Modelling of Applied Magnetic Field and Thermal Radiations Due to the Stretching of Cylinder

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Can be accepted in the present from

Author Response

Thanks for your positive comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper topic is a parametric analysis of heat transfer under different conditions. I have following remarks:

1. In the title of the paper is written:«...due to Stretching«, but from the paper follows that in the paper is analyzed stretching of the cylinder. I suggest to update the paper title.
2. To references [?] in the paper surnames of authors should be added.
3. In Lines 160 and 161 written sentence is incomprehensible.
4. In Line 166 should be written «t=0 » .
5. In Lines 168-170 are written parameters, but the reference equation is missing.
6. In Line 181 the equation (4) should be updated.
7. In Line 215 written sentence is incomprehensible.
8. In Line 217 used abbreviation »ODESs« is already used above in the text.
9. In Line 232 is written »While Skin friction«. It should be skin.
10. Why in Table 1 »Present« result for n=1 differs more than for n=0 or n=2 from results given in references?
11. In Lines 258-259 is written »… the measured viscosity …« and »… the actual viscosity …« . In the paper is now information about the measured viscosity. What is the actual viscosity?
12. On Fig. 4 abrupt decrease in the momentum boundary layer is not noticeable.
13. In Lines 275-276 written sentence is incomprehensible. You wrote »… less contact time between the fluid particles …« . I don't find any information about the contact time in our paper.
14. In Lines 282-283 written statement is not true.
15. In Line 311 should be written »Table 3«. The text, written above the Table 3, is incomprehensible.
16. For text written in Line 326 see my remark No. 12 .

Author Response

First of all, the author’s would like to thanks the honorable reviewers for their constructive remarks. The authors have modified the manuscript by incorporating the suggestions imparted by the honorable referee.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

in this paper, the author discusses the flow of Newtonian fluid over a stretching cylinder. the author considers mixed convective and slip conditions. paper is well written and can be accepted after considerable revision.

1. Title of the paper is too general and not presenting the real work analyzed in this paper. Also, "due to Stretching" doesn't give inside stretching of what?
2. why author use word magnetofluid? in literature magnetic fluid is used but these fluids and associated magnetic properties such as magnetization etc. which are not used in this paper? 
3.   The abstract is well written it is more appropriate if some of the important results are also mentioned.
4. The magnetic field is used in many paper keywords should be arranged according to the focus of the study.
5. novelty is not clear please mention what is the focus of this particular study.
6. section 4 "stability analysis" i don't think stability analysis is discussed here only error or comparison is presented here section head should be change to something validity.
7. some of references which can be seen regarding magnetic fluid and stretching cylinder are "Non-orthogonal stagnation point flow of Maxwell nano-material over a stretching cylinder." International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 120 (2021): 105043.  Heat transfer enhancement in hydromagnetic alumina–copper/water hybrid nanofluid flow over a stretching cylinder * FLOW OF NONSPHERICAL NANOPARTICLES IN ELECTROMAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS OF NANOFLUIDS THROUGH A POROUS MEDIUM BETWEEN ECCENTRIC CYLINDERS*"Necking of a hyperelastic solid cylinder under axial stretching: Evaluation of the infinite-length approximation." International Journal of Engineering Science 159 (2021): 103432.  *Thermal analysis of radiative bioconvection magnetohydrodynamic flow comprising gyrotactic microorganism with activation energy
8. more physical analysis of results is needed.

Author Response

First of all, the author’s would like to thanks the honorable reviewers for their constructive remarks. The authors have modified the manuscript by incorporating the suggestions imparted by the honorable referee. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

All the suggestions are incorporated paper can be accepted in current form

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The abstract section needs more clarification and motivation for the work. Authors can give more emphasis on findings and applications.
2. The introduction has not enough information. I would also suggest that the authors should include beneficial work done for the theoretical background of numerical simulation and heat and mass transfer in the introduction for the best understanding of readers through different studies, for instance.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2018.12.009;

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.07.006;

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2018.10.017;

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2018.03.004;

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.02.189

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2021.100861

http://www.nature.com/srep/index.html

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10973-020-09981-5

3. Model development: make sure it is detailed enough as this section is a major contribution.
4. Did the authors perform any statistical test on their computational measurements? It is useful to plot standard deviation error bars to represent uncertainty.
5. Did the author validate their model with literature?
6. Results and discussion: The author should provide their graphs for proper review. Need to discuss their results in detail with a comparison with previous studies.
7. The conclusion part should be specific. Authors need to restate the main arguments in brief with supporting evidence and summarize all the key points made throughout with further applications. Need to make sure that it is linked to Results and Discussion
8. The Nomenclature should be in alphabetic order.
9. Significant effort should be made to avoid spelling and grammatical errors.

