Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Mathematical Problems in Engineering / 2011 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2011 |Article ID 875754 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/875754

R. A. Hamid, N. M. Arifin, R. Nazar, F. M. Ali, I. Pop, "Dual Solutions on Thermosolutal Marangoni Forced Convection Boundary Layer with Suction and Injection", Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2011, Article ID 875754, 19 pages, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/875754

Dual Solutions on Thermosolutal Marangoni Forced Convection Boundary Layer with Suction and Injection

Academic Editor: Saad A. Ragab
Received30 Sep 2010
Accepted15 Jan 2011
Published09 Mar 2011

Abstract

This paper considers the extended problem of the thermosolutal Marangoni forced convection boundary layer by Pop et al. (2001) when the wall is permeable, namely, there is a suction or injection effect. The governing system of partial differential equations is transformed into a system of ordinary differential equations, and the transformed equations are solved numerically using the shooting method. The effects of suction or injection parameter 𝑓0 on the velocity, temperature, and concentration profiles are illustrated and presented in tables and figures. It is shown that dual solutions exist for the similarity parameter 𝛽 less than 0.5.

1. Introduction

Thermosolutal Marangoni forced convection boundary layer flow refers to the thermal and solutal concentration in Marangoni forced convection boundary layer flow due to the surface tension gradients. The study of Marangoni convection has attracted the interest of many researchers in recent years. This is mainly because of its vast contributions in the industrial field especially in the art work of dyeing on the ground (Kuroda [1]) and in the field of crystal growth (Arafune and Hirata [2]). Some of the relevant works are done by Christopher and Wang [3] who studied the effects of Prandtl number on the Marangoni convection over a flat plate. They have also presented a similarity solution for Marangoni flow for both the momentum and the energy equations assuming a developing boundary layer along a surface. Besides, Chamkha et al. [4] have dealt with a steady coupled dissipative layer, called Marangoni mixed convection boundary layer. The mixed convection boundary layer is generated when besides the Marangoni effects there are also buoyancy effects due to the gravitational and external pressure gradient effects. Furthermore, in the following papers, numerical solutions on Marangoni boundary layers in various geometries were discovered, analyzed, and discussed, for instance, papers by Golia and Viviani [5], Dressler and Sivakumaran [6], Al-Mudhaf and Chamkha [7], and Magyari and Chamkha [8]. An excellent paper on Marangoni boundary layer flow along the interface of the immiscible nanofluid by Arifin et al. [9] has been recently published. They show that the results indicate that dual solutions exist when 𝛽<0.5. The paper complements also the work by Golia and Viviani [5] concerning the dual solutions in the case of adverse pressure gradient.

Investigations into the effects of suction and injection on the boundary layer flow have generated the interest of many researchers nowadays. Pop and Watanabe [10] analyzed the effects of uniform suction or injection on the boundary layer flow and heat transfer on a continuous moving permeable surface. Meanwhile, Hamza [11] obtained the similarity solution for a flow between two parallel plates (rectangular or circular) approaching or receding from each other with suction or injection at the porous plate. Shojaefard et al. [12] investigated the numerical study concerning flow control by suction and injection on a subsonic airfoil. They discovered that the surface suction can significantly increase the lift coefficient; meanwhile, the injection decreases the skin friction.

The existence of dual solutions or second solutions has aroused a lot of interest of many authors. We mention here some of the papers that discovered the dual solution in their problems. For example, papers by de Hoog et al. [13], Ingham [14], Ramachandran et al. [15], Xu and Liao [16] and Ishak et al. [17–19]. Ridha [20] considered the dual solutions of two coupled third-degree nonlinear ordinary differential equations associated with the incompressible viscous laminar flow along a corner. Further, Xu and Liao [16], obtained the dual solutions of boundary layer flow over an upstream moving plate using the homotopy analysis method (HAM). Ishak et al. [19] discovered the dual solution of the classical Blasius problem. In their study, they considered the boundary layer flow over a static flat plate and introduced a new parameter, namely, the velocity ratio parameter to analyze the case when both the flat plate and the free stream are in moving situations. Dual solutions are found to exist when the plate and the free stream move in the opposite directions.

