tu, | (5) |
where A∗ is denote the permeability and the prime denotes the time derivative w.r.t t.
The similarity variables listed below are used as:
η=zk,ˆu=−rυfk2Fη(η,t),ˆw=2υfkF(η,t),θ=ˆT−TuTl−Tu. | (6) |
First of all the continuity equation is satisfied by the similarity variables stated in Eq (6). Furthermore, the similarity variables are used in the governing equations to acquire Eqs (7) and (8):
υhnfυfFηηηη+α∗(3Fηη+ηFηηη)−2FFηηη−K2υfFηηt−ρfρhnfσhnfσfM∗Fηη=0, | (7) |
θηη+υfαhnf(α∗η−2F)θη−k2αhnfθt=0, | (8) |
where αhnf is the thermal diffusivity of HNF and αhnf=Khnfl(ρCp)hnf, υhnf is the kinematics viscosity of the HNF and υhnf=μhnfρhnf, (ρCp)hnf is the heat capacitance of HNF, the viscosity of HNF is μhnf, the density of HNF is ρhnf.
Associated boundary conditions are
F=−Re,Fη=0,θ=1,atη=−1, |
F=Re,Fη=0,θ=0,atη=1, | (9) |
here Re=A∗kk'(t)2υf is absorptivity Reynold number, here A∗ is the permeability, and is defined as the function of Reynold number and wall expansion ratio, and mathematically defined as A∗=A∗(α∗,Re)=Re2α∗, α∗=kk'(t)υf is the ratio of wall expansion, and M∗=σβ20k2μf is the magnetic parameter.
Finally, we set F=fRe and by following Majdalani et al. [36]. When α is constant, f=f(η) and θ=θ(η), which leads to θt=0 and fηηt=0. Thus, we have
υhnfυffηηηη+α∗(3fηη+ηfηηη)−2Reffηηη−ρfρhnfσhnfσfM∗fηη=0, | (10) |
θηη+(φ1(ρCp)s1(ρCp)f+φ2(ρCp)s2(ρCp)f−(1−φ1−φ2))kfkhnflPr(α∗η−2Ref)θη=0. | (11) |
At lower and upper wall of channel boundary condition are
atη=−1,f=−1,fη=0,andθ=1,atη=1,f=1,fη=0,andθ=0. | (12) |
Nusselt number and SFC at both permeable walls are computed coefficients that are of engineering interest are computed in this section.
The SFC of the upper and lower disk represents as Cf1 and Cf−1 and expressed as in [10],
Cf−1=rςzrǀη=−1kρf(K'A1)2=((1−φs1−φs2)−2.5)Ref''(−1), |
AndCf1=rςzrǀη=1kρf(K'A1)2=((1−φs1−φs2)−2.5)Ref''(1), | (13) |
where Re denote the Reynold number and ςzr denote the shear stress at the bottom and upper disks in the radial direction, respectively,
ςzrǀη=−1=μhnf(∂ˆu∂z)ǀη=−1,andςzrǀη=1=μhnf(∂ˆu∂z)ǀη=1 | (14) |
The heat transfer rate (Nusselt number) calculations at the bottom and upper disks are given as Nuǀη=−1 and Nuǀη=1, respectively [10]
Nuǀη=−1=kszkf(T1−T2)ǀη=−1=khnfkfθ'(−1),andNuǀη=1=kszkf(T1−T2)ǀη=1=khnfkfθ'(1), | (15) |
here sz is the heat flux, which is following as,
szǀη=−1=−khnf(∂T∂z)ǀη=−1,andszǀη=1=−khnf(∂T∂z)ǀη=1. | (16) |
Thermophysical properties like density, viscosity, heat capacitance, and TC of base liquids are changed due to the mixing of NPs and distinguishing the efficacy of NPs on thermo-physical properties of resulting nanofluids. Gupta et al. [39] give a detailed investigation of the thermophysical characteristics of nanofluids. TC is a key thermophysical feature of nanofluids, according to a comprehensive examination of their thermophysical properties. Over the years, numerous investigations on the TC of nanofluids have been done. Yang et al. [40] have submitted a report on the effect of critical factors on the TC of nanofluids. Until now, several researchers have attempted to calculate the TC of nanofluids using various methods to provide a comprehensive correlation to compute this in nanofluids. Maxwell [41] established the first correlation to calculate the TC of nanofluids in 1881. This relationship is accurate for globe-shaped NP and small amounts of NP. Later, in 1962, Hamilton and Crosser (H-C) [42] established the Maxwell correlation, which included the effect of morphology on nanofluids TC. Subsequently, a research study by Jiang et al. [43] found that i = 1.550 was more suitable for CNT nanofluids.
The three models in Table 3 of TC failed to predict the high TC of nanofluids. The reason for this is that these TC models ignore the effect of nanolayer and particle radius. Murshed et al. [44] proposed a TC model in which the nanolayer is assumed as a separate component when calculating the effective TC of nano-fluids in 2007. Below is a representation of a nanoparticle with a nanolayer in the base fluid.
Maxwell model | Hamilton and Crosser (H-C) model | Xue model |
knfkbf=ks+2kbf−2φ(kbf−ks)ks+2kbf+φ(kbf−ks) | knfkbf=ks+(S−1)kbf−(S−1)φ(kbf−ks)ks+(S−1)kbf+φ(kbf−ks) | knfkbf=1−φ+2φ[ks(ks−kbf)]In[ks+kbf2kbf]1−φ+2φ[kbf(ks−kbf)]In[ks+kbf2kbf] |
In the above Table 3, kbf denotes the TC of the base fluid, ks denotes the TC of NP, and knf denotes the TC of nanofluid, S=3(ϖ)i whereϖ is sphericalness, ϖ=1.00 for spherical NP, and ϖ=0.50 for cylindrical NP, and the variable "i" is experimental. In the actual H-C correlation, I = 1 is used.
The model of effective TC is given below, for nanofluids,
knflkbf=[kpe+(S−1)kbf−(S−1)(kbf−kpe)(1+β1)3φkpe+(S−1)kbf+(kbf−kpe)(1+β1)3φ], |
kpe=[2(1−λ)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ)]λ−(1−λ)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ)ks | (17) |
where knfl is the TC of nanofluids with the effect of nanolayer, kpeis equivalent TC of the equivalent particles, where λ=klks is the ratio of nanolayer TC to TC of particle, the ratio of the thickness of nanolayer to the radius of NP is β1=hr.
The effective TC correlation is shown below, for HNF,
khnflkbf=[kpe2+(S−1)kbf−(S−1)(kbf−kpe2)(1+β1)3φs2kpe2+(S−1)kbf+(kbf−kpe2)(1+β1)3φs2], |
kbfkf=[kpe1+(S−1)kf−(S−1)(kf−kpe1)(1+β1)3φs1kpe1+(S−1)kf+(kf−kpe1)(1+β1)3φs1], | (18) |
where kpe1andkpe2 are equivalent TC of the equivalent first particle and second particle respectively, and defined as
kpe1=[2(1−λ1)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ1)]λ1−(1−λ1)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ1)ks1, |
kpe2=[2(1−λ)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ)]λ−(1−λ)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ)ks2, | (19) |
where λ1=klayersks1 is the ratio of nanolayer TC to TC of the first particle, λ=klayersks2 is the ratio of nanolayer TC to TC of the second particle, ks1andks2 is TC of the first particle and second particle respectively.
Because the system of ODE's is manipulated in Eqs (10) and (11) are complex and involve boundary value conditions, the numerical solution is obtained rather than using analytical methods. The shooting technique is used in conjunction with the RK method for numerical computations. The Runge–Kutta method is a preferable alternative since it requires less computing, is more stable, and produces accurate results in less time. The rapidity (computational cost) and additivity of this technique to the IVP are its main advantages. Finding the IVP (initial value problem) using an appropriate shooting approach is massively successful because of the importance of IVPs in real-world/practical applications. The missing beginning condition at the Interval's start point is assumed in a shooting method, and the DE (differential equation) is then numerically integrated as an IVP. The accuracy of the missing initial condition is determined by comparing the computed value of the dependent variable at the terminal point with its given value here. If there is a difference, the process is repeated with a new value. This method is repeated until the calculated and given conditions are in agreement. Table 4 shows how our numerical results converge as the step size gets reduced for this purpose, providing us confidence in our computing technique. Our boundary conditions satisfy accurate and symmetric shear stress results at the lower wall as well.
