This section explains how to graphically represent the important and pertinent parameters on the involved profiles. With proper plots, the physical quantities of importance, such as skin friction and Nusselt number, are also elucidated. In the current study, we examined fluid flow past three different surfaces: (i) fluid flow past a cone, (ii) fluid flow past a wedge, and (iii) fluid flow past a plate. In the graphs, the dashed curves show flow through a wedge, solid lines indicate flow past a cone, and dotted lines indicate flow past a plate.
The impact of
on
is displayed in
Figure 2 for three different fluid flow cases. The increase in the
value declines the
for all three flow cases. As the value of
rises, so does the system’s resistance. As a significance of the increased frictional force, the fluid flow is reduced. As a result of the additional resistance, the liquid’s velocity decreases. Furthermore, the
for fluid flow past the cone declines faster as the
values increase than in the remaining cases. The influence of
on
is displayed for all the three flow cases in
Figure 3. The upsurge in the value of
improved the
for all three flow cases. An increase in the
values decreases the thickness of the boundary layer due to variations in the buoyancy forces caused by the temperature differences. Furthermore, the
for the fluid flow the past plate inclines faster as the
values increase than in the remaining two cases.
Figure 4 shows the effect of
on
for all the three flow cases. The upsurge in the
values improves the
for all three flow cases. Moreover, the fluid flow past plate case shows improved heat transfer than the remaining two cases. Here, we observed the least heat transfer for the case of fluid flow past a cone. Internal heat absorption/generation either helps or degrades heat transport. As the
grows, the layer
thickens. The heat source restrictions in the flow state will exhibit better heat transfer. The presence of a heat source energizes the fluid. Consequently, as heat is consumed, the buoyancy force accelerates the flow and improves heat transfer.
In
Figure 5, the impact of
on
is displayed for the three different fluid flow cases. The increase in the
value increases the
for all three flow cases. The impact of the porosity parameter
on
is the same as the impact of
on
. The Arrhenius equation shows that injecting activation energy into any system causes a reduction in heat and acceleration, resulting in a low response rate constant. As a result, the chemical reaction takes longer to complete, resulting in a larger particle concentration. As
grows, the modified Arrhenius process decays. Consequently, the generative chemical process is accelerated, resulting in an increase in the nanoparticle concentration. As a consequence, the
increases in value. Furthermore, the
for fluid flow past the cone increases more slowly as the
value grows than in the remaining cases. Here, we observe higher fluid flow mass transfer when flowing past the plate.
Figure 6 shows the effect of
on
for all the three flow cases. The upsurge in the
value decreases the
for all three flow cases. The smallest number indicates the highest concentration of nanoparticles. Momentum diffusivity increases as the
rises, causing mass transport to decline. As
increases, the diffusion coefficient reduces, lowering the mass transfer. Moreover, the case of fluid flow past the wedge shows better mass transfer than the remaining two cases. Here, we observe the least fluid flow mass transfer when flowing past the wedge.
Figure 7 shows the influence of
on
for the three different fluid flow cases. Increasing the
value declines the
for all three flow cases. A larger chemical reaction has a negative impact on the reactant species, degrading them. When
increases, the
is lowered as a result. Furthermore, the
for the case of fluid flow past a wedge decreases more slowly as the
value increases than in the remaining cases. Here, we observe higher mass transfer for the case of fluid flow past a wedge.
Figure 8 shows the impact of
on the skin friction versus the
for all the three flow cases. Additionally, the three-dimensional plots in
Figure 8 show variation in skin friction for varied values of
and
. Here, the augmented
values improve the skin friction for all three flow cases, but the inverse behaviour is seen for improved
values. Further, the case of fluid flow past the cone shows improved skin friction than the remaining cases. The influence of
on the Nusselt number versus
for all the three flow cases is shown in
Figure 9. Additionally, the three-dimensional plots in
Figure 9 show the variation in the Nusselt number for varied
and
values. Here, the augmented
values improve the heat transfer rate for all three flow cases, but the inverse behaviour is seen for improved
values. Furthermore, in the case of fluid flow past a cone, an improved heat transfer rate is seen than the remaining cases. The influence of
on the Sherwood number versus the
for all the three flow cases is shown in
Figure 10. Additionally, the three-dimensional plots in
Figure 9 show the variation in the Sherwood number for varied
and
values. Here, the augmented
and
values decrease the mass transfer rate in all three flow cases. Further, the case of fluid flow past a cone shows improved mass transfer rates than the remaining cases.
Table 4 shows the variation in
for various parameters in the cone case when
for different volume fraction combinations. The increase in the
values enhances the surface drag force coefficient. From the table, it can be observed that the surface drag force coefficient is higher for the hybrid nanofluid than it is for the nanofluid. This is due to variation in the buoyancy forces caused by the temperature differences. The reverse trend is seen in the case of the coefficient for the rate of thermal distribution. An increase in the
values reduces the surface drag force coefficient and enhances the rate of thermal distribution. This is due to the presence of the porous medium experiencing the frictional force. It can be seen from the table that in both the cases, the hybrid nanofluid shows better performance than the nanofluid does. An increase in the
values increases the surface drag force and thermal distribution coefficients. An increase in the
values helps the distribution of heat from the system to the fluid. The Hybrid nanofluid demonstrated better performance than the nanofluid did.
Table 5 displays the variation in
and
for various parameters in the wedge case when
for different volume fraction combinations. The surface drag force coefficient increases as the
values increase. In the case of the coefficient for the rate of thermal dispersion, the opposite tendency is observed. An increase in the
values decreases the surface drag force coefficient and increases the rate of heat dispersion. Increases in the
values increase the surface drag force and heat distribution coefficients. The table shows that in both cases, the hybrid nanofluid has a greater impact than the nanofluid.
Table 5 displays the variation in
and
for various parameters in the plate case when
for different volume fraction combinations. The surface drag force coefficient increases as the
value increases. In the case of the coefficient for the rate of thermal dispersion, the opposite behavior is observed. An increase in the
values decreases the surface drag force coefficient and increases the pace of heat dispersion. As the
values rise, so do the surface drag force and thermal dispersion coefficients. The table demonstrates that hybrid nanofluid has a bigger influence than nanofluid does in both circumstances. From
Table 4,
Table 5 and
Table 6, it is clear that the surface drag force and rate of thermal distribution coefficients have a greater impact in the plate case than in the cone and wedge cases.
Table 7 shows the variation in
for various parameters for all three flow cases when
. It can be observed form
Table 6 that an increase in the
values improves the coefficient for the mass transfer rate. An improvement in the
values decreases the coefficient for the mass transfer rate. Increases in the
values reduce the coefficient for the mass transfer rate. In the case of
,
, and
the influence of the nanofluid is greater than that of the hybrid nanofluid. For all three cases, the wedge shows a better coefficient for mass transfer rate than the other two geometries.