In this paper, we extend the problem by Pop et al. [21] by taking the effects of suction or injection for the boundary layer flow. We would also like to investigate whether the dual solutions exist in the above problem. To validate our findings, we have compared the present results with those of Pop et al. [21] for the case of impermeable surface. It is found that the results are in very good agreement. The effects of suction and injection parameter on the surface velocity, temperature, and concentration as well as on velocity, temperature, and concentration profiles are discussed and illustrated in tables and figures.

2. Mathematical Formulation

We consider the steady two-dimensional flow along the interface 𝑆 of two Newtonian immiscible fluids, where π‘₯ and 𝑦 are the axes of a Cartesian coordinate system. We also assume that the temperature and concentration at the interface are 𝑇𝑠(π‘₯) and 𝐢𝑠(π‘₯), respectively. Besides, the surface is assumed to be permeable so as to allow for possible suction or injection at the wall (Al-Mudhaf and Chamkha [7]). Under the usual boundary-layer approximations, the basic governing equations are (see Pop et al. [21])πœ•π‘’+πœ•π‘₯πœ•π‘£π‘’πœ•π‘¦=0,πœ•π‘’πœ•π‘₯+π‘£πœ•π‘’πœ•π‘¦=π‘’π‘’π‘‘π‘’π‘’πœ•π‘‘π‘₯+𝜈2π‘’πœ•π‘¦2,π‘’πœ•π‘‡πœ•π‘₯+π‘£πœ•π‘‡πœ•πœ•π‘¦=𝛼2π‘‡πœ•π‘¦2,π‘’πœ•πΆπœ•π‘₯+π‘£πœ•πΆπœ•πœ•π‘¦=𝐷2πΆπœ•π‘¦2,(2.1)