η | f(η) | f'(η) | f''(η) |
-1 | -1 | 0 | 1.23169 |
-0.8 | -0.971619 | 0.303868 | 1.83141 |
-0.6 | -0.869844 | 0.734952 | 2.45554 |
-0.4 | -0.671254 | 1.25769 | 2.64651 |
-0.2 | -0.370295 | 1.72443 | 1.82153 |
0 | 4.8871×10(-8) | 1.91717 | -5.09381×10(-8) |
0.2 | 0.370295 | 1.72443 | -1.82153 |
0.4 | 0.671254 | 1.25769 | -2.64651 |
0.6 | 0.869844 | 0.734952 | -2.45554 |
0.8 | 0.971619 | 0.303868 | -1.83141 |
1 | 1 | 0 | -1.23169 |
A massive representation of a non-linear coupled system of ODE's with coefficients that have matrix composite material and HNF properties.
(1−φs1−φs2)2.5(1−φs1−φs2)+φs1(ρCp)s1(ρCp)f+φs2(ρCp)s2(ρCp)ff''''+α∗(3f''+ηf''')−2Reff'''−1(1−φs1−φs2)+φs1ρs1ρf+φs2ρs2ρfσhnfσfM∗f''=0, | (20) |
θ''+(φs1(ρCp)s1(ρCp)f+φs2(ρCp)s2(ρCp)f−(1−φs1−(φs2))(kpe2+(S−1)kbf−(S−1)(kbf−kpe2)(1+β1)3φs2kpe2+(S−1)kbf+(kbf−kpe2)(1+β1)3φs2)(kpe1+(S−1)kf−(S−1)(kf−kpe1)(1+β1)3φs1kpe1+(S−1)kf+(kf−kpe1)(1+β1)3φs1)Pr(α∗η−2Ref)θ''=0. | (21) |
Where, we let the following expressions as:
G1=(1−φs1−φs2)2.5(1−φs1−φs2)+φs1(ρCp)s1(ρCp)f+φ2(ρCp)s2(ρCp)f, |
G2=1(1−φs1−φs2)+φs1ρs1ρf+φs2ρs2ρfσhnfσf, |
G3=(φs1(ρCp)s1(ρCp)f+φs2(ρCp)s2(ρCp)f−(1−φ1−φ2)), |
G4=(kpe2+(S−1)kbf−(S−1)(kbf−kpe2)(1+β1)3φs2kpe2+(S−1)kbf+(kbf−kpe2)(1+β1)3φs2), |
G5=(kpe1+(S−1)kf−(S−1)(kf−kpe1)(1+β1)3φs1kpe1+(S−1)kf+(kf−kpe1)(1+β1)3φs1). |
By putting the values of G1, G2, G3, G4, and G5 in Eqs (21) and (22), the final Equations are:
G1f''''+α∗(3f''+ηf''')−2Reff'''−G2M∗f''=0, | (22) |
θ''+G3G4G5Pr(α∗η−2Ref)θ'=0. | (23) |
For the determination of solving the existing flow model, we used the RK technique with the addition of shooting methods. The following substitution is required to begin the process:
w1=f(η), w2=f'(η), w3=f''(η), w4=f'''(η), w5=θ(η), w6=θ'(η) | (24) |
First, in Eqs (22) and (23), change the model in the following pattern:
f''''[η]=1G1(−α∗(3f''+ηf''')+2Reff'''+G2M∗f'') | (25) |
θ''[η]=(G3G4G5Pr(2Ref−α∗η)w6 | (26) |
The following system is obtained by using the substitution contained in Eq (24):
[w'1w'2w'3w'4w'5w'6]=[w2w3w41G1(−α∗(3f''+ηf''')+2Reff'''+G2M∗f'')w6(G3G4G5Pr(2Ref−α∗η)w6)] | (27) |
Consequently, the initial condition is:
[w'1w'2w'3w'4w'5w'6]=[−101010] | (28) |
Mathematical techniques and an appropriate initial condition are now used to solve the aforementioned system. Runge-Kutta and the well-known accurate "shooting method" have been considered in this case. This approach is suitable for dealing with dimensionless ODEs. First, we create the initial condition by applying the shooting procedure in a way that satisfies boundary criteria and yields the necessary level of efficiency and accuracy.
This section explains the influence of flow on concerning equations and physical parameters like expansion/contraction ratio parameter "α∗", suction/injection permeable Reynold number "Re", NTP (nanolayer thickness of particles) "h", the radius of particles "r", shape size factor "S", the magnetic parameter "M∗", volume friction parameters "φs1 and φs2", Prandtl number "Pr", on velocity and temperature profile are explained through Figures 3–10. The default values of involve parameters are: for h=0.4,r=0.8,φs1=φs2=0.02,Re=−2.5,Pr=6.2,M∗=1andα∗=3. In addition, engineering quantities such as shear stress coefficients at the upper and lower disks, as well as heat fluxes, are estimated numerically against the variables involved. Table 5 shows the comparison result of effective nanolayer thermal conductivity (ENTC) and non-effective nanolayer thermal conductivity (NENTC). It is observed that the enhancement in h, increases the ENTC, and has no effect on NENTC. The reason is that the NENTC does not include the influence of the nanolayer thickness of the particle. The nanolayer thickness and radius of particle have opposite behavior on ENTC. The increment in volume fraction increases the ENTC and NENTC are noticed. For all three cases of shape size factor (sphere, cylindrical, laminar) the highest values of ENTC and NENTC are achieved for aspherical shape. Table 6 represents the variation in SFC and Nusselt numbers for suction and injection cases at the lower disks. For suction Re<0 case, suction occurs when inertia is less than viscosity, it is observed the increment in NTP increases the Nusselt number. The NTP and radius of particles have opposite behavior on the Nusselt number. For all three cases of shape size factor (sphere, cylindrical, laminar) the highest value of Nusselt number is achieved for aspherical shape. It is also obtrusive that the amount of SFC and Nusselt number rises with the volume fraction and magnetic parameter. it is noticed that as the value of α∗ changes from negative to positive the SFC and Nusselt numbers decreased. The Prandtl number and radius of particles have the same behavior as the Nusselt number. The reason is that the Prandtl number is the product of diffusive momentum to the inverse of thermal diffusivity, so increasing the Pr momentum increases diffusivity, which decreases the coefficient of heat flux. For injection Re>0 cases, injection occurs when inertia is greater than viscosity, it is observed that the effect of NTP, radius of particles, shape size factor, volume fraction, expansion/contraction ratio parameter, and magnetic parameter have the same nature in both suction /injection case on SFC and Nusselt number. The Prandtl number has opposite behavior in both suction /injection cases on SFC and Nusselt number, therefore as the increment in Prandtl number increases the Nusselt number.