Author Response

Dear editor and Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the paper, " Numerical analysis of Heat Transfer Phenomena in Magneto flow combined with Mixed Convective Thermal Radiative and Slip effects Over an Axially Stretching Cylinder”. The attached revision was carried out according to these helpful comments.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Editors warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

Yours truly,

Muhammad Tamoor, Muhammad Kamran, Sadique Rehman, Aamir Farooq, Rewayat Khan, Jung Rye Lee, Dong Yun Shin

Corresponding authors

Name: Dong Yun Shin, Aamir Farooq

E-mail: dyshin@uos.ac.kr, aamirf88@yahoo.com

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper topic is interesting. I have following remarks:

1) In Abstract is written abbreviation MHD, which is not defined. Abbreviations should be defined at first mention.

2) In Line 37 is written: »… in the the mixed …«

3) In Lines 112- 113 is written: »… with constant velociyt U(z)= …«,  but U is function of coord. »z«.

4) In Line 118 is written: »… in the Diagram…«. In which Diagram?

5) The text in Line 134 should be corrected. To which equations U, u, b and n refers?

6) In Eq. 8, right Eq. is written as function of “η”, but in Eq. is no “η”.

7) In the text several labels (Pr,U, u, b, n, C, Nu, K, …) are written vertically, although they should be italic. Correct these in the text.

8) The text in Lines 149-150 is written incomprehensible.

9) The text in Line 166 »… and are taken.« is written incomprehensible.

10) Parameter “n” is not defined.

11) The text that starts in Line 202 should be before Figs. 1-11.

12) In Line 211 is written »… so the Lorentz is generated …«. »Lorentz force«?

Author Response

Dear editor and Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the paper, " Numerical analysis of Heat Transfer Phenomena in Magneto flow combined with Mixed Convective Thermal Radiative and Slip effects Over an Axially Stretching Cylinder”. The attached revision was carried out according to these helpful comments.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Editors warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

Yours truly,

Muhammad Tamoor, Muhammad Kamran, Sadique Rehman, Aamir Farooq, Rewayat Khan, Jung Rye Lee, Dong Yun Shin

Corresponding authors

Name: Dong Yun Shin, Aamir Farooq

E-mail: dyshin@uos.ac.kr, aamirf88@yahoo.com

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper studied the heat transfer in Newtonian fluid in presence of combined radiation and slip effects near mixed convective nonlinear stretching cylinder. This paper is in a low quality and should be rejected due to the following reasons.

1. In the paper title, it is better to improve the title. Should the Newtonian fluid be specified?
2. For the current version of this paper, the English writing is very poor. (Line 15, "will focus about", Line 16, "We'll also look", Line 18, "we will utilized" -- please not use future tense for the finished work; Line 24, "a decreased can been"; Line 37, "Now a day", etc.) In Line 15, what is "MHD"? Please give the full term of the abbreviations for their first-time apperance in the Abstract and main text.
3. Please also avoid "lump sum references", such as [2-6] in Line 42; all references should be cited with detailed and specific description.
4.  Please revise the format of the citation in the text such as "Shehzad [7]" -- "Shehzad et al. [7]", etc.
5. Please rewrite the Introduction section. Although 50 references are cited in this section, the authors just discuss the work using one sentence. What are the main advantages and disadvantages in these works?
6. Line 97, what are these experiments?
7. Line 105, "The results of this research are expected to supplement earlier studies and provide valuable knowledge for future studies" -- this sentence did not have much technical meaning to this field.
8. Line 132, "equ." should be "Eq.".
9. Line 134, what is ""?
10. Line 136, please number this figure. Also, why z axis was not on the center line?
11. In the modeling section, were all the equations created by the authors themselves? Please give the references for these equations.
12. This work lacks the verification of the simulations. How could the authors trust the results presented in this work? How did you determine the values of the default parameter values in Line 138? Even in the section of Results and Discussion there is no explanations for the results. There is also one paragraph for this section. In Table 1, how did you compare the skin friction and heat transfer coefficient with the previous studies?
13. Conclusions need to be improved. 
14. The references need to be revised. The recent works should be added in this paper. 

In all, due to the low quality and novelty of this paper, I strongly suggest to reject this work.

Author Response

Dear editor and Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the paper, "Numerical analysis of Heat Transfer Phenomena in Magneto flow combined with Mixed Convective Thermal Radiative and Slip effects Over an Axially Stretching Cylinder”. The attached revision was carried out according to these helpful comments.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Editors warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

Yours truly,

Muhammad Tamoor, Muhammad Kamran, Sadique Rehman, Aamir Farooq, Rewayat Khan, Jung Rye Lee, Dong Yun Shin

Corresponding authors

Name: Dong Yun Shin, Aamir Farooq

E-mail: dyshin@uos.ac.kr , aamirf88@yahoo.com

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this paper authors analyzed MHD mixed convection in the existence of thermal radiation for flow of nanofluid. The flow is induced by nonlinear stretching of horizontal cylinder. Runge-Kutta shooting method is employed to identify the problem's solution. Mathematically paper is well written and can be accepted after some suggested revision.