with the boundary conditions,𝑣=𝑣𝑀,𝑇=𝑇𝑠(π‘₯),𝐢=𝐢𝑠(π‘₯),πœ‡πœ•π‘’πœ•π‘¦=πœŽπ‘‡πœ•π‘‡πœ•π‘₯+πœŽπΆπœ•πΆπœ•π‘₯on𝑦=0,(2.2)π‘’βŸΆπ‘’π‘’(π‘₯),π‘‡βŸΆπ‘‡π‘šπΆβŸΆπΆπ‘šasπ‘¦βŸΆβˆž,(2.3) where 𝑒 and 𝑣 are the velocity components along π‘₯ and 𝑦 axes, 𝑇 is the fluid temperature, 𝐢 is the solutal concentration, 𝑒𝑒(π‘₯) is the external velocity, 𝛼 is the thermal diffusivity, 𝜈 is the kinematic viscosity, 𝐷 is the mass diffusivity, and 𝑣𝑀 is the constant suction (𝑣𝑀>0) or injection (𝑣𝑀<0) velocity, πœ‡ is the dynamic viscosity, and πœŽπ‘‡ and 𝜎𝐢 are the rates of change of surface tension with temperature and solute concentration, respectively. As mentioned by Pop et al. [21], the forth condition of (2.2) represents the Marangoni coupling conditions at the interface (balance of the surface tangential momentum), having considered for the surface tension the linear relation given by𝜎=πœŽπ‘šβˆ’πœŽπ‘‡ξ€·π‘‡βˆ’π‘‡π‘šξ€Έβˆ’πœŽπΆξ€·πΆβˆ’πΆπ‘šξ€Έ,πœŽπ‘‡=βˆ’πœ•πœŽπœ•π‘‡,𝜎𝐢=βˆ’πœ•πœŽπœ•πΆ.(2.4) Following Pop et al. [21], we define the following nondimensional variables: π‘₯=𝐿0+𝑋𝐿,𝑦=π›ΏπΏπ‘Œ,𝑒=π‘ˆπ‘π‘ˆ,𝑣=π›Ώπ‘ˆπ‘π‘‰,𝑇=π‘‡π‘š+𝑑Δ𝑇,𝐢=πΆπ‘š+πœ™Ξ”πΆ,𝑒𝑒(π‘₯)=π‘ˆcπ‘ˆπ‘’(π‘₯),𝑣𝑀=π‘ˆc𝐿𝛿2𝑉𝑀,(2.5) where  𝐿0 locates the origin of the curvilinear abscissa π‘₯, 𝐿 is the extension of the relevant interface 𝑆,andΔ𝑇 and Δ𝐢 are positive increments of temperature and solute concentration linked to the temperature and solute concentration gradients imposed on the interface, respectively. Further, 𝛿 is a scale factor in the direction normal to the interface, and π‘ˆc is the reference velocity which is defined as 𝛿=Reβˆ’1/3 and π‘ˆc=𝜈/(𝐿𝛿2) with Re=πœŽπ‘‡Ξ”π‘‡πΏ/πœˆπœ‡ being the Reynolds number. Substituting (2.5) into (2.1), we obtain the following nondimensional equations: πœ•π‘ˆ+πœ•π‘‹πœ•π‘‰π‘ˆπœ•π‘Œ=0,πœ•π‘ˆπœ•π‘‹+π‘‰πœ•π‘ˆπœ•π‘Œ=π‘ˆπ‘’π‘‘π‘ˆπ‘’+πœ•π‘‘π‘‹2π‘ˆπœ•π‘Œ2,π‘ˆπœ•π‘‘πœ•π‘‹+π‘‰πœ•π‘‘=1πœ•π‘Œπ‘ƒπ‘Ÿπœ•2π‘‘πœ•π‘Œ2,π‘ˆπœ•πœ™πœ•π‘‹+π‘‰πœ•πœ™=1πœ•π‘Œπœ•Sc2πœ™πœ•π‘Œ2,(2.6) and the boundary conditions (2.2) and (2.3) reduce to𝑉=𝑉𝑀,𝑑=𝑑𝑠(𝑋),πœ™=πœ™π‘ (𝑋),πœ•π‘ˆ=πœ•π‘Œπœ•π‘‘πœ•π‘‹+πœ€πœ•πœ™πœ•π‘‹onπ‘Œ=0,π‘ˆβŸΆπ‘ˆπ‘’(𝑋),π‘‘βŸΆ0,πœ™βŸΆ0asπ‘ŒβŸΆβˆž,(2.7) where Pr is the Prandtl number, Sc is the Schmidt number, and πœ€ is the Marangoni parameter and is defined asπœ€=π‘€π‘ŽπΆπ‘€π‘Žπ‘‡=πœŽπΆΞ”πΆπœŽπ‘‡Ξ”π‘‡,(2.8) with π‘€π‘ŽπΆ=πœŽπΆΞ”πΆπΏ/πœ‡π›Ό and π‘€π‘Žπ‘‡=πœŽπ‘‡Ξ”π‘‡πΏ/πœ‡π›Ό being the solutal Marangoni number and thermal Marangoni number, respectively. It is also noted that positive 𝑉𝑀 is for fluid suction and negative for fluid injection at the wall. Equations (2.6) can be transformed into the corresponding ordinary differential equations by the following transformations (see Pop et al. [21]): π‘ˆ=𝑒0𝑋(2π›½βˆ’1)/3π‘“ξ…ž1(πœ‚),𝑉=3𝑒0𝑙0π‘₯(π›½βˆ’2)/3ξ€·(2βˆ’π›½)πœ‚π‘“ξ…žξ€Έ,(πœ‚)βˆ’(1+𝛽)𝑓(πœ‚)𝑑=βˆ’π‘‘0π‘‹π›½πœƒ(πœ‚),πœ™=βˆ’π‘0π‘‹π›½β„Ž(πœ‚),π‘ˆπ‘’=𝑒0𝑋(2π›½βˆ’1)/3π‘Œ,πœ‚=𝑙0π‘₯(2βˆ’π›½)/3,(2.9) where π‘“ξ…ž(πœ‚),πœƒ(πœ‚), and β„Ž(πœ‚) represent the velocity, temperature, and concentration profiles in the similarity plane and πœ‚ being the similarity variable. The constant scale factors 𝑒0, 𝑑0,𝑐0, and 𝑙0 are chosen in order to simplify the equations, and these must satisfy the following conditions:𝑒0𝑙20=3,𝑑𝛽+10𝑙0𝑒0=1𝛽,𝑐0𝑑0=1.(2.10) If we take 𝑑0=1 or 𝑐0=1 (due to arbitrariness of the temperature difference Δ𝑇 or the solutal concentration difference Δ𝐢), then 𝑙0 and 𝑒0 are uniquely determined as𝑙0=ξ‚΅3ξ‚Ά1+𝛽1/3π›½βˆ’1/3,𝑒0=ξ‚΅3ξ‚Ά1+𝛽1/3𝛽2/3.(2.11) The transformed ordinary differential equations areπ‘“ξ…žξ…žξ…ž+π‘“π‘“ξ…žξ…ž+2π›½βˆ’1𝛽+11βˆ’π‘“ξ…ž2ξ€Έ1=0,πœƒPrξ…žξ…ž+π‘“πœƒξ…žβˆ’3𝛽𝑓1+π›½ξ…ž1πœƒ=0,β„ŽScξ…žξ…ž+π‘“β„Žξ…žβˆ’3𝛽𝑓1+π›½ξ…žβ„Ž=0,(2.12) along with the boundary conditions𝑓(0)=𝑓0,π‘“ξ…žξ…žπ‘“(0)=βˆ’1βˆ’πœ€,πœƒ(0)=1,β„Ž(0)=1,ξ…ž(∞)=1,πœƒ(∞)=0,β„Ž(∞)=0,(2.13) where 𝑓0(>0) is the constant suction parameter and 𝑓0(<0) is the constant injection parameter.