h | r | φs1=φs2 | S | khnfl | khnf |
0.4 | 0.8 | 2% | 3 | 1.25951 | 1.04573 |
0.6 | 1.39172 | 1.04573 | |||
0.8 | 1.4749 | 1.04573 | |||
1 | 1.52875 | 1.04573 | |||
1.2 | 1.56473 | 1.04573 | |||
1.4 | 1.58951 | 1.04573 | |||
1.6 | 1.60707 | 1.04573 | |||
0.4 | 1 | 2% | 3 | 1.25951 | 1.04573 |
1.2 | 1.18620 | 1.04573 | |||
1.4 | 1.08329 | 1.04573 | |||
1.6 | 1.04631 | 1.04573 | |||
1.8 | 1.01581 | 1.04573 | |||
2 | 0.990267 | 1.04573 | |||
0.4 | 0.8 | 3% | 3 | 1.29148 | 1.06891 |
4% | 1.32414 | 1.09232 | |||
5% | 1.35752 | 1.11595 | |||
6% | 1.39162 | 1.13982 | |||
7% | 1.42647 | 1.16394 | |||
8% | 1.46208 | 1.18831 | |||
0.2 | 0.8 | 2% | 3 | 1.25951 | 1.04573 |
5.7 | 1.23202 | 1.01163 | |||
16 | 1.18829 | 1.00984 |
h | r | φs1=φs2 | S | α∗ | M∗ | Pr | Cf−1 for suction case | Nuǀη=−1 for suction case | Cf−1 for injection case | Nuǀη=−1 for injection case |
0.4 | 0.8 | 2% | 3 | -1 | 1 | 6.2 | 4.1612 | 0.391643 | 5.15113 | 6.38635 |
0.8 | 4.1612 | 0.426513 | 5.15113 | 6.97705 | ||||||
1.2 | 4.1612 | 0.43887 | 5.15113 | 7.27113 | ||||||
1.6 | 4.1612 | 0.4430 | 5.15113 | 7.36504 | ||||||
0.2 | 1 | 2% | 4.1612 | 0.377217 | 5.15113 | 6.11274 | ||||
1.2 | 4.1612 | 0.36550 | 5.15113 | 5.91552 | ||||||
1.4 | 4.1612 | 0.355864 | 5.15113 | 5.73457 | ||||||
1.6 | 4.1612 | 0.34729 | 5.15113 | 5.5923 | ||||||
1.8 | 4.1612 | 0.339912 | 5.15113 | 5.44889 | ||||||
2 | 4.1612 | 0.333482 | 5.15113 | 5.34295 | ||||||
0.8 | 3% | 4.4447 | 0.417098 | 5.99246 | 5.22673 | |||||
4% | 4.6902 | 0.419584 | 6.10532 | 5.37543 | ||||||
5% | 5.09975 | 0.42962 | 6.45018 | 5.40737 | ||||||
6% | 5.39447 | 0.43225 | 7.33692 | 5.52024 | ||||||
2% | 5.7 | 4.16126 | 4.68091 | 5.15113 | 4.68091 | |||||
16 | 4.16126 | 4.48139 | 5.15113 | 4.48139 | ||||||
-2 | 5.6884 | 1.5682 | 7.4958 | 6.0701 | ||||||
-1 | 4.8060 | 0.5089 | 7.4885 | 4.01579 | ||||||
0 | 3.0190 | 0.11391 | 4.6616 | 2.07580 | ||||||
1 | 1.6621 | 0.02079 | 1.69420 | 0.83367 | ||||||
2 | 0.7781 | 0.0034132 | -1.6029 | 0.287673 | ||||||
-1 | 1 | 4.63161 | 0.434089 | 5.70674 | 4.88936 | |||||
3 | 5.58803 | 0.44855 | 6.45215 | 4.57098 | ||||||
9 | 5.87033 | 0.46987 | 6.9390 | 3.86002 | ||||||
11 | 6.8723 | 0.473094 | 7.2379 | 3.85519 | ||||||
1 | 6.2 | 4.26126 | 0.41097 | 5.49747 | 5.54713 | |||||
5.5 | 4.26126 | 0.42796 | 5.49747 | 4.89344 | ||||||
5.2 | 4.26126 | 0.435245 | 5.49747 | 4.58897 | ||||||
4.5 | 4.26126 | 0.452571 | 5.49747 | 3.8860 |
Table 7 demonstrates the variation in SFC and Nusselt numbers for expansion and contraction cases at the lower disk. For contraction α∗<0 cases, contraction occurs when viscosity is enhanced, it is observed the increment in NTP increases the Nusselt number. The NTP and radius of particles have opposite natures on Nusselt number that is the Nusselt number is decrease as the increase in radius of particles. It is also evident that the amount of SFC and Nusselt number rises with volume fraction and magnetic parameter. For all three cases of shape size factor (sphere, cylindrical, laminar) the highest value of Nusselt number is achieved for aspherical shape. It is noticed that the value of Re changes from negative to positive the increase the SFC and decrease the Nusselt number. It is observed that the NTP and Prandtl number have opposite in nature to the Nusselt number. For expansion α∗>0 cases, expansion occurs when viscosity decreases, it is observed that the effect of NTP, radius of particles, shape size factor, volume fraction, magnetic parameter, and Prandtl number have the same nature in both contraction /expansion cases on SFC and Nusselt number. The Re have opposite behavior in both contraction /expansion cases on SFC and Nusselt numbers. Table 4 states the numerical stability of the results forf(−1),f'(−1),andf''(−1) at various values ofη. Table 8 demonstrates the comparison result of the Nusselt number for the suction case via bvp4c method and shooting method. An excellent comparison between two numerical techniques is obtained which certifies the present finding validity. Table 9 shows the comparison results of the heat transfer rate of the present work with already published results of Kashif et al. [35]. An astonishing relationship has been accomplished which certifies the validity of present results.
h | r | φs1=φs2 | S | Re | M∗ | Pr | Cf−1 for contraction case | Nuǀη=−1 for contraction case | Cf−1 for expansion case | Nuǀη=−1 for expansion case |
0.4 | 0.8 | 2% | 3 | -1 | 1 | 6.2 | 4.16126 | 0.391643 | 2.42591 | 0.00196 |
0.8 | 4.16126 | 0.426513 | 2.42591 | 0.00200 | ||||||
1.2 | 4.16126 | 0.43887 | 2.42591 | 0.00206 | ||||||
1.6 | 4.16126 | 0.4430 | 2.42591 | 0.00209 | ||||||
0.2 | 1 | 4.16126 | 0.377217 | 2.42591 | 0.0021 | |||||
1.2 | 4.16126 | 0.36550 | 2.42591 | 0.00194 | ||||||
1.4 | 4.16126 | 0.355864 | 2.42591 | 0.00183201 | ||||||
1.6 | 4.16126 | 0.34729 | 2.42591 | 0.001807 | ||||||
1.8 | 4.16126 | 0.339912 | 2.42591 | 0.001767 | ||||||
2 | 4.16126 | 0.333482 | 2.42591 | 0.001766 | ||||||
0.8 | 3% | 4.4447 | 0.417098 | 2.55701 | 0.00198 | |||||
4% | 4.69021 | 0.419584 | 2.63048 | 0.00218 | ||||||
5% | 5.09975 | 0.42962 | 2.70455 | 0.00244 | ||||||
6% | 5.39447 | 0.43225 | 2.82254 | 0.00249 | ||||||
2% | 5.7 | 4.16126 | 4.68091 | 2.42591 | 0.00193 | |||||
16 | 4.16126 | 4.48139 | 2.42691 | 0.00179 | ||||||
-2 | 1.9029 | 1.5682 | 1.16283 | 0.000052 | ||||||
-1.5 | 2.6488 | 0.09384 | 1.15799 | 0.00039 | ||||||
-1 | 4.1626 | 0.05089 | 2.42591 | 0.00916 | ||||||
1 | 4.8060 | 0.01254 | 3.3248 | 0.0175 | ||||||
2 | 5.8672 | 0.00243 | 3.0047 | 0.0232 | ||||||
-1 | 1 | 41612 | 0.391643 | 2.42591 | 0.00192 | |||||
3 | 5.0499 | 0.39928 | 2.84139 | 0.00202 | ||||||
9 | 5.5127 | 0.417178 | 3.896 | 0.00224 | ||||||
11 | 5.7993 | 0.42936 | 4.20132 | 0.002304 | ||||||
1 | 6.2 | 4.1612 | 0.392613 | 2.42591 | 0.00192 | |||||
5.5 | 4.16126 | 0.41001 | 2.42591 | 0.0039 | ||||||
5.2 | 4.16126 | 0.41806 | 2.42591 | 0.00529 | ||||||
4.5 | 4.16126 | 0.43727 | 2.42591 | 0.01064 |
Bvp4c results | Shooting method results | |
h | Nuǀη=−1 for suction case | Nuǀη=−1 for suction case |
0.4 | 0.391635 | 0.391643 |
0.8 | 0.426509 | 0.426513 |
1.2 | 0.438828 | 0.43887 |
1.6 | 0.443035 | 0.4430 |
0.4 | 0.377209 | 0.377217 |
Kashif et al [35] | Present results | Kashif et al [35] | Present results | ||
φ | φs1 | α<0 | α<0 | α>0 | α>0 |
0% | 0% | 3.1664 | 3.166501 | 1.6794 | 1.67956 |
5% | 5% | 3.6112 | 3.6113 | 1.9174 | 1.91749 |
10% | 10% | 4.1606 | 4.160708 | 2.2135 | 2.21378 |
15% | 15% | 4.8430 | 4.84315 | 2.5839 | 2.58399 |
20% | 20% | 5.6988 | 5.69893 | 3.0519 | 3.051989 |
Figure 2 shows a comparison graph of ENTC and NENTC we observed that ENTC is able to determine the high TC of nanofluids as compared to NENTC of hybrid nanofluids. The reason is that NENTC does not include the influence of the radius of particles and nanolayer thickness. Figures 3 and 4 are established to signify the consequences of expansion/contraction parameter on radial and axial velocity field for fixed values h=0.4,r=0.8,φs1=φs2=0.02,Re=−2.5,Pr=6.2,M∗=1. It is observed that α∗ changes from contraction to expansion axial velocity increases, whereas the increment in radial velocity in the region between the disks and decrement near the disk.
