Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry (2023) 148:7333–7356

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-023-12207-z

Rayleigh–Bénard magnetoconvection with asymmetric boundary

condition and comparison of results with those of symmetric
boundary condition
S. Noor Arshika1 · P. G. Siddheshwar1 · Sameena Tarannum2

Received: 2 January 2023 / Accepted: 18 April 2023 / Published online: 22 May 2023
© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2023

Abstract
The paper concerns two Rayleigh–Bénard magnetoconvection problems, one in a mono-nanofluid ­(H2O–Cu) and the other
in a hybrid nanofluid (­ H2O–Cu–Al2O3) bounded by asymmetric boundaries. A minimal Fourier–Galerkin expansion is used
to obtain the generalized Lorenz model (GLM) which is then reduced to an analytically solvable Ginzburg–Landau equation
using the multiscale method. The results of asymmetric boundaries are extracted by using the Chandrasekhar function with
appropriate scaling of the Rayleigh number and the wave number. The solution of the steady-state version of the GLM is used
to estimate the Nusselt number analytically, and the unsteady version is solved numerically to estimate the time-dependent
Nusselt number and also to study regular, chaotic, and periodic convection. Streamlines are plotted and analyzed in both
steady and unsteady states. The analytical expression for the Hopf–Rayleigh number, rH , coincides with the value predicted
using the bifurcation diagram. This number determines the onset of chaos. For r∗ > rH , one observes chaotic motion with
spells of periodic motion in between. For r∗ < rH, one sees non-chaotic motion (regular motion). It is found that by increasing
the strength of the magnetic field, we can prolong the existence of regular motion by suppressing the manifestation of chaos.
The Lorenz attractor is a signature of chaos since it is found that the attractor appears only for r∗ > rH . The magnitude of the
influence of the asymmetric boundary on rH is between those of the two symmetric boundary conditions with the free–free
isothermal boundary being the one that most favors chaotic motion: A result also seen in the context of regular convection.

Keywords Magnetic field · Chaos · Nanofluids · Lorenz model · Runge–Kutta method

Introduction energy-efficient heat transfer machinery depends heavily on

The problem of thermal instability illustrates the general the-
ory of hydrodynamics. This phenomenon is widely known as
Rayleigh–Bénard convection (RBC). By including external
controlling mechanisms and introducing nanoparticles in the
fluid, we may come across some striking aspects of fluid
behavior. Many industrial sectors, including transportation,
energy supply and production, and electronics, rely heav-
ily on effective cooling or heat retention. The creation of
* S. Noor Arshika
noor.arshika@res.christuniversity.in
1
Department of Mathematics, Centre for Mathematical
Needs, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Hosur Road,
Bengaluru, Karnataka 560029, India
2 thermal conductivity was first addressed by Masuda et al.
Department of Professional Studies, CHRIST (Deemed to be
University), Hosur Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560029,
India
the thermal conductivity of these fluids. The conventional
fluids with the absence of suspended particles may create a
major drawback due to its low thermal conductivity and lack
of its applicability in heat transfer applications.
Nanoliquids comprise of a carrier liquid and nano-sized
particles having dimension of 10–100 nm. Depending on the
number of nanoparticles, these liquids can be categorized as
mono-nanofluids (MNF), having a single nanoparticle and
hybrid nanofluids (HNF), otherwise. Inclusion of nanopar-
ticles in a liquid yield the benefit of enhanced thermal con-
ductivity, which allows an ideal design for a heat transfer
system. In the quest of finding a solution for an enhanced
heat transfer phenomenon, it was Choi and Eastman [1],
who developed a new class of fluids with nanoparticles and
coined the term nanoliquid. The phenomenon of enhanced
[2]. Reports on enhanced thermal conductivity [3, 4] led