3. Results and Discussion

The system of transformed governing equations (2.12) along with the boundary equations (2.13) is solved numerically using the shooting method. Tables 1, 2, and 3 illustrate the influence of the suction and injection parameter 𝑓0=1,0, and βˆ’1 on the surface velocity, π‘“ξ…ž(0), surface temperature, βˆ’πœƒξ…ž(0), and surface concentration, βˆ’β„Žξ…ž(0) for different values of the similarity parameter, 𝛽 and different values of the Schmidt number, Sc in the case of Marangoni parameter, πœ€=0,1, and βˆ’1. Further, the Prandtl number, Pr, is taken to be Pr=0.7 corresponding to air and the Schmidt number; Sc has the following values: Sc=0.22 (hydrogen), 0.6 (water), 0.75 (oxygen), and 0.78 (ammonia). It should be noticed that the results given in the parentheses ( ) are the second (dual) solutions. Results obtained by Pop et al. [21] for the case of impermeable surface are also included in these tables. It is clearly seen that the results agree well in all the three tables.


Pop et al. [21]Present
𝛽 𝑓 0 𝑓 ξ…ž ( 0 ) βˆ’ πœƒ ξ…ž ( 0 ) βˆ’ β„Ž ξ…ž ( 0 ) 𝑓 ξ…ž ( 0 ) βˆ’ πœƒ ξ…ž ( 0 ) βˆ’ β„Ž ξ…ž ( 0 )

0.1βˆ’120.42222 (7.52155)2.73049 (1.39352)1.33457 (0.55567)2.50450 (1.25965)2.83556 (1.45391)2.89636 (1.48832)
05.63217 (1.13296)1.66616 (0.63301)0.81816 (0.34081)1.52112 (0.57999)1.73479 (0.65856)1.77485 (0.67361)
12.18587 (0.32671)1.51789 (0.81825)0.69038 (0.36368)1.36228 (0.72258)1.59367 (0.86650)1.63858 (0.89559)