1. Word "we" is regularly used, I believe the paper should be written in the third person. Some like "It is done" etc.
2. The abstract is too confined doesn't provide enough details about the paper, it should be more comprehensive, provide some applicability of the work and detail of modelling and transformation.
3. in keywords it is mentioned "nonlinear vertical stretching;" while in the abstract "nonlinearly stretching horizontal cylinder" please clarify.
4. "nonlinearity parameter" what do the author mean by non-linearity parameter.
5. English is very poor must need a thorough revision.
6. Nomenclature seems to be incomplete add all the parameter and their SI units.
7. In the title "Newtonian fluid" is mentioned while nanofluid with Newtonian base fluid is assumed as seen in the mathematical formulation.
8. Introduction and literature review is not upto mark, bulk references should be reduced and more significant references should be added some suggestion are *Heat transfer enhancement in hydromagnetic alumina–copper/water hybrid nanofluid flow over a stretching cylinder Influence of rotating magnetic field on Maxwell saturated ferrofluid flow over a heated stretching sheet with heat generation/absorption  * Effects of double diffusion convection on Third grade nanofluid through a curved compliant peristaltic channel *FLOW OF NONSPHERICAL NANOPARTICLES IN ELECTROMAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS OF NANOFLUIDS THROUGH A POROUS MEDIUM BETWEEN ECCENTRIC CYLINDERS *Dynamical and optimal procedure to analyze the exhibition of physical attributes imparted by Sutterby magneto-nanofluid in Darcy medium yielded by axially stretched cylinder. Canadian Journal of Physics, 98(1), 1-10.* Bioconvection analysis for Sutterby nanofluid over an axially stretched cylinder with melting heat transfer and variable thermal features: A Marangoni and solutal model. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 60(5), 4663-4675.* Combined effects of viscous dissipation and Joule heating on MHD Sisko nanofluid over a stretching cylinder. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 231, 341-352.
   
9. Add references to governing equations boundary conditions and transformation.
10. Add physical aspect of results discussed and focused in this article.
11. Many paper has been written in this domain clearly explain novelity of the paper 

Author Response

Dear editor and Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the paper, " Numerical analysis of Heat Transfer Phenomena in Magneto flow combined with Mixed Convective Thermal Radiative and Slip effects Over an Axially Stretching Cylinder”. The attached revision was carried out according to these helpful comments.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Editors warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

Yours truly,

Muhammad Tamoor, Muhammad Kamran, Sadique Rehman, Aamir Farooq, Rewayat Khan, Jung Rye Lee, Dong Yun Shin

Corresponding authors

Name: Dong Yun Shin, Aamir Farooq

E-mail: dyshin@uos.ac.kr, aamirf88@yahoo.com

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The manuscript deals with a very classical problem and uses very classical method to solve it. The problem worth investigating, but the novelty is of major issue. I could not find any new information in the manuscript that add to my knowledge with regard to the available literature. Also most of the figure are presented very briefly and physical insight behind them are missing. Therefore, I can not suggest this manuscript for puboication.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Can be accepted in the present form

Reviewer 3 Report

This work is a simple numerical study without verifications of the simulation results. This paper should be rejected due to its low novelty.

1. For the author list, why did the authors add new authors in the revision and even a new corresponding author?
2. The full term of the abbreviations should be given in the paper such as MHD, etc.
3. Please improve the description of the cited reference when you describe in the text such as “To begin, [3] investigated” in Line 50, etc.
4. Line 201, “Eq. (2-4)”, “Eq. (9-11)”.
5. In Table 1, how did you present these data with what conditions? Have you really conducted the calculations? For all four values, there are always three same values. How could it be possible? For the data cited from Refs. [42] and [43], you can find that these data were from other references (Laminar boundary layer flow along a stretching cylinder; Heat transfer characteristics of a continuous stretching surface with variable temperature) reported in Ref. [35]. How could you value when n=1 be the same to the result reported in Ref. [35]?

Moreover, in Table 2, the authors just copied the data from Ref. [35] (Table 3). How could you improve the error range compared to Ref. [35]?

I doubt that the authors have validated the model before showing the simulation results.

6. In Results and discussion section, there are only 1-2 sentences for a figure and a paragraph. Please compare your results with the previous publications such as Ref. [35]. Why did the parameter show the effect to the system? For 11 parameters, the authors do not provide the detailed analysis for the numerical results. How could you determine the optimal conditions?

 

In all, I do not think that this paper is good enough to publish in Processes even after the revisions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I am satisfied with the response and amendment made in the paper. I believe now it can be accepted.