Figure 5 elaborates on the thermal phenomenon against the Prandtl number. If the value of Pr is decreased, then the maximum temperature profile achieved for Pr= 3 at the lower disk and for Pr = 6.2 for an upper disk. The reason is that the Prandtl number is the product of diffusive momentum to the inverse of thermal diffusivity, so increasing the Pr momentum increases diffusivity, which decreases the coefficient of heat flux. Figure 6 is plotted to show the behavior of the magnetic parameters onto the radial velocity profile. It is observed that by increasing the magnetic parameter radial velocity component decreases. This is because by enhancing the magnetic value, Lorentz forces are produced, decreasing the axial momentum of fluid particles. We can conclude from this argument that the transverse application magnetic field normalizes fluid velocity. The magnetic effect causes the particles within the fluid to vibrate, which is governed by the Lorentz force.
Figure 7 is sketched to illustrate the impact of volume fraction on axial profile. It is examined that as the volume fraction value is increasing the axial component of velocity rises. Figure 8 represents that when disks are expanding, and fluid is sucked if the NTP is increased then the temperature profile increase at the upper disk and decreased at the lower disk.
The contour of variable M's influence on radial velocity is shown in Figure 9. In Figure 9, contour lines depicting variants on the radial velocity are sketched, showing the optimal change in velocity against edges and zero change at the Centre. The variation of temperature against (M) is depicted in Figure 10 by contour lines. Contour lines are shown to be roughly fat around the problem's midpoint, with a minimal decreasing pattern along the problem's perimeter.
The impact of nanolayer on TC of HNF flow with the influence of shape and size via porous surfaces is presented in this paper. Polymeric and CNT nanocomposite properties are combined with hybrid nanofluids. In terms of SFC and Nusselt numbers, numerical and graphical results are achieved. The contour graph of temperature and velocity profiles is drawn in this paper.
● effective nanolayer thermal conductivity indicates better results as compared to non-effective nanolayer thermal conductivity
● the NTP (h) has a significant effect on ENTC and the heat transfer rate of hybrid nanofluids
● the Nusselt number is increase with increment in values of NTP, volume fraction, and magnetic field parameter but decreases with the increase in radius of particles, S, α∗, Pr for suction case
● SFC rises with the increase in volume fraction, and magnetic field parameter and decreases against the value of α∗ for suction case
● the Nusselt number is rise with increment in values of NTP, volume fraction, magnetic field parameter, Pr but decrease with the increase in radius of particles, S, Re for contraction
● SFC increases with the increase in Re, volume fraction, and magnetic field parameter for contraction
● the contrary effect of Re in expansion case as compared contraction case to except NTP, S, r is seen. The effect of NTP, S, and r on Nusselt number and SFC are the same in both cases.
This work has been done for Newtonian hybrid nanofluid. In the future similar work can be done for non-Newtonian hybrid nanofluid and second-grade hybrid nanofluid.
This research received funding support from the NSRF via the Program Management Unit for Human Resources & Institutional Development, Research and Innovation, (grant number B05F650018).
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
[1] | J. M. Mendel, Uncertain rule-based fuzzy systems, Springer International Publishing, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51370-6 |
[2] |
H. Hagras, C. Wagner, Towards the wide spread use of type-2 fuzzy logic systems in real world applications, IEEE Comput. Intell. M., 7 (2012), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCI.2012.2200621 doi: 10.1109/MCI.2012.2200621
![]() |
[3] |
J. M. Mendel, Type-2 fuzzy sets and systems: An overview, IEEE Comput. Intell. M., 2 (2007), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCI.2007.380672 doi: 10.1109/MCI.2007.380672
![]() |
[4] |
M. H. F. Zarandi, B. Rezaee, I. B. Turksen, E. Neshat, A type-2 fuzzy rule-based expert system model for stock price analysis, Expert Syst. Appl., 36 (2009), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.09.034 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2007.09.034
![]() |
[5] |
Y. Chen, D. Z. Wang, S. C. Tong, Forecasting studies by designing Mamdani interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems: with combination of BP algorithms and KM algorithms, Neurocomputing, 174 (2016), 1133–1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2015.10.032 doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2015.10.032
![]() |
[6] |
A. Khosravi, S. Nahavandi, Load forecasting using interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems: Optimal type reduction, IEEE T. Ind. Electron., 10 (2014), 1055–1063. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2013.2285650 doi: 10.1109/TII.2013.2285650
![]() |
[7] |
M. Biglarbegian, W. W. Melek, J. M. Mendel, Design of novel interval type-2 fuzzy controllers for modular and reconfigurable robots: theory and experiments, IEEE T. Ind. Electron., 58 (2011), 1371–1384. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2010.2049718 doi: 10.1109/TIE.2010.2049718
![]() |
[8] |
D. Z. Wang, Y. Chen, Study on permanent magnetic drive forecasting by designing Takagi Sugeno Kang type interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems, T. I. Meas. Control, 40 (2018), 2011–2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142331217694682 doi: 10.1177/0142331217694682
![]() |
[9] |
R. S. Rama, P. Latha, An effective torque ripple reduction for permanent magnet synchronous motor using ant colony optimization, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst., 17 (2015), 577–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-015-0077-5 doi: 10.1007/s40815-015-0077-5
![]() |
[10] |
O. Linda, M. Manic, Interval type-2 voter design for fault tolerant systems, Inform. Sci., 181 (2011), 2933–2950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.03.008 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2011.03.008
![]() |
[11] |
A. Niewiadomski, On finity, countability, cardinalities, and cylindric extensions of type-2 fuzzy sets in linguistic summarization of databases, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 18 (2010), 532–545. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2010.2042719 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2010.2042719
![]() |
[12] |
D. R. Wu, J. M. Mendel, Uncertainty measures for interval type-2 fuzzy sets, Inform. Sci., 177 (2007), 5378–2393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2007.07.012 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2007.07.012
![]() |
[13] |