0.2βˆ’16.88979 (3.22734)1.70167 (0.89556)0.91512 (0.42147)1.57757 (0.81507)1.75892 (0.93265)1.79192 (0.95395)
03.14160 (0.96668)1.40729 (0.58243)0.72749 (0.30936)1.29013 (0.53105)1.46279 (0.60744)1.49521 (0.62224)
11.87556 (0.23194)1.54931 (0.65695)0.72307 (0.29068)1.39337 (0.57422)1.62523 (0.69967)1.67021 (0.72573)

0.3βˆ’14.09080 (2.49526)1.38372 (0.82414)0.78472 (0.39756)1.29037 (0.75041)1.42662 (0.85849)1.45130 (0.87834)
02.44523 (0.97452)1.34800 (0.54113)0.71088 (0.26932)1.23812 (0.48650)1.40007 (0.56816)1.43051 (0.58430)
11.73727 (0.24512)1.59029 (0.43442)0.75025 (0.20410)1.43243 (0.37519)1.66711 (0.46669)1.71261 (0.48694)

0.4βˆ’13.09833 (2.2474)1.26054 (0.14478)0.73410 (0.36768)1.17886 (0.56070)1.29804 (7.84348)1.31959 (1.83203)
02.14605 (1.08908)1.34240 (0.35840)0.71485 (0.22042)1.23425 (0.35627)1.39369 (0.34761)1.42366 (0.33547)
11.65874 (0.34764)1.62937 (βˆ’1.28801)0.77466 (0.07600)1.46934 (βˆ’0.48622)1.70719 (βˆ’2.35420)1.75326 (βˆ’3.77805)

0.5βˆ’12.639241.212010.715101.134971.247371.26770
01.984261.354160.724961.245831.405531.435561.984271.354170.725061.245831.405531.43556
11.607811.664440.796021.502331.743221.78986
1.0βˆ’11.980271.211940.722701.136091.246831.26692
01.696871.442330.778941.328691.496241.527741.696871.442330.777861.328661.496231.52774
11.494251.788010.867681.618111.870421.91915

2.0βˆ’11.742131.291450.770201.210091.328981.35062
01.565951.550620.842321.429441.608071.641661.565951.550610.840971.429421.608071.64166
11.428711.906940.937621.729181.993032.04390

5.0βˆ’11.616211.386580.824981.298401.427341.45087
01.488561.659440.904151.530471.720581.756321.488571.659430.903221.530451.720571.75631
11.384782.019461.003091.834072.109122.16207

Sc0.220.600.750.780.220.600.750.78


Pop et al. [21]Present
𝛽 𝑓 0 𝑓 ξ…ž ( 0 ) βˆ’ πœƒ ξ…ž ( 0 ) βˆ’ β„Ž ξ…ž ( 0 ) 𝑓 ξ…ž ( 0 ) βˆ’ πœƒ ξ…ž ( 0 ) βˆ’ β„Ž ξ…ž ( 0 )

0.1βˆ’121.97653 (10.27675)2.83813 (1.70953)1.38014 (0.66173)2.60161 (1.54850)2.94816 (1.78238)3.01186 (1.82402)
07.19144 (2.24508)1.85863 (0.80540)0.89765 (0.36166)1.69425 (0.71946)1.93639 (0.84714)1.98180 (0.87179)
13.12331 (0.85654)1.67897 (0.87403)0.75490 (0.35695)1.50685 (0.76213)1.76256 (0.93064)1.81201 (0.96479)

0.2βˆ’18.28421 (4.98050)1.87820 (1.20322)0.98806 (0.50472)1.73707 (1.08332)1.94347 (1.25792)1.98114 (1.28916)
04.29569 (2.03295)1.61240 (0.81721)0.80832 (0.35273)1.47475 (0.72457)1.67759 (0.86250)1.71568 (0.88933)
12.61520 (0.83925)1.69789 (0.78169)0.77746 (0.30148)1.52666 (0.67010)1.78105 (0.83928)1.83026 (0.87434)