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
7334
Buongiorno and Hu [5] to suggest the usage of nanofluids
in cutting-edge nuclear systems.
The study of nanoliquids with different nanoparticles is
achieved using one of the following models:
1. Single-phase model, proposed by Khanafer–Vafai–
Lightstone (KVL) [6], where the liquid and solid phases
are in-phase but have different thermal properties, and
2. Two-phase model, as suggested by Buongiorno [7],
where liquid and solid phases need a transport equation
of their own. This includes effects of thermophoresis and
Brownian motion.
Buongiorno [7] argued in favor of a two-phase model
while Garoosi [8] reported that at a high Rayleigh number,
the single-phase model adopted by Khanafer et al. [6], serves
the purpose of predicting the convective instability and
heat transfer. However, the choice of an appropriate model
used to study the phenomenon of enhanced heat transfer in
nanoliquids is still an ongoing debate. Thus, quite naturally
one can consider a single-phase model which is the simplest
among the two. This model helps in studying the effect of
nanoliquid properties such as density, dynamic viscosity, and
thermal diffusivity on the dynamics of nanoliquids.
In the paper, we consider MNF using the KVL model
where the nanofluid behaves as a liquid rather than as a
solid–liquid mixture as described by Buongiorno [7]. Sid-
dheshwar et al. [9] studied nanoliquids by using a two-phase
model. Siddheshwar and Meenakshi [10] used a single-phase
description and emphasized the study on finite amplitude
convection and showed that an increase in thermal conduc-
tivity leads to a substantial increase in the heat transport
for 20 nanoliquids. Kanchana et al. [11] reported the heat
transfer enhancement of 2.95% and 2.43% for free–free and
rigid–rigid boundaries, respectively, in ­(H2O–Cu–Al2O3)
HNF. A series of studies show that analysis on hybrid
nanoliquids is a recent trend toward heat transfer enhance-
ment ([12–16] and references therein). In addition to prob-
lems concerning Bénard convection in fluids with suspended
particles, there are other fluid dynamics situations involving
such fluids (see [17, 18]), and these are outside the purview
of this paper.
Over time, magnetoconvection has become a topic of
interest in fields such as astrophysics and material process-
ing [19]. This phenomenon taking place in stars [20, 21]
and in the sun [22, 23] has been much investigated. Mag-
netic field effect can create a significant change in the flow
pattern and heat transport [24]. Magnetoconvection was
demonstrated by Chandrasekhar [25] to study the onset of
convection for different boundaries where it was empha-
sized that magnetic field and rotation show some striking
similarities. Zakinyan et al. [26] showed that the imposi-
tion of magnetic field leads to blurring of convection and
13
S. N. Arshika et al.
a uniform distribution of heat throughout the cell. Many
other studies [27–31] have shown that the influence of
magnetic field is to affect the critical condition by imped-
ing the onset of convection. The results pertaining to the
magnetic field can be presented either by considering the
Chandrasekhar number ( Q ) or by using Hartmann ( Ha )
formulation [32, 33]. Idris and Hashim [33] showed that
periodic convection in the presence of magnetic field
( Ha = 0.5 ) occurs much later than that in the case of no
magnetic field. Rameshwar et al. [34] presented the finite
amplitude convection in the presence of magnetic field
for free boundaries and pointed to the change in the flow
structure of streamlines from uni- to multicellular patterns.
Zürner et al. [24] addressed the effect of magnetic field on
RBC where experiments were conducted in a cylindrical
convection cell and demonstrated how a large-scale circu-
lation is affected by an increasing magnetic field. A further
increase in the magnetic field causes a breakdown of one-
roll structure into a pattern of multiple convection cells.
Hsia and Nishida [35] conducted a numerical study which
includes an infinite number of Fourier modes, and confirmed
that the period doubling is a route to chaos. Lorenz [36]
obtained a set of three differential equations having three
parameters: the Rayleigh number ( Ra ), the Prandtl num-
ber ( Pr ), and the geometric ratio ( b ). The solution of this
set was identified as paths in the phase space that has great
dependence on its initial condition. Chaos in the system was
witnessed when Rayleigh number exceeds 24.74 for Pr = 10.
A similar set was obtained by Saltzman [37], but with dif-
ferent multiplicative constants. After two decades, Lorenz
[38] presented the local structure of a chaotic attractor of a
system of four ordinary differential equations. These seminal
works by Lorenz [36, 38] paved the way to a series of exist-
ing studies on chaotic motion [39–47].
Kanchana et al. [48] examined the heat transfer and chaos
in the case of single nanoparticle suspension for free bound-
aries and identified that A
­ l2O3 nanoparticle has a higher rate
of heat transfer but delays chaos. Bhardwaj and Das [49]
studied chaos in CuO nanofluid and highlighted the follow-
ing states specifically: stable, critical, and chaotic regimes
of RBC problem. Azhar et al. [50] revealed that hybrid
nanoparticles play a predominant role in chaos transition.
Dèdèwanou et al. [51] established that the presence of nano-
particles in HNF allows the control of chaos by amplifying
the convective regime. Existence of temporally chaotic rolls
under the presence of magnetic field was reported by Bekki
and Moriguchi [52]. Dèdèwanou et al. [53] emphasized that
hybrid nanoparticles could be utilized in controlling thermal
relaxation time of heat transport in surgical operations.
In the study of RBC, one could possibly consider either
the symmetric or asymmetric boundary condition. Symmet-
ric boundaries are those boundaries whose boundary condi-
tion is mirrored along a surface.
Rayleigh–Bénard magnetoconvection with asymmetric boundary condition and comparison of results… 7335