A. Khosravi, S. Nahavandi, D. Creighton, D. Srinivasan, Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems for load forecasting: a comparative study, IEEE T. Power Syst., 27 (2012), 1274–1282. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2011.2181981 doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2011.2181981
![]() |
[14] |
Y. Chen, Study on weighted Nagar-Bardini algorithms for centroid type-reduction of interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 34 (2018), 2417–2428. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-171669 doi: 10.3233/JIFS-171669
![]() |
[15] |
J. M. Mendel, On KM algorithms for solving type-2 fuzzy sets problems, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 21 (2013), 426–446. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2012.2227488 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2012.2227488
![]() |
[16] |
T. Kumbasar, Revisiting Karnik-Mendel algorithms in the framework of linear fractional programming, Int. J. Approx. Reason., 82 (2017), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2016.11.019 doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2016.11.019
![]() |
[17] |
J. M. Mendel, F. L. Liu, Super-exponential convergence of the Karnik-Mendel algorithms for computing the centroid of an interval type-2 fuzzy set, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 15 (2007), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2006.882463 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2006.882463
![]() |
[18] |
D. R. Wu, J. M. Mendel, Perceptual reasoning for perceptual computing: a similarity based approach, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 17 (2009), 1397–1411. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2009.2032652 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2009.2032652
![]() |
[19] |
D. R. Wu, J. M. Mendel, Enhanced Karnik-Mendel algorithms, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 17 (2009), 923–934. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2008.924329 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2008.924329
![]() |
[20] |
X. W. Liu, J. M. Mendel, D. R. Wu, Study on enhanced Karnik-Mendel algorithms: initialization explanations and computation improvements, Inform. Sci., 184 (2012), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.07.042 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2011.07.042
![]() |
[21] |
Y. Chen, Study on sampling-based discrete noniterative algorithms for centroid type-reduction of interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems, Soft Comput., 24 (2020), 11819–11828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-04998-2 doi: 10.1007/s00500-020-04998-2
![]() |
[22] |
O. Castillo, P. Melin, E. Ontiveros, C. Peraza, P. Ochoa, F. Valdez, et al., A high-speed interval type 2 fuzzy system approach for dynamic parameter adaptation in metaheuristics, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 85 (2019), 666–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.07.020 doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2019.07.020
![]() |
[23] |
G. M. Méndez, M. D. L. A. Hernandez, Hybrid learning mechanism for interval A2-C1 type-2 non-singleton type-2 Takagi-Sugeno-Kang fuzzy logic systems, Inform. Sci., 220 (2013), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2012.01.024 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2012.01.024
![]() |
[24] |
J. M. Mendel, Type-2 fuzzy sets and systems: an overview, IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag., 2 (2007), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCI.2007.380672 doi: 10.1109/MCI.2007.380672
![]() |
[25] |
Y. Chen, D. Z. Wang, Study on centroid type-reduction of general type-2 fuzzy logic systems with weighted enhanced Karnik-Mendel algorithms, Soft Comput., 22 (2018), 1361–1380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-017-2938-3 doi: 10.1007/s00500-017-2938-3
![]() |
[26] |
Y. Chen, D. Z. Wang, Study on centroid type-reduction of general type-2 fuzzy logic systems with weighted Nie-Tan algorithms, Soft Comput., 22 (2018), 7659–7678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3551-9 doi: 10.1007/s00500-018-3551-9
![]() |
[27] |
D. R. Wu, Approaches for reducing the computational cost of interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems: overview and comparisons, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 21 (2013), 80–99. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2012.2201728 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2012.2201728
![]() |
[28] | T. Wang, Y. Chen, S. C. Tong, Fuzzy reasoning models and algorithms on type-2 fuzzy sets, Int. J. Innov. Comput. Inform. Control, 24 (2008), 2451–2460. |
[29] |
J. W. Li, R. John, S. Coupland, G. Kendall, On Nie-Tan operator and type-reduction of interval type-2 fuzzy sets, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 26 (2018), 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2017.2666842 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2017.2666842
![]() |
[30] |
S. Greenfield, F. Chiclana, Accuracy and complexity evaluation of defuzzification strategies for the discretised interval type-2 fuzzy set, Int. J. Approx. Reason., 54 (2013), 1013–1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2013.04.013 doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2013.04.013
![]() |
[31] |
E. Ontiveros-Robles, P. Melin, O. Castillo, New methodology to approximate type-reduction based on a continuous root-finding karnik mendel algorithm, Algorithms, 10 (2017), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.3390/a10030077 doi: 10.3390/a10030077
![]() |
[32] |
Y. Chen, J. X. Wu, J. Lan, Study on reasonable initialization enhanced Karnik-Mendel algorithms for centroid type-reduction of interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems, AIMS Math., 5 (2020), 6149–6168. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2020395 doi: 10.3934/math.2020395
![]() |
[33] |
J. M. Mendel, X. W. Liu, Simplified interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 21 (2013), 1056–1069. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2241771 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2241771
![]() |
[34] |
M. A. Khanesar, A. Jalalian, O. Kaynak, H. Gao, Improving the speed of center of sets type reduction in interval type-2 fuzzy systems by eliminating the need for sorting, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 25 (2017), 1193–1206. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2016.2602392 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2016.2602392
![]() |
[35] |
J. M. Mendel, General type-2 fuzzy logic systems made simple: A tutorial, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 22 (2014), 1162–1182. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2286414 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2286414
![]() |
[36] |
C. H. Hsu, C. F. Juang, Evolutionary robot wall-following control using type-2 fuzzy controller with species-de-activated continuous ACO, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 21 (2013), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2012.2202665 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2012.2202665