0.3βˆ’15.32651 (3.83896)1.59751 (1.08646)0.87461 (0.46868)1.48397 (0.97392)1.64991 (1.13936)1.68012 (1.16998)
03.39676 (1.97392)1.55082 (0.80880)0.79147 (0.32899)1.42074 (0.70805)1.61248 (0.85897)1.64851 (0.88895)
12.37773 (0.89485)1.73187 (0.60914)0.80281 (0.22770)1.55938 (0.50839)1.81562 (0.66417)1.86517 (0.69865)

0.4βˆ’14.18935 (3.36425)1.48697 (1.27934)0.83076 (0.40355)1.38419 (1.31977)1.53439 (1.29417)1.56172 (1.30698)
02.97529 (1.98120)1.53913 (2.00757)0.79355 (0.26050)1.41135 (βˆ’2.95626)1.59972 (1.64605)1.63513 (1.55295)
12.23941 (1.00247)1.76664 (2.39461)0.82624 (0.08520)1.59238 (10.44973)1.85121 (2.02516)1.90123 (1.90673)

0.5βˆ’13.618181.439790.817241.341681.485061.51116
02.733621.545070.806161.417691.605491.640812.733631.545080.806241.417691.605491.64082
12.148371.798880.851031.622831.884301.93481
1.0βˆ’12.701041.425200.821171.329571.469431.49496
02.274601.617110.854361.485851.679391.715812.274601.617110.854421.485851.679391.71581
11.941891.916520.922211.733212.005332.05781

2.0βˆ’12.329531.491490.861591.391281.537941.56479
02.051961.715970.912721.577991.781431.819722.051971.715960.912761.577991.781431.81972
11.820822.032780.990581.841822.125172.17974

5.0βˆ’12.123081.578020.911431.471551.627471.65606
01.916541.819170.972011.673871.888121.928431.916541.819170.972031.673871.888111.92843
11.739022.144101.055231.945592.240032.29666

Sc0.220.600.750.780.220.600.750.78


Pop et al. [21]Present
𝛽 𝑓 0 𝑓 β€² ( 0 ) βˆ’ πœƒ β€² ( 0 ) βˆ’ β„Ž β€² ( 0 ) 𝑓 β€² ( 0 ) βˆ’ πœƒ β€² ( 0 ) βˆ’ β„Ž β€² ( 0 )

0.1βˆ’11 (18.69400)0.42585 (2.60605)0.31791 (1.28181)0.41446 (2.39223)0.43041 (2.70538)0.43284 (2.76284)
01 (3.43343)0.78611 (1.34348)0.44073 (0.68254)0.72780 (1.23088)0.81370 (1.39675)0.82982 (1.42786)
11 (0.02861)1.26652 (0.88734)0.58489 (0.41760)1.13660 (0.79323)1.33015 (0.93423)1.36796 (0.96233)

0.2βˆ’11 (4.97600)0.52173 (1.42764)0.37065 (0.79313)0.50312 (1.32976)0.52969 (1.47255)0.53409 (1.49836)
01 (1.00014)0.87518 (0.87524)0.49066 (0.49068)0.81026 (0.81033)0.90590 (0.90596)0.92384 (0.92390)
11 (βˆ’0.28079)1.34283 (0.63887)0.63095 (0.31836)1.20818 (0.57116)1.40866 (0.67331)1.44774 (0.69417)

0.3βˆ’11 (1.91347)0.59576 (0.90172)0.41163 (0.56117)0.57163 (0.85234)0.60631 (0.92399)0.61223 (0.93668)
01 (0.24145)0.94510 (0.56101)0.52985 (0.35365)0.87499 (0.52701)0.97827 (0.57702)0.99765 (0.58635)
11 (βˆ’0.40926)1.40391 (0.34253)0.66752 (0.20927)1.26538 (0.31198)1.47153 (0.35879)1.51165 (0.36889)

