Review Reports - Combined Effects of Binary Chemical Reaction/Activation Energy on the Flow of Sisko Fluid over a Curved Surface

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Combined effects of binary chemical reaction/activation energy on the flow of Sisko fluid over a curved surface

The work is very interesting and seems to be an original. The paper is well written with a good discussion of the results. The work well done but have some corrections needed to improve the quality of the presentation. I enlist them below:

Prandtl number Pr=2,2.5,3 is wrong . Choose proper Pr number corresponding to flow of Sisko fluid and redraw all figures. Particularly figure-7,12
The convergence at eta=5 is not satisfactory for many figures. Extend the computational domain.
The main equations (1-5) should be referenced.
What are the novel terms studied here? The novelty elaborated here should be emphasized with clear points.
Equations 13-28 are solved numerically through MATLAB function bvp4c setting the tolerance level at 1e-4. Tolerance level is not sufficient. At least it should be 1e-6
What numerical method is used for the simulations? If the code for the numerical method was taken from another publication or is part of the software used, please cite the resource.
Validate your code and model from the available literature.
It is recommended the authors try to explain the novelty of the paper as clear as possible and explain the research gap they are trying to fill.
An updated and complete literature review should be conducted and should appear as part of the Introduction, while bearing in mind the work’s relevance to this Journal and taking into account the scope and readership of the journal. In this regard I suggest following papers on Sisko fluid ,curved surface, binary chemical reaction..

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960077921001260

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167732221008308

https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5521/6/3/109

Author Response

Reviewer comments 1

Prandtl number Pr =2, 2.5, 3 is wrong . Choose proper Pr number corresponding to flow of Sisko fluid and redraw all figures. Particularly figure-7,12

Reply: It is done in the revised manuscript according to reviewer suggestions.

The convergence at eta=5 is not satisfactory for many figures. Extend the computational domain.

Reply: Extended the domain of the eta which satisfied the boundary conditions.

The main equations (1-5) should be referenced.

Reply: It is done in the revised manuscript according to reviewer suggestions.

What are the novel terms studied here? The novelty elaborated here should be emphasized with clear points.

Reply: The modified Sisko fluid with Buongiorno model effects over a curved surface is taken into account. The MHD applied normal to flow direction having the effects of chemical reacted and active energy at the curved surface is also discussed. We chose this pertinent non-Newtonian fluid model which best represents blood composition, thus helps venture into complex blood flow problems.

Equations 13-28 are solved numerically through MATLAB function bvp4c setting the tolerance level at 1e-4. Tolerance level is not sufficient. At least it should be 1e-6

Reply: It is typo error tolerance level at 1e-4 but actually values of tolerance level at 1e-6. It is done in the revised manuscript.

What numerical method is used for the simulations? If the code for the numerical method was taken from another publication or is part of the software used, please cite the resource.

Reply: We use the built in numerical technique bvp4c.

Validate your code and model from the available literature.

Reply: The comparison table is added in the revised version. Which find that our results are found to be good agree with literature.

It is recommended the authors try to explain the novelty of the paper as clear as possible and explain the research gap they are trying to fill.

Reply: We discussed the effects of Brownian motion and thermophoresis effects for the siskofluid over Riga curved surface. The MHD applied normal to the flow. The chemical reacted and an active energy effect for siskofluid over Riga curved surface is considered it. These effects are not discussed on the Riga curved surface till now.

An updated and complete literature review should be conducted and should appear as part of the Introduction, while bearing in mind the work’s relevance to this Journal and taking into account the scope and readership of the journal. In this regard I suggest following papers on Sisko fluid ,curved surface, binary chemical reaction..

Reply: Improve the introduction section according to reviewer suggestion.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors studied the modified Sisko fluid with Buongiorno model effects over a curved surface under the effect of the external magnetic field, chemical reaction, and active energy. Numerical simulation is done using the MATLAB solver bvp4c.