![]() |
[37] |
Y. Chen, D. Z. Wang, W. Ning, Forecasting by TSK general type-2 fuzzy logic systems optimized with genetic algorithms, Optim. Control Appl. Method., 39 (2018), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/oca.2353 doi: 10.1002/oca.2353
![]() |
[38] |
F. Gaxiola, P. Melin, F. Valdez, J. R. Castro, O. Castillo, Optimization of type-2 fuzzy weights in backpropagation learning for neural networks using GAs and PSO, Appl. Soft Comput., 38 (2016), 860–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.10.027 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2015.10.027
![]() |
[39] |
Y. Chen, D. Z. Wang, Forecasting by general type-2 fuzzy logic systems optimized with QPSO algorithms, Int. J. Control Autom. Syst., 15 (2017), 2950–2958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12555-017-0793-0 doi: 10.1007/s12555-017-0793-0
![]() |
[40] |
Y. Maldonado, O. Castillo, P. Melin, Particle swarm optimization of interval type-2 fuzzy systems for FPGA applications, Appl. Soft Comput., 13 (2013), 496–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.08.032 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2012.08.032
![]() |
[41] |
E. Ontiveros-Robles, P. Melin, O. Castillo, Comparative analysis of noise robustness of type 2 fuzzy logic controllers, Kybernetika, 54 (2018), 175–201. https://doi.org/10.14736/kyb-2018-1-0175 doi: 10.14736/kyb-2018-1-0175
![]() |
[42] |
L. Cervantes, O. Castillo, Type-2 fuzzy logic aggregation of multiple fuzzy controllers for airplane flight control, Inform. Sci., 324 (2015), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.06.047 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2015.06.047
![]() |
[43] |
O. Castillo, L. Amador-Angulo, J. R. Castro, M. Garcia-Valdez, A comparative study of type-1 fuzzy logic systems, interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems and generalized type-2 fuzzy logic systems in control problems, Inform. Sci., 354 (2016), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.03.026 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2016.03.026
![]() |
[44] |
C. W. Tao, J. S. Taur, C. W. Chang, Y. H. Chang, Simplified type-2 fuzzy sliding controller for wing rocket system, Fuzzy Set. Syst., 207 (2012), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2012.02.015 doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2012.02.015
![]() |
[45] |
D. R. Wu, J. M. Mendel, Recommendations on designing practical interval type-2 fuzzy systems, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 85 (2019), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.06.012 doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2019.06.012
![]() |
[46] |
S. C. Tong, Y. M. Li, Observer-based adaptive fuzzy backstepping control of uncertain pure-feedback systems, Sci. China Inform. Sci., 57 (2014), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-013-5043-y doi: 10.1007/s11432-013-5043-y
![]() |
[47] |
M. Deveci, I. Z. Akyurt, S. Yavuz, GIS-based interval type-2 fuzzy set for public bread factory site selection, J. Enterp. Inform. Manag., 31 (2018), 820–847. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-02-2018-0029 doi: 10.1108/JEIM-02-2018-0029
![]() |
[48] |
S. C. Tong, Y. M. Li, Robust adaptive fuzzy backstepping output feedback tracking control for nonlinear system with dynamic uncertainties, Sci. China Inform. Sci., 53 (2010), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-010-0031-y doi: 10.1007/s11432-010-0031-y
![]() |
[49] | F. Y. Wang, H. Mo, Some fundamental issues on type-2 fuzzy sets, Acta Autom. Sin., 43 (2017), 1114–1141. |
[50] |
H. Mo, F. Y. Wang, M. Zhou, R. Li, Z. Xiao, Footprint of uncertainty for type-2 fuzzy sets, Inform. Sci., 272 (2014), 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.02.092 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2014.02.092
![]() |
[51] |
Y. Chen, J. X. Yang, Study on center-of-sets type-reduction of interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems with noniterative algorithms, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 40 (2021), 11099–11106. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-202264 doi: 10.3233/JIFS-202264
![]() |
[52] |
X. Tao, J. Yi, Z. Pu, T. Xiong, Robust adaptive tracking control for hypersonic vehicle based on interval type-2 fuzzy logic system and small-gain approach, IEEE T. Cybernetics, 51 (2021), 2504–2517. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2019.2927309 doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2019.2927309
![]() |
[53] |
Y. Chen, J. X. Yang, Design of back propagation optimized Nagar-Bardini structure-based interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems for fuzzy identification, T. I. Meas. Control, 43 (2021), 2780–2787. https://doi.org/10.1177/01423312211006635 doi: 10.1177/01423312211006635
![]() |
[54] | L. Wu, F. Qian, L. Wang, X. Ma, An improved type-reduction algorithm for general type-2 fuzzy sets, Inform. Sci., 2022. |
[55] |
Y. Chen, Study on weighted-based noniterative algorithms for computing the centroids of general type-2 fuzzy sets, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst., 24 (2022), 587–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-021-01166-y doi: 10.1007/s40815-021-01166-y
![]() |
[56] |
C. Chen, D. Wu, J. M. Garibaldi, R. I. John, J. Twycross, J. M. Mendel, A comprehensive study of the efficiency of type-reduction algorithms, IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst., 29 (2020), 1556–1566. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.2981002 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.2981002
![]() |
1. | Lei Zhang, Yu Yin, Yi You, 2021, Chapter 27, 978-3-030-79205-3, 352, 10.1007/978-3-030-79206-0_27 | |
2. | Hongzeng He, Shufen Dai, A prediction model for stock market based on the integration of independent component analysis and Multi-LSTM, 2022, 30, 2688-1594, 3855, 10.3934/era.2022196 | |
3. | Tatyana Novikova, Svetlana Evdokimova, Gotsui Wu, Development of a quantitative investment algorithm based on Random Forest, 2022, 15, 2219-0767, 53, 10.12737/2219-0767-2022-15-4-53-60 | |
4. | Yuqi Guo, Bingzhen Sun, Juncheng Bai, Jin Ye, Xiaoli Chu, A new portfolio approach integrating three-way decision and Encoder–Decoder network, 2024, 258, 09574174, 125233, 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125233 |
For nanofluid | For HNF |
ρnf=(1−φ)ρf+φρs1, | ρhnf=(1−φs1−φs2)ρf+φs1ρs1+φ2ρs2, |
(ρCp)nf=(1−φ)(ρCp)f+φ(ρCp)s1, | (ρCp)hnf=(1−φs1−φs2)(ρCp)f+φs1(ρCp)s1+φ2(ρCp)s2, |
μnf=μf(1−φ)2.5, | μhnf=μf(1−φ1−φ2)2.5, |
knflkbf=[kpe+(S−1)kbf−(S−1)(kbf−kpe)(1+β1)3φkpe+(S−1)kbf+(kbf−kpe)(1+β1)3φ], where kpe=[2(1−λ)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ)]λ−(1−λ)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ)ks, |