0.4βˆ’11 (0.69584)0.65507 (0.51595)0.44459 (0.37337)0.62654 (0.49813)0.66768 (0.52364)0.67480 (0.52792)
01 (βˆ’0.08927)1.00170 (0.25272)0.56157 (0.21647)0.92739 (0.24983)1.03686 (0.25371)1.05739 (0.25419)
11 (βˆ’0.43782)1.45403 (βˆ’0.21212)0.69734 (0.07165)1.31228 (βˆ’0.12659)1.52315 (βˆ’0.26250)1.56413 (βˆ’0.29559)

0.5βˆ’110.704050.480980.672130.718300.72637
011.048660.595090.970981.085441.1069311.048660.595220.970981.085441.10692
111.495980.727521.351541.566361.60807
1.0βˆ’110.859500.564150.816030.879160.89038
011.199770.676911.110811.241871.2664611.199760.677001.110811.241861.26645
111.633390.806291.479841.708001.75217

2.0βˆ’110.997280.639360.943671.021701.03569
011.335130.751171.236111.381981.4093511.335120.751221.236111.381981.40935
111.758850.878241.596821.837431.88389

5.0βˆ’111.122210.708341.059451.150931.16742
011.458650.819451.350461.509851.5397511.458650.819491.350451.509841.53974
111.874890.944731.704891.957192.00582

Sc0.220.600.750.780.220.600.750.78

Figures 1, 2, and 3 present the variations of the surface velocity, temperature, and concentration with 𝛽, respectively, when Pr=0.7,Sc=0.78 in the case of πœ€=0 (Marangoni effect neglected) with the effect of the parameter 𝑓0. The dashed line refers to the second solution of the problem. From these figures, we can see that the second solutions exist for 𝛽<0.5. This discovery is consistent with the statement given in Pop et al. [21], that for 𝛽<0.5, the solutions are not unique. Not only that it can be observed from the figures but the effects of suction or injection parameter can be clearly seen when 𝛽>0.4. The imposition of suction (𝑓0>0) at the surface has the tendency to reduce the velocity but increase the temperature and concentration gradients along the interface. Meanwhile, the opposite results are observed for the case of surface injection (𝑓0<0), an increase in the surface velocity and decrease in the surface temperature and concentration gradients. Hence, consequently, the interface heat transfer and the interface mass transfer will decrease as well.

Figures 4 to 12 illustrate the effects of parameter 𝑓0 on the velocity π‘“ξ…ž(πœ‚), temperature πœƒ(πœ‚), and concentration β„Ž(πœ‚) profiles when Pr=0.7 (air), Sc=0.78 (ammonia), and 𝛽=0.35 in the case of πœ€=0,1, and βˆ’1. The influence of 𝑓0 on the velocity profiles is depicted in Figures 4, 5, and 6. The figures show that the suction parameter decreases the velocity profiles, and the injection parameter increases the velocity profiles for the case of the Marangoni parameter πœ€=0 and 1. Further, in Figures 7, 8, and 9, we can see the effects of 𝑓0 on the temperature profiles. The figures indicate that for πœ€=0,1, and βˆ’1, imposition of the suction parameter tends to reduce the temperature profiles, whereas the injection parameter increases the profiles. It should be noticed that the second solutions in these cases have positive values. Besides, it can also be seen that reduction in Marangoni parameter πœ€ causes the dual solutions to be more stable. On the other hand, the effects of suction or injection parameter on concentration profiles β„Ž(πœ‚) are shown in Figures 10, 11, and 12 and are similar to the concentration profiles.

4. Conclusions

The present work deals with the thermosolutal Marangoni forced convection boundary layer flow as considered by Pop et al. [21]. We extended the paper by taking into consideration the effects of suction or injection. On the other hand, we also studied the existence of dual similarity solutions in the present problem. Further, the governing equations are transformed into ordinary differential equations and are then solved numerically using the shooting method. The effects of suction or injection parameter on the flow and heat transfer characteristics are studied. In general, imposition of suction is to decrease the velocity, temperature, and concentration profiles, whereas injection shows the opposite effects. On the other hand, the second (dual) solutions are discovered to exist when similarity parameter 𝛽<0.5.