Observations:

1). The authors have defined the transformation relations (7) by using the parameter “Re_b”. In the present manuscript, this parameter is undefined. Do readers have to guess this parameter?

2). In Eq. (6) the authors considered u = as for r = 0

In Eq. (7), they defined u =as f ’(eta), eta = (r/s)Re^(1/(n+1))

For r = 0, eta becomes zero; therefore, the transformed boundary condition is us=usf ’(0), so, f ‘ (0) = 1.

In Eq. (11), the authors used f ‘ (0) = “lambda”.

The authors proposed a problem, but, they solved another problem?

3). Using transformations (7), the equations (1)-(6) are transformed into Eqs. (8)-(11).

The transformed equations contain many parameters, namely A, M, K, N_T, N_B, Le. The expressions of these parameters are not given in this manuscript. Or, it is very important for the readers to have the expressions of the transformed parameters. Are they constant or not?

Author Response

Reviewer comments 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Observations:

The authors have defined the transformation relations (7) by using the parameter “Re_b”. In the present manuscript, this parameter is undefined. Do readers have to guess this parameter?

Reply: It is done in the revised manuscript. This is the he local Reynolds number.

In Eq. (6) the authors considered u = as for r = 0

Reply: It is done in the revised manuscript.

In Eq. (7), they defined u =as f ’(eta), eta = (r/s)Re^(1/(n+1))

Reply: The reference of the literature is given in the revised version (see Ref. [26]).

For r = 0, eta becomes zero; therefore, the transformed boundary condition is us=usf ’(0), so, f ‘ (0) = 1.

Reply: It is typo error. We corrected now . So the

In Eq. (11), the authors used f ‘ (0) = “lambda”.

Reply: In the revised version, we correct the boundary conditions. Now it is corrected

The authors proposed a problem, but, they solved another problem?

Reply: Some typo error remove and now the manuscript as whole improve grammatically as well as mathematically.

3). Using transformations (7), the equations (1)-(6) are transformed into Eqs. (8)-(11).

Reply: We remove the pressure terms from the momentum equation. Now, we direct write the momentum equation after simplifications. First of all, we applied the similarity transformations and reduced equation 2-3. Then remove the pressure by differentiate the dimensionless equation 3 and then compared to dimensionless equations 2.

The transformed equations contain many parameters, namely . The expressions of these parameters are not given in this manuscript. Or, it is very important for the readers to have the expressions of the transformed parameters. Are they constant or not?

Reply: It is done in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript needs a serious revision.

1).Page 4, line 128. The parameter “U_w” must be defined. The expression of this parameter is very important.

The parameter “Re_a” must be nondimensional. In this manuscript, this parameter is dimensional.

2). With the help of equations (8) - (11), the authors want to determine the functions of a variable f (eta), theta (eta), phi (eta). But, these equations contain the parameters "A" - a function of "s", and "K" - a function of s and t. Mathematically, it is impossible that a differential equation with the dependent coefficients of "eta", "s" and "t" to generate a function only of the variable "eta".

Therefore, the solution method is not correct.

3). In Eq. (4), the parameter "alpha" has the dimension [m^2 / s]. Page 4, line 128, the parameter "a" has the dimension [1/s]. Therefore, the parameter "delta = alpha / a" is a dimensional parameter.

4). Page 4. The parameter “delta” has two significations. See lines 129 and 131.

Author Response

Response to reviewers

The manuscript needs a serious revision.

1).Page 4, line 128. The parameter “U_w” must be defined. The expression of this parameter is very important. The parameter “Re_a” must be nondimensional. In this manuscript, this parameter is dimensional.

Reply: We define the . The is dimensionless which can be seen in Ref. [26].

Therefore, the solution method is not correct.

Reply: This is typo error but the correct values of The correction is now done in the revised version.

Reply: Actual values of is the temperature difference parameter. Now it is corrected.

4). Page 4. The parameter “delta” has two significations. See lines 129 and 131.