khnflkbf=[kpe2+(S−1)kbf−(S−1)(kbf−kpe2)(1+β1)3φs2kpe2+(S−1)kbf+(kbf−kpe2)(1+β1)3φs2], where \frac{{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{f}}}{{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{f}}}=\left[\frac{{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}1}+\left(\mathrm{S}-1\right){\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{f}}-\left(\mathrm{S}-1\right)\left({\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{f}}-{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}1}\,right){\left(1+{\mathrm{\beta }}_{1}\right)}^{3}{\mathrm{\varphi }}_{\mathrm{s}1}}{{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}1}+\left(\mathrm{S}-1\right){\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{f}}+\left({\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{f}}-{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}1}\,\right){\left(1+{\mathrm{\beta }}_{1}\right)}^{3}{\mathrm{\varphi }}_{\mathrm{s}1}}\right], where kpe1=[2(1−λ1)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ1)]λ1−(1−λ1)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ1)ks1, kpe2=[2(1−λ)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ)]λ−(1−λ)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ)ks2, |
σnfσf=σs1+2σf−2φ1(σf−σs1)σs1+2σf+φ1(σf−σs1). | σhnfσbf=σs2+2σbf−2φ2(σbf−σs2)σs2+2σbf+φ2(σbf−σs2), where σbfσf=σs1+2σf−2φ1(σf−σs1)σs1+2σf+φ1(σf−σs1). |
Physical properties | Base fluid | Nanoparticles | |
Water (H2O) | PTFE | SWCNT | |
CP(j/kgK) | 4179 | 970 | 425 |
ρ(kg/m3) | 997 | 2200 | 2600 |
K(W/mK) | 0.608 | 0.25 | 6600 |
Maxwell model | Hamilton and Crosser (H-C) model | Xue model |
knfkbf=ks+2kbf−2φ(kbf−ks)ks+2kbf+φ(kbf−ks) | knfkbf=ks+(S−1)kbf−(S−1)φ(kbf−ks)ks+(S−1)kbf+φ(kbf−ks) | knfkbf=1−φ+2φ[ks(ks−kbf)]In[ks+kbf2kbf]1−φ+2φ[kbf(ks−kbf)]In[ks+kbf2kbf] |
η | f(η) | f'(η) | f''(η) |
-1 | -1 | 0 | 1.23169 |
-0.8 | -0.971619 | 0.303868 | 1.83141 |
-0.6 | -0.869844 | 0.734952 | 2.45554 |
-0.4 | -0.671254 | 1.25769 | 2.64651 |
-0.2 | -0.370295 | 1.72443 | 1.82153 |
0 | 4.8871×10(-8) | 1.91717 | -5.09381×10(-8) |
0.2 | 0.370295 | 1.72443 | -1.82153 |
0.4 | 0.671254 | 1.25769 | -2.64651 |
0.6 | 0.869844 | 0.734952 | -2.45554 |
0.8 | 0.971619 | 0.303868 | -1.83141 |
1 | 1 | 0 | -1.23169 |
h | r | φs1=φs2 | S | khnfl | khnf |
0.4 | 0.8 | 2% | 3 | 1.25951 | 1.04573 |
0.6 | 1.39172 | 1.04573 | |||
0.8 | 1.4749 | 1.04573 | |||
1 | 1.52875 | 1.04573 | |||
1.2 | 1.56473 | 1.04573 | |||
1.4 | 1.58951 | 1.04573 | |||
1.6 | 1.60707 | 1.04573 | |||
0.4 | 1 | 2% | 3 | 1.25951 | 1.04573 |
1.2 | 1.18620 | 1.04573 | |||
1.4 | 1.08329 | 1.04573 | |||
1.6 | 1.04631 | 1.04573 | |||
1.8 | 1.01581 | 1.04573 | |||
2 | 0.990267 | 1.04573 | |||
0.4 | 0.8 | 3% | 3 | 1.29148 | 1.06891 |
4% | 1.32414 | 1.09232 | |||
5% | 1.35752 | 1.11595 | |||
6% | 1.39162 | 1.13982 | |||
7% | 1.42647 | 1.16394 | |||
8% | 1.46208 | 1.18831 | |||
0.2 | 0.8 | 2% | 3 | 1.25951 | 1.04573 |
5.7 | 1.23202 | 1.01163 | |||
16 | 1.18829 | 1.00984 |
h | r | φs1=φs2 | S | α∗ | M∗ | Pr | Cf−1 for suction case | Nuǀη=−1 for suction case | Cf−1 for injection case | Nuǀη=−1 for injection case |
0.4 | 0.8 | 2% | 3 | -1 | 1 | 6.2 | 4.1612 | 0.391643 | 5.15113 | 6.38635 |
0.8 | 4.1612 | 0.426513 | 5.15113 | 6.97705 | ||||||
1.2 | 4.1612 | 0.43887 | 5.15113 | 7.27113 | ||||||
1.6 | 4.1612 | 0.4430 | 5.15113 | 7.36504 | ||||||
0.2 | 1 | 2% | 4.1612 | 0.377217 | 5.15113 | 6.11274 | ||||
1.2 | 4.1612 | 0.36550 | 5.15113 | 5.91552 | ||||||
1.4 | 4.1612 | 0.355864 | 5.15113 | 5.73457 | ||||||
1.6 | 4.1612 | 0.34729 | 5.15113 | 5.5923 | ||||||
1.8 | 4.1612 | 0.339912 | 5.15113 | 5.44889 | ||||||
2 | 4.1612 | 0.333482 | 5.15113 | 5.34295 | ||||||
0.8 | 3% | 4.4447 | 0.417098 | 5.99246 | 5.22673 | |||||
4% | 4.6902 | 0.419584 | 6.10532 | 5.37543 | ||||||
5% | 5.09975 | 0.42962 | 6.45018 | 5.40737 | ||||||
6% | 5.39447 | 0.43225 | 7.33692 | 5.52024 | ||||||
2% | 5.7 | 4.16126 | 4.68091 | 5.15113 | 4.68091 | |||||
16 | 4.16126 | 4.48139 | 5.15113 | 4.48139 | ||||||
-2 | 5.6884 | 1.5682 | 7.4958 | 6.0701 | ||||||
-1 | 4.8060 | 0.5089 | 7.4885 | 4.01579 | ||||||
0 | 3.0190 | 0.11391 | 4.6616 | 2.07580 | ||||||
1 | 1.6621 | 0.02079 | 1.69420 | 0.83367 | ||||||
2 | 0.7781 | 0.0034132 | -1.6029 | 0.287673 | ||||||
-1 | 1 | 4.63161 | 0.434089 | 5.70674 | 4.88936 | |||||
3 | 5.58803 | 0.44855 | 6.45215 | 4.57098 | ||||||
9 | 5.87033 | 0.46987 | 6.9390 | 3.86002 | ||||||
11 | 6.8723 | 0.473094 | 7.2379 | 3.85519 | ||||||
1 | 6.2 | 4.26126 | 0.41097 | 5.49747 | 5.54713 | |||||
5.5 | 4.26126 | 0.42796 | 5.49747 | 4.89344 | ||||||
5.2 | 4.26126 | 0.435245 | 5.49747 | 4.58897 | ||||||
4.5 | 4.26126 | 0.452571 | 5.49747 | 3.8860 |
h | r | φs1=φs2 | S | Re | M∗ | Pr | Cf−1 for contraction case | Nuǀη=−1 for contraction case | Cf−1 for expansion case | Nuǀη=−1 for expansion case |
0.4 | 0.8 | 2% | 3 | -1 | 1 | 6.2 | 4.16126 | 0.391643 | 2.42591 | 0.00196 |
0.8 | 4.16126 | 0.426513 | 2.42591 | 0.00200 | ||||||
1.2 | 4.16126 | 0.43887 | 2.42591 | 0.00206 | ||||||
1.6 | 4.16126 | 0.4430 | 2.42591 | 0.00209 | ||||||
0.2 | 1 | 4.16126 | 0.377217 | 2.42591 | 0.0021 | |||||
1.2 | 4.16126 | 0.36550 | 2.42591 | 0.00194 | ||||||
1.4 | 4.16126 | 0.355864 | 2.42591 | 0.00183201 | ||||||
1.6 | 4.16126 | 0.34729 | 2.42591 | 0.001807 | ||||||
1.8 | 4.16126 | 0.339912 | 2.42591 | 0.001767 | ||||||
2 | 4.16126 | 0.333482 | 2.42591 | 0.001766 | ||||||
0.8 | 3% | 4.4447 | 0.417098 | 2.55701 | 0.00198 | |||||
4% | 4.69021 | 0.419584 | 2.63048 | 0.00218 | ||||||
5% | 5.09975 | 0.42962 | 2.70455 | 0.00244 | ||||||
6% | 5.39447 | 0.43225 | 2.82254 | 0.00249 | ||||||
2% | 5.7 | 4.16126 | 4.68091 | 2.42591 | 0.00193 | |||||
16 | 4.16126 | 4.48139 | 2.42691 | 0.00179 | ||||||
-2 | 1.9029 | 1.5682 | 1.16283 | 0.000052 | ||||||
-1.5 | 2.6488 | 0.09384 | 1.15799 | 0.00039 | ||||||
-1 | 4.1626 | 0.05089 | 2.42591 | 0.00916 | ||||||
1 | 4.8060 | 0.01254 | 3.3248 | 0.0175 | ||||||
2 | 5.8672 | 0.00243 | 3.0047 | 0.0232 | ||||||
-1 | 1 | 41612 | 0.391643 | 2.42591 | 0.00192 | |||||
3 | 5.0499 | 0.39928 | 2.84139 | 0.00202 | ||||||
9 | 5.5127 | 0.417178 | 3.896 | 0.00224 | ||||||
11 | 5.7993 | 0.42936 | 4.20132 | 0.002304 | ||||||
1 | 6.2 | 4.1612 | 0.392613 | 2.42591 | 0.00192 | |||||
5.5 | 4.16126 | 0.41001 | 2.42591 | 0.0039 | ||||||
5.2 | 4.16126 | 0.41806 | 2.42591 | 0.00529 | ||||||
4.5 | 4.16126 | 0.43727 | 2.42591 | 0.01064 |
Bvp4c results | Shooting method results | |
h | Nuǀη=−1 for suction case | Nuǀη=−1 for suction case |
0.4 | 0.391635 | 0.391643 |
0.8 | 0.426509 | 0.426513 |
1.2 | 0.438828 | 0.43887 |
1.6 | 0.443035 | 0.4430 |
0.4 | 0.377209 | 0.377217 |
Kashif et al [35] | Present results | Kashif et al [35] | Present results | ||
φ | φs1 | α<0 | α<0 | α>0 | α>0 |
0% | 0% | 3.1664 | 3.166501 | 1.6794 | 1.67956 |
5% | 5% | 3.6112 | 3.6113 | 1.9174 | 1.91749 |
10% | 10% | 4.1606 | 4.160708 | 2.2135 | 2.21378 |
15% | 15% | 4.8430 | 4.84315 | 2.5839 | 2.58399 |
20% | 20% | 5.6988 | 5.69893 | 3.0519 | 3.051989 |
For nanofluid | For HNF |
ρnf=(1−φ)ρf+φρs1, | ρhnf=(1−φs1−φs2)ρf+φs1ρs1+φ2ρs2, |
(ρCp)nf=(1−φ)(ρCp)f+φ(ρCp)s1, | (ρCp)hnf=(1−φs1−φs2)(ρCp)f+φs1(ρCp)s1+φ2(ρCp)s2, |
μnf=μf(1−φ)2.5, | μhnf=μf(1−φ1−φ2)2.5, |