In the present study, we formulate the problem using the ­(H2O–Cu) and HNF ­(H2O–Cu–Al2O3) under an imposed
isothermal boundary condition, i.e., temperature T = 0 , on weak external magnetic field as follows:
symmetric and asymmetric boundaries. Thus, the boundaries
are symmetric with respect to temperature. With the aim of 1. To study the onset of convective instability and make
studying a RBC problem constrained by such boundaries, we inferences on the properties of nanofluids,
shall now formulate these boundary conditions mathemati- 2. To estimate the influence of nanoparticles on the stabil-
cally as follows: ity, steady and unsteady heat transports, and on chaotic
motion,
1. Symmetric boundary conditions [free–free (FF) and 3. To visualize the fluid flow using streamlines,
rigid–rigid (RR) boundaries]: 4. To understand the dynamics of the Lorenz model and
quantify chaos in the system,
𝜕2w h 5. To compare boundary effects (symmetric and asymmet-
FF: w = 0 and = 0 at z = ± ,
𝜕z2 2 ric boundaries), for all the above aspects,
6. Ascertaining whether the highly scaled Lorenz model for
RR: w = 0 and
𝜕w h
= 0 at z = ± . asymmetric boundaries retains the features of the classi-
𝜕z 2 cal Lorenz model for symmetric boundaries of type-I.
2. Asymmetric boundary conditions [rigid–free (RF) and
free–rigid (FR) boundaries]:
Mathematical formulation
RF: w = 0 and = 0 at
𝜕w
𝜕z The phenomenon of convection arising due to a basic tem-
h 𝜕2w h perature difference between two horizontal boundaries is
z = − ; w = 0 and 2 = 0 at z = + ,
2 𝜕z 2 known as RBC. When an external magnetic field is imposed
on this system, then this system can be mathematically
𝜕2w described by using a dimensionless parameter called the
FR: w = 0 and = 0 at Chandrasekhar number. The problem at hand is now called
𝜕z2
h h Rayleigh–Bénard magnetoconvection. We aim to study the
z = − ; w = 0 and = 0 at z = + ,
𝜕w
2 𝜕z 2 effect of RBC with an external weak magnetic field bounded
by asymmetric boundaries in an electrically conducting
where w is the velocity, and h is the depth of the fluid MNF, ­(H2O–Cu) and HNF, ­(H2O–Cu–Al2O3).
layer. Consider an infinite layer of weakly electrically conduct-
ing HNF bounded by symmetric boundaries of type-II. The
The aforementioned literature are restricted to mostly the results of the asymmetric boundaries are extracted from
linear and nonlinear stability analyses concerning symmetric those of the symmetric ones by using an appropriate scaling.
boundaries of type-I (FF), and sparse literature is available This aspect shall be discussed later in this section.
on the symmetric boundaries of type-II (RR). No prior stud- The bounding parallel surfaces holding the layer of HNF
ies have investigated the heat transport and chaotic motion is separated by a distance h , and gravitational force g⃗ is
in a HNF bounded by asymmetric boundaries. We now pre- acting downwards. An external vertical magnetic field is
sent the primary objectives for the problem of RBC in MNF imposed on this layer (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1  Physical configuration

of the RBC problem in a HNF
h Rigid, isothermal boundary T = T0
bounded by symmetric bounda- =
ries of type-II and subjected to a 2
Hybrid
weak magnetic field y
nanofluid ^ ^
g = – gK H0K
h x

h
=–
2 Rigid, isothermal boundary T = T0 + ∆T

2π
λ =
Κc

13
7336 S. N. Arshika et al.

The equations governing the two-dimensional problem q���⃗b = (ub , wb ) = (0, 0), p = pb (z), T = Tb (z) and 𝜌 = 𝜌b (z),
of Rayleigh–Bénard convection in a Newtonian liquid (spe- (8)
cifically water) under the Boussinesq approximation are as
where b represents the basic quiescent state of the fluid. The
follows:
solution of the basic state temperature is given as follows:
∇ ⋅ q⃗ = 0, (1) ( )
ΔT 2z
Tb (z) = T0 + 1− . (9)
[ ] 2 h
𝜕⃗q
𝜌hnf + (⃗q.∇)⃗q = −∇p + 𝜇hnf ∇2 q⃗
𝜕t Superimposing perturbations q⃗ ′, p′, T ′, and 𝜌′ on the basic
(2)
+ [𝜌hnf − (𝜌𝛽)hnf (T − T0 )] g⃗ + J⃗ × B,
⃗ state of the system and making use of Eq. (9), we elimi-
nate the pressure term in Eq. (2) by applying curl twice and
where q⃗ = (u, w) is the velocity (m ­s−1) such that u and w nondimensionalizing the resulting equations by using the
are the velocity components in x and z directions, t is the following scales:
time (s), 𝜌 is the density (kg ­m−3) of HNF, 𝛽 is the thermal 𝛼
1 h h2 � 1 �
expansion coefficient (k−1 ) of HNF, p is the pressure (Pa), 𝜇 (X, Z) = (x, z), q⃗ = q⃗ � , 𝜏 = bf2 t, p = p,Θ= T,
h 𝜒 h 𝜇𝛼bf ΔT
is the viscosity kg ­ms−1 of HNF, and g⃗ = −gk̂ (m ­s−1) is the (10)
acceleration due to gravity.
where 𝛼 is the thermal diffusivity of the base fluid (bf), 𝜏
The term J⃗ × B⃗ in Eq. (2) represents the Lorentz force
is the dimensionless time, and Θ is the dimensionless tem-
where the expressions for current density J⃗ (A/m) and mag-
perature. We now arrive at the following equations in its
netic field density B(G)
⃗ are given by: dimensionless state:
J⃗ = 𝜎[E
⃗ + q⃗ × B],
⃗ (3) 1 𝜕 2 𝜕2Θ
(∇ W) = a∇4 W + a2 Rahnf 2 − aQ∇2 W, (11)
Prhnf 𝜕𝜏 𝜕X
⃗ = 𝜇m H.
B ⃗ (4)
( )
𝜕Θ 𝜕Θ 𝜕Θ
Other terms in the Lorentz force are as follows: induced = W + a∇2 Θ − U +W , (12)
𝜕𝜏 𝜕X 𝜕Z
⃗ , magnetic permeability 𝜇m (H/m), elec-
electric field q⃗ × B
tric conductivity 𝜎 (S/m), and strength of magnetic field where
H⃗ = H0 k̂ (A/m). In the present problem, as we have not 𝜇hnf
considered the effect of an applied electric field, we con- Prhnf =
𝜌hnf 𝛼hnf
, (Prandtl number), (13)
sider E
⃗ = 0. Thus, substituting Eqs. (3)–(4) in J⃗ × B
⃗ , we get:

J⃗ × B
⃗ = −𝜇2 𝜎H 2 q⃗ . 𝛼hnf
m 0 (5) a= , (Diffusivity ratio), (14)
𝛼bf
The heat transport equation (Fourier second law) is given
by: (𝜌𝛽)hnf ΔTgh3
Rahnf = , (Rayleigh number) and (15)
𝜕T 𝜇hnf 𝛼hnf
+ (⃗q ⋅ ∇)T = 𝛼hnf ∇2 T, (6)
𝜕t
2 𝜎H 2 h2
where T represents the temperature (K), and 𝛼hnf is the ther- 𝜇m
Q= 0
, (Chandrasekhar number). (16)
mal diffusivity ­(m2 ­s−1) of HNF. 𝜇hnf
The governing equations are first solved subject to the
symmetric boundary condition of type-II as shown in the The symmetric boundary condition of type-II used to solve
physical configuration: Eqs. (11)–(12) is as follows:

h⎫ 𝜕W 1
q⃗ = (0, 0) and T = T0 + ΔT at the lower boundary z = − ,⎪ W = 0, = 0 and Θ = 0 at Z = ± . (17)
2 . 𝜕Z 2
h ⎬
q⃗ = (0, 0) and T = T0 at the upper boundary z = ⎪ The periodicity condition on W and Θ along the horizontal
2 ⎭
(7) direction is as follows:
( ) ( )
We subsequently obtain the results of the asymmetric 2𝜋 2𝜋
boundary conditions using the results of the symmetric one. W(X, Z) = W X ∓ , Z , Θ(X, Z) = Θ X ∓ ,Z ,
kc kc
At the basic state, we have: (18)

13
Rayleigh–Bénard magnetoconvection with asymmetric boundary condition and comparison of results… 7337

where kc is the critical wave number. W = A f1 (X, Z), (21)

It is obvious that the symmetric boundary condition can be
applied on two planes whose boundary condition can be mir-
rored along the mid-plane. In view of this symmetry, it is pos-
Θ = B f2 (X, Z), (22)
sible to translate the origin to be the mid-plane between where A and B are constant amplitudes. The eigenfunctions
Z = − 21 and Z = 12. This implies that there shall exist free–rigid fi (X, Z) (i = 1, 2) are defined as follows:
boundary condition between Z = 0 and Z = 12 , while the [ ] [ ]
f1 (X, Z) cos(kX)Sf (Z)
rigid–free boundary condition will exist between Z = − 21 and = , (23)
f2 (X, Z) cos(kX) sin(2𝜋Z)
Z = 0 . We also note that the linearized version of Eqs.
(11)–(12) is invariant under the transformation [ Z ]→ −Z . and
Hence, it is to be anticipated that the results in − 12 , 0 mirror
[ ] sin h(𝜇Z) sin(𝜇Z)
the results of 0, 12 , i.e., due to symmetry, the dynamics seen Sf (Z) = ( )− ( ),
(24)
[ ] [ ] sin h 𝜇2 sin 𝜇2
in 0, 12 would be the same as the one seen in − 12 , 0 . Hence,
[ ]
is the Chandrasekhar function whose root 𝜇 = 7.85320462
it is sufficient to consider only 0, 12 , and in this case, the
satisfies the equation:
boundary eigen value problem would involve the solutions of (𝜇) (𝜇)
Eqs. (11)–(12) subject to the following free–rigid boundary tan h − tan = 0. (25)
conditions: 2 2

𝜕2W 𝜕W 1 It can easily be verified that Cf (Z) (even solution) and Sf (Z)
W= = Θ = 0 at Z = 0; W = = Θ = 0 at Z = . (odd solution) are both solutions of the governing equations,
𝜕Z 2 𝜕Z 2
(19) and the boundary conditions provided the eigen value, Rahnf ,
assumes a certain value. If we compare the two solutions for
From the above proceeding, it is clear that the results of
fixed value of parameters, it is found that the even solution
the asymmetric boundaries can be extracted from symmet-
gives us the least solution and hence is the physical solution.
ric boundaries of type-II, by replacing h by h2 . To that end,
we consider even and odd Chandrasekar functions, as solu-
Linear stability analysis of stationary
tions of the RR isothermal problem and then obtain (Rahnf )c
magnetoconvection of the RF problem using
and kc by appropriate scaling. The even solution yields the
the critical Rayleigh number of the RR problem
eigen values of the RR problem. The odd solution which
yields larger value of (Rahnf )c in the RR case shall be used
It’s mentioned earlier, the odd solution can be used to obtain
to estimate (Rahnf )c of the RF case. We follow this procedure
the critical values of Rayleigh number and wave number
and then scale and (Rahnf )c and kc appropriately to obtain
when scaled appropriately. Following Chandrasekhar [25], it
the eigen value and wave number of the RF case. Having
becomes apparent that the following scales become necessary
obtained the dimensionless equations, we now move on to
to find the critical Rayleigh number and the critical wave num-
discuss the linear stability analysis to determine the onset of
ber for asymmetric boundaries:
stationary magnetoconvection for the problem.
1
Linear stability analysis of stationary
(Rahnf )c = × Rahnf , (26)
24
magnetoconvection of the RR problem using
the odd Chandrasekar function 1
kc = × k. (27)
2
The principle of exchange of stabilities is valid in the prob-
lem. Hence, the minimal modes used to study the thermal Substituting Eqs. (20)–(22) in the dimensionless
instability imposed by an external magnetic field in MNF Eqs. (11)–(12), taking orthogonality condition with the eigen-
and HNF are given by: function and following the procedure of obtaining a non-trivial
solution, we get the expression for the HNF Rayleigh number
A 𝜕2 as follows:
U= f (X, Z), (20)
k2 𝜕X𝜕Z 1 p2 p6
Rahnf =
p3 p5
{1 − f (Q)}, (28)

where the integrals, pi's, in Eq. (28), are given by:

13
7338 S. N. Arshika et al.

Table 1  Values of Rayleigh Q Rahnf k where rhnf =

Rahnf
is the scaled Rayleigh number and
number and wave number for (Rahnf )c
different values of Q 0 [25] 1132.15 2.65 f3 (Z) = Sin(4𝜋z) . The time-dependent amplitudes
3 1167.15 2.66 A, B and C are scaled in such a way that we obtain the gen-
5 1190.45 2.67 eralized Lorenz model. These amplitudes shall be deter-
mined later in this section.
The eigenfunctions in Eqs. (30)–(32) are chosen in such
� � � � � � � � a way that they satisfy the orthogonality condition:
⎛ −2 4k2 + 𝜇2 2 coth 𝜇 − 𝜇 𝜇2 − 4k2 2 csch2 𝜇 ⎞⎫
0, if i ≠ j,
𝜋 ⎜ ⎪ {
p2 = � �� � 2
� � � �2 ⎟⎬
2k𝜇 ⎜ + csc2 𝜇 𝜇 4k2 + 𝜇2 2 + 𝜇2 − 4k2 2 sin(𝜇) ⎟⎪ ⟨ ⟩
≠ 0, if i = j, where i = 1, 2, 3.
⎝ 2 ⎠⎭ fi (X, Z) ⋅ fj (X, Z) =
� 2 �
(33)
2𝜋 k + 𝜋 2
512𝜋 2 k𝜇 2 8𝜋 2 𝜇2
p3 = , p =− , p =− .
16𝜋 4 − 𝜇4 5 16𝜋 4 k − k𝜇 4 6 k
The pair of angular brackets signify integration over
T h e qu a n t i t y f (Q) i n E q . ( 2 8 ) i s g i ve n one wave length which comprises two counter-rotating
[
b y : f (Q) = Q 2((4k −𝜇 ) (sin(𝜇)+4k
(
2 2 2 3
𝜇+𝜇 )+(cos(𝜇)−1)csch
( )
((4k +𝜇 ) sinh(𝜇)+4k 𝜇−𝜇 )
2 𝜇 2
)
2
]
2 3 Rayleigh–Bénard cells. Substituting Eqs. (30)–(32) in Eqs.
) .
2

(11)–(12) and using the orthogonality condition (33), we

) ( ) ( )(
2 2 2 2
−2(4k2 +𝜇 2 ) coth 𝜇
2
−𝜇 (𝜇 2 −4k2 ) csch2 𝜇
2
+csc2 𝜇
2
𝜇 (4k2 +𝜇 2 ) +(𝜇2 −4k2 ) sin(𝜇)

Minimizing Rahnf in Eq. (28) with respect to k and using the arrive at the generalized 3-mode Lorenz model:
scales given in Eqs. (26)–(27), we obtain the critical value of { }
dA p11 p12
the Rayleigh number and wave number for different values of = aPrhnf − (1 − f (Q))A + B , (34)
Q as shown in Table 1. d𝜏1 p1 p1
However, as a limiting case, the critical values in the
absence of magnetic field are given by: dB p p p
= arhnf 5 A − a 13 B − a 7 AC, (35)
d𝜏1 p4 p4 p4
(Rahnf )c = 1132.15 and kc = 2.65. (29)
The relative error we come across in the critical values of dC p p
= −ab 14 C + a 10 AB, (36)
(Rahnf )c and kc is 2.78% and 1.13%, respectively. We note here d𝜏1 p8 p8
that the exact value of (Rahnf )c and kc is 1100.64 and 2.68, 2
respectively [25]. Having determined the onset of convective where 𝜏1 = 𝛿 2 𝜏 , 𝛿 2 = 4𝜋 2 + k2, and b = 4𝜋
𝛿2
. The integrals in
instability, we now move on to make a nonlinear analysis, for Eqs. (34)–(36) are the terms involving pi , and those unde-
the purpose of studying the heat transport and chaotic motion. fined earlier are given by:
( (( ) )
Nonlinear analysis and derivation of the generalized 𝜋 2 4k2 − 𝜇 2 sin(𝜇) + 4k2 𝜇 + 𝜇 3
p1 =
Lorenz model with two quadratic nonlinearities 2k𝜇 cos(𝜇) − 1
( 𝜇 )(( ) ))
+csch2 4k2 + 𝜇 2 sinh(𝜇) + 4k2 𝜇 − 𝜇 3 ,
A tri-modal Fourier series representation is adopted to study 2
the heat transport and chaos in RBC with an applied magnetic
field in MNF and HNF. These modes are chosen in a way ( )
𝜋 32𝜋 3 𝜇2 𝜇4 + 624𝜋 4 𝜋
that they are minimal. The nature of these modes are sinu- p4 = , p7 = − ( ) , p8 = ,
soidal/cosinusoidal in directions of X and Z . The difference 2k k 𝜇 − 1312𝜋 𝜇 + 20736𝜋
8 4 4 8 k
between the choice of minimal modes used in linear stability
( )
and nonlinear analyses is the presence of an additional convec- 32𝜋 3 𝜇2 𝜇 4 − 336𝜋 4
tive mode in the latter analysis. The required Fourier series p10 = ( )
k 𝜇 8 − 1312𝜋 4 𝜇4 + 20736𝜋 8
representation is given by: ( )
256𝜋 3 𝜇 2 𝜇 4 + 144𝜋 4
a𝛿 2 𝜕2 − ( ),
U= A(𝜏) f (X, Z), (30) k 𝜇 8 − 1312𝜋 4 𝜇4 + 20736𝜋 8
k2 𝜕X𝜕Z 1

W = a𝛿 2 A(𝜏)f1 (X, Z), (31)

1 { }
Θ=
rhnf
B(𝜏)f2 (X, Z) − C(𝜏)f3 (Z) , (32)

13
Rayleigh–Bénard magnetoconvection with asymmetric boundary condition and comparison of results… 7339

p11 = − (
𝜋
) 16𝜋 4 − 𝜇 4
2k 4k2 + 4𝜋 2 𝜇 p= ( )
128k k2 + 𝜋 2 𝜇 3
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
⎛ −2 4k2 + 𝜇 2 2 coth 𝜇 − 𝜇 𝜇 2 − 4k2 2 csch2 𝜇 ⎞ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
⎛ −2 4k2 + 𝜇 2 2 coth 𝜇 − 𝜇 𝜇 2 − 4k2 2 csch2 𝜇 ⎞
⎜ ( )( ( 2 )2 ⎟.
) ( ) ⎜ 2 )2 ⎟.
⎜ + csc2 𝜇 𝜇 4k2 + 𝜇 2 2 + 𝜇 2 − 4k2 2 sin(𝜇) ⎟ ( )( ( ) ( )
⎜ + csc2 𝜇 𝜇 4k2 + 𝜇 2 2 + 𝜇 2 − 4k2 2 sin(𝜇) ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠

From this generalized Lorenz model, we shall obtain Thus, the generalized Lorenz model in Eqs. (34)–(36) now
the amplitudes A(∞) , B(∞) , and C(∞) to understand the takes the form of the classical Lorenz model:
steady-state streamlines, the analysis of which is presented
in the section on results and discussion. Taking the gen- dA
= aPr∗hnf {−A + B}, (42)
eralized Lorenz model in its steady state, we obtain its d𝜏1
solution in the form:
[ 2 ] dB { ∗ }
a p2 p6 p9 (1 − f (Q)) − a2 p3 p5 p9 Rahnf = a rhnf A − A − AC , (43)
A(∞)2 = , (37) d𝜏1
p2 p7 p10 (1 − f (Q))

dC
p (1 − f (Q)) = a{−b∗ C + AB}, (44)
B(∞) = − 2 A(∞), (38) d𝜏1
ap3 Rahnf
where
[ ] [ ]
p11
Pr∗hnf = {1 − f (Q)}Prhnf ,
p2 p10 (1 − f (Q)) p5 1
C(∞) = − 2
A(∞) = 1− , (39)
a2 p3 p9 Rahnf p7 rhnf p1
p5 p12
∗
rhnf = r ,
where p4 p11 {1 − f (Q)} hnf (45)
p 4𝜋
16𝜋 3 b∗ = 14 b and p14 = .
p9 =
k
. p8 k

In the section which follows, we shall transform the gener- The presence of two quadratic nonlinearities in the Lor-
alized Lorenz model (34)–(36) into the classical Lorenz model enz model for asymmetric boundaries makes it analytically
by using appropriate transformation. intractable.
A natural question arises whether the Lorenz system of
Transformation of the generalized Lorenz model RF boundaries retains the features of the classical Lorenz
to classical Lorenz model for asymmetric boundaries model of FF boundaries. In order to clearly understand this,
with magnetic field in MNF and HNF we shall now discuss the properties of the classical Lorenz
model and inspect whether the scaled Lorenz model in Eqs.
With the aim of transforming the generalized Lorenz model (42)–(44) sustains those properties. These properties are as
to classical Lorenz model, we scale the amplitudes A, B, and follows: [54, 55]
C as follows:
(a) The Lorenz model is symmetric under the transforma-
A = Δ1 A, B = Δ2 B and C = Δ3 C. (40) tion:
We now make a choice for Δ1, Δ2 , and Δ3 so that the (A⇔B⇔C) → (տA⇔տB⇔C). (46)
transformed Lorenz model has the structure of the classical
Lorenz model but with scaled quantities. The choice of Δi 's (b) The Lorenz model represents a dissipative system:
(i = 1,2,3) is as follows: ( ) ( ) ( )
𝜕 dA 𝜕 dB 𝜕 d
√ + +
pp p p4 p8 𝜕A d𝜏1 𝜕B d𝜏1 𝜕 d𝜏1 (47)
Δ21 = 4 8 , Δ2 = 11 {1 − f (Q)} and
p7 p10 p12 p7 p10 = − (Pr + b + 1) < 0.
∗ ∗

p p (41)
Δ3 = 4 11 {1 − f (Q)}. (c) The Lorenz model has a bounded solution:
p7 p12

Also, we note that p4 = p13 and p12 = p + 1 − f (Q) where

13
7340 S. N. Arshika et al.

The presence of a Lyapunov function, L, ensures that the ⎡ −aPrhnf aPrhnf 0

∗ ∗
⎤ ⎡ Ai ⎤
trajectory of the Lorenz attractor remains within an ellipsoid L = ⎢ ar0hnf
∗
−a 0 ⎥; M = ⎢ Bi ⎥. (53)
for all values of 𝜏1 such a Lyapunov function is given by: ⎢ ⎥ i
⎢ ⎥
⎣0 0 −ab∗ ⎦ ⎣ Ci ⎦
[ 2 ]
A B2 1 On solving Eqs. (50)–(51), we obtain its solution as follows:
(48)
∗ ∗ 2
L= + + (C − Pr − r ) .
2 2 2
[ ]Tr
MTr
1
= A0 rhnf
∗
A0 0 , (54)
(d) The Lorenz model is energy conserving in the dissipa-
[ ]Tr
tionless limit: MTr
r0∗
(55)
2
= 00 hnf
b∗
A20 ,

i.e., the total energy = kinetic energy + potential energy = con- where A0 is an arbitrary function of 𝜏1. We use the Fredholm
stant. Thus, the opted Fourier series for asymmetric bounda- solvability condition to derive the Ginzburg–Landau equa-
ries in Eqs. (30)–(32) yields an energy-conserving Lorenz tion in terms of A0:
model.
We move on to reduce the analytically intractable Lorenz ∑
3

model into a tractable one-dimensional Ginzburg–Landau Mij M1 = 0, (i = 2, 3). (56)

equation. j=1

In Eq. (56), M̂ 1 is the solution of the adjoint of Eq. (50).

Derivation of the Ginzburg Landau equation On solving Eq. (56), for i = 2, we get r1∗ = 0 and for i = 3,
with cubic nonlinearity hnf
we get the one-dimensional Ginzburg–Landau equation:
{ }
The scaled Lorenz model in Eqs. (42)–(44) can be projected dA0 aPr∗hnf r0∗
3
into a Ginzburg–Landau equation. For this, we use the pertur- (57)
∗ hnf
= r2 A0 − ∗ A0 .
d𝜏1 1 + r0∗ Pr∗hnf hnf b
bation series expansion on the amplitudes and on the scaled hnf

Rayleigh number, as follows: On using the initial condition A0 (0) = 1, we obtain the
⎧ ⎫ ⎧0 ⎫ ⎧A ⎫ ⎧A ⎫ ⎧A ⎫ amplitude of convection as follows:
⎪A ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ 1 ⎪ ⎪ 2 ⎪ ⎪ 3 ⎪
⎪B ⎪ 0⎪ 0 ⎪ 1 ⎪ B1 ⎪ 2 ⎪ B2 ⎪ 3 ⎪ B3 ⎪ ⎡ ⎤
⎨ ⎬ 𝜀 ⎨0 ⎬+𝜀 ⎨C ⎬+𝜀 ⎨C ⎬+𝜀 ⎨C ⎬ + ...
=
⎢ ⎥
⎪C ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ 1 ⎪ ⎪ 2 ⎪ ⎪ 3 ⎪ ⎢ 2ar∗
2
∗
Pr 𝜏1
hnf ⎥
⎪ rhnf ⎪
∗ ⎪ r0∗ ⎪ ⎪ r1∗ ⎪ ⎪ r2∗ ⎪ ⎪ r3∗ ⎪ � hnf �
⎩ ⎭ ⎩ hnf ⎭ ⎩ hnf ⎭ ⎩ hnf ⎭ ⎩