Acknowledgment

The authors gratefully acknowledged the financial support received in the form of an FRGS research grant from the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia.

References

  1. T. Kuroda, β€œThe Marangoni effect and its artistic application,” Forma, vol. 15, pp. 203–204, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  2. K. Arafune and A. Hirata, β€œInteractive solutal and thermal marangoni convection in a rectangular open boat,” Numerical Heat Transfer Part A, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 421–429, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  3. D. M. Christopher and B. Wang, β€œPrandtl number effects for Marangoni convection over a flat surface,” International Journal of Thermal Sciences, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 564–570, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. A. J. Chamkha, I. Pop, and H. S. Takhar, β€œMarangoni mixed convection boundary layer flow,” Meccanica, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 219–232, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. C. Golia and A. Viviani, β€œNon isobaric boundary layers related to Marangoni flows,” Meccanica, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 200–204, 1986. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. R. F. Dressler and N. S. Sivakumaran, β€œNon-contaminating method to reduce Marangoni convection in microgravity float zones,” Journal of Crystal Growth, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 148–158, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  7. A. Al-Mudhaf and A. J. Chamkha, β€œSimilarity solutions for MHD thermosolutal Marangoni convection over a flat surface in the presence of heat generation or absorption effects,” Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 112–121, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. E. Magyari and A. J. Chamkha, β€œExact analytical results for the thermosolutal MHD Marangoni boundary layers,” International Journal of Thermal Sciences, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 848–857, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. N. M. Arifin, R. Nazar, and I. Pop, β€œNon-isobaric marangoni boundary layer flow for Cu, Al2O3 and TiO2 nanoparticles in a water based fluid,” Meccanica. In press. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. I. Pop and T. Watanabe, β€œThe effects of uniform suction or injection on the boundary layer flow and heat transfer on a continuous moving surface,” Technische Mechanik, vol. 13, pp. 49–54, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  11. E. A. Hamza, β€œSuction and injection effects on a similar flow between parallel plates,” Journal of Physics D, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 656–663, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. M. H. Shojaefard, A. R. Noorpoor, A. Avanesians, and M. Ghaffarpour, β€œNumerical investigation of flow control by suction and injection on a subsonic airfoil,” American Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 1474–1480, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  13. F. R. de Hoog, B. Laminger, and R. Weiss, β€œA numerical study of similarity solutions for combined forced and free convection,” Acta Mechanica, vol. 51, no. 3-4, pp. 139–149, 1984. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. D. B. Ingham, β€œSingular and non-unique solutions of the boundary-layer equations for the flow due to free convection near a continuously moving vertical plate,” Zeitschrift fΓΌr angewandte Mathematik und Physik, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 559–572, 1986. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. N. Ramachandran, T. S. Chen, and B. F. Armaly, β€œMixed convection in stagnation flows adjacent to vertical surfaces,” Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 373–377, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  16. H. Xu and S.-J. Liao, β€œDual solutions of boundary layer flow over an upstream moving plate,” Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 350–358, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | Zentralblatt MATH
  17. A. Ishak, R. Nazar, N. M. Arifin, and I. Pop, β€œDual solutions in magnetohydrodynamic mixed convection flow near a stagnation-point on a vertical surface,” Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 129, no. 9, pp. 1212–1216, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. A. Ishak, R. Nazar, N. M. Arifin, and I. Pop, β€œDual solutions in mixed convection flow near a stagnation point on a vertical porous plate,” International Journal of Thermal Sciences, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 417–422, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. A. Ishak, R. Nazar, and I. Pop, β€œDual solutions of the extended Blasius problem,” Matematika, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 107–111, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  20. A. Ridha, β€œOn the dual solutions associated with boundary-layer equations in a corner,” Journal of Engineering Mathematics, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 525–537, 1992. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. I. Pop, A. Postelnicu, and T. Groşan, β€œThermosolutal Marangoni forced convection boundary layers,” Meccanica, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 555–571, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright Β© 2011 R. A. Hamid et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views790
Downloads378
Citations

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.