knflkbf=[kpe+(S−1)kbf−(S−1)(kbf−kpe)(1+β1)3φkpe+(S−1)kbf+(kbf−kpe)(1+β1)3φ], where kpe=[2(1−λ)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ)]λ−(1−λ)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ)ks, |
khnflkbf=[kpe2+(S−1)kbf−(S−1)(kbf−kpe2)(1+β1)3φs2kpe2+(S−1)kbf+(kbf−kpe2)(1+β1)3φs2], where \frac{{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{f}}}{{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{f}}}=\left[\frac{{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}1}+\left(\mathrm{S}-1\right){\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{f}}-\left(\mathrm{S}-1\right)\left({\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{f}}-{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}1}\,right){\left(1+{\mathrm{\beta }}_{1}\right)}^{3}{\mathrm{\varphi }}_{\mathrm{s}1}}{{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}1}+\left(\mathrm{S}-1\right){\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{f}}+\left({\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{f}}-{\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}1}\,\right){\left(1+{\mathrm{\beta }}_{1}\right)}^{3}{\mathrm{\varphi }}_{\mathrm{s}1}}\right], where kpe1=[2(1−λ1)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ1)]λ1−(1−λ1)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ1)ks1, kpe2=[2(1−λ)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ)]λ−(1−λ)+(1+β1)3(1+2λ)ks2, |
σnfσf=σs1+2σf−2φ1(σf−σs1)σs1+2σf+φ1(σf−σs1). | σhnfσbf=σs2+2σbf−2φ2(σbf−σs2)σs2+2σbf+φ2(σbf−σs2), where σbfσf=σs1+2σf−2φ1(σf−σs1)σs1+2σf+φ1(σf−σs1). |
Physical properties | Base fluid | Nanoparticles | |
Water (H2O) | PTFE | SWCNT | |
CP(j/kgK) | 4179 | 970 | 425 |
ρ(kg/m3) | 997 | 2200 | 2600 |
K(W/mK) | 0.608 | 0.25 | 6600 |
Maxwell model | Hamilton and Crosser (H-C) model | Xue model |
knfkbf=ks+2kbf−2φ(kbf−ks)ks+2kbf+φ(kbf−ks) | knfkbf=ks+(S−1)kbf−(S−1)φ(kbf−ks)ks+(S−1)kbf+φ(kbf−ks) | knfkbf=1−φ+2φ[ks(ks−kbf)]In[ks+kbf2kbf]1−φ+2φ[kbf(ks−kbf)]In[ks+kbf2kbf] |
η | f(η) | f'(η) | f''(η) |
-1 | -1 | 0 | 1.23169 |
-0.8 | -0.971619 | 0.303868 | 1.83141 |
-0.6 | -0.869844 | 0.734952 | 2.45554 |
-0.4 | -0.671254 | 1.25769 | 2.64651 |
-0.2 | -0.370295 | 1.72443 | 1.82153 |
0 | 4.8871×10(-8) | 1.91717 | -5.09381×10(-8) |
0.2 | 0.370295 | 1.72443 | -1.82153 |
0.4 | 0.671254 | 1.25769 | -2.64651 |
0.6 | 0.869844 | 0.734952 | -2.45554 |
0.8 | 0.971619 | 0.303868 | -1.83141 |
1 | 1 | 0 | -1.23169 |
h | r | φs1=φs2 | S | khnfl | khnf |
0.4 | 0.8 | 2% | 3 | 1.25951 | 1.04573 |
0.6 | 1.39172 | 1.04573 | |||
0.8 | 1.4749 | 1.04573 | |||
1 | 1.52875 | 1.04573 | |||
1.2 | 1.56473 | 1.04573 | |||
1.4 | 1.58951 | 1.04573 | |||
1.6 | 1.60707 | 1.04573 | |||
0.4 | 1 | 2% | 3 | 1.25951 | 1.04573 |
1.2 | 1.18620 | 1.04573 | |||
1.4 | 1.08329 | 1.04573 | |||
1.6 | 1.04631 | 1.04573 | |||
1.8 | 1.01581 | 1.04573 | |||
2 | 0.990267 | 1.04573 | |||
0.4 | 0.8 | 3% | 3 | 1.29148 | 1.06891 |
4% | 1.32414 | 1.09232 | |||
5% | 1.35752 | 1.11595 | |||
6% | 1.39162 | 1.13982 | |||
7% | 1.42647 | 1.16394 | |||
8% | 1.46208 | 1.18831 | |||
0.2 | 0.8 | 2% | 3 | 1.25951 | 1.04573 |
5.7 | 1.23202 | 1.01163 | |||
16 | 1.18829 | 1.00984 |
h | r | φs1=φs2 | S | α∗ | M∗ | Pr | Cf−1 for suction case | Nuǀη=−1 for suction case | Cf−1 for injection case | Nuǀη=−1 for injection case |
0.4 | 0.8 | 2% | 3 | -1 | 1 | 6.2 | 4.1612 | 0.391643 | 5.15113 | 6.38635 |
0.8 | 4.1612 | 0.426513 | 5.15113 | 6.97705 | ||||||
1.2 | 4.1612 | 0.43887 | 5.15113 | 7.27113 | ||||||
1.6 | 4.1612 | 0.4430 | 5.15113 | 7.36504 | ||||||
0.2 | 1 | 2% | 4.1612 | 0.377217 | 5.15113 | 6.11274 | ||||
1.2 | 4.1612 | 0.36550 | 5.15113 | 5.91552 | ||||||
1.4 | 4.1612 | 0.355864 | 5.15113 | 5.73457 | ||||||
1.6 | 4.1612 | 0.34729 | 5.15113 | 5.5923 | ||||||
1.8 | 4.1612 | 0.339912 | 5.15113 | 5.44889 | ||||||
2 | 4.1612 | 0.333482 | 5.15113 | 5.34295 | ||||||
0.8 | 3% | 4.4447 | 0.417098 | 5.99246 | 5.22673 | |||||
4% | 4.6902 | 0.419584 | 6.10532 | 5.37543 | ||||||
5% | 5.09975 | 0.42962 | 6.45018 | 5.40737 | ||||||
6% | 5.39447 | 0.43225 | 7.33692 | 5.52024 | ||||||
2% | 5.7 | 4.16126 | 4.68091 | 5.15113 | 4.68091 | |||||
16 | 4.16126 | 4.48139 | 5.15113 | 4.48139 | ||||||
-2 | 5.6884 | 1.5682 | 7.4958 | 6.0701 | ||||||
-1 | 4.8060 | 0.5089 | 7.4885 | 4.01579 | ||||||
0 | 3.0190 | 0.11391 | 4.6616 | 2.07580 | ||||||
1 | 1.6621 | 0.02079 | 1.69420 | 0.83367 | ||||||
2 | 0.7781 | 0.0034132 | -1.6029 | 0.287673 | ||||||
-1 | 1 | 4.63161 | 0.434089 | 5.70674 | 4.88936 | |||||
3 | 5.58803 | 0.44855 | 6.45215 | 4.57098 | ||||||
9 | 5.87033 | 0.46987 | 6.9390 | 3.86002 | ||||||
11 | 6.8723 | 0.473094 | 7.2379 | 3.85519 | ||||||
1 | 6.2 | 4.26126 | 0.41097 | 5.49747 | 5.54713 | |||||
5.5 | 4.26126 | 0.42796 | 5.49747 | 4.89344 | ||||||
5.2 | 4.26126 | 0.435245 | 5.49747 | 4.58897 | ||||||
4.5 | 4.26126 | 0.452571 | 5.49747 | 3.8860 |
h | r | φs1=φs2 | S | Re | M∗ | Pr | Cf−1 for contraction case | Nuǀη=−1 for contraction case | Cf−1 for expansion case | Nuǀη=−1 for expansion case |
0.4 | 0.8 | 2% | 3 | -1 | 1 | 6.2 | 4.16126 | 0.391643 | 2.42591 | 0.00196 |
0.8 | 4.16126 | 0.426513 | 2.42591 | 0.00200 | ||||||
1.2 | 4.16126 | 0.43887 | 2.42591 | 0.00206 | ||||||
1.6 | 4.16126 | 0.4430 | 2.42591 | 0.00209 | ||||||
0.2 | 1 | 4.16126 | 0.377217 | 2.42591 | 0.0021 | |||||
1.2 | 4.16126 | 0.36550 | 2.42591 | 0.00194 | ||||||
1.4 | 4.16126 | 0.355864 | 2.42591 | 0.00183201 | ||||||
1.6 | 4.16126 | 0.34729 | 2.42591 | 0.001807 | ||||||
1.8 | 4.16126 | 0.339912 | 2.42591 | 0.001767 | ||||||
2 | 4.16126 | 0.333482 | 2.42591 | 0.001766 | ||||||
0.8 | 3% | 4.4447 | 0.417098 | 2.55701 | 0.00198 | |||||
4% | 4.69021 | 0.419584 | 2.63048 | 0.00218 | ||||||
5% | 5.09975 | 0.42962 | 2.70455 | 0.00244 | ||||||
6% | 5.39447 | 0.43225 | 2.82254 | 0.00249 | ||||||
2% | 5.7 | 4.16126 | 4.68091 | 2.42591 | 0.00193 | |||||
16 | 4.16126 | 4.48139 | 2.42691 | 0.00179 | ||||||
-2 | 1.9029 | 1.5682 | 1.16283 | 0.000052 | ||||||
-1.5 | 2.6488 | 0.09384 | 1.15799 | 0.00039 | ||||||
-1 | 4.1626 | 0.05089 | 2.42591 | 0.00916 | ||||||
1 | 4.8060 | 0.01254 | 3.3248 | 0.0175 | ||||||
2 | 5.8672 | 0.00243 | 3.0047 | 0.0232 | ||||||
-1 | 1 | 41612 | 0.391643 | 2.42591 | 0.00192 | |||||
3 | 5.0499 | 0.39928 | 2.84139 | 0.00202 | ||||||
9 | 5.5127 | 0.417178 | 3.896 | 0.00224 | ||||||
11 | 5.7993 | 0.42936 | 4.20132 | 0.002304 | ||||||
1 | 6.2 | 4.1612 | 0.392613 | 2.42591 | 0.00192 | |||||
5.5 | 4.16126 | 0.41001 | 2.42591 | 0.0039 | ||||||
5.2 | 4.16126 | 0.41806 | 2.42591 | 0.00529 | ||||||
4.5 | 4.16126 | 0.43727 | 2.42591 | 0.01064 |
Bvp4c results | Shooting method results | |
h | Nuǀη=−1 for suction case | Nuǀη=−1 for suction case |
0.4 | 0.391635 | 0.391643 |
0.8 | 0.426509 | 0.426513 |
1.2 | 0.438828 | 0.43887 |
1.6 | 0.443035 | 0.4430 |
0.4 | 0.377209 | 0.377217 |
Kashif et al [35] | Present results | Kashif et al [35] | Present results | ||
φ | φs1 | α<0 | α<0 | α>0 | α>0 |
0% | 0% | 3.1664 | 3.166501 | 1.6794 | 1.67956 |
5% | 5% | 3.6112 | 3.6113 | 1.9174 | 1.91749 |
10% | 10% | 4.1606 | 4.160708 | 2.2135 | 2.21378 |
15% | 15% | 4.8430 | 4.84315 | 2.5839 | 2.58399 |
20% | 20% | 5.6988 | 5.69893 | 3.0519 | 3.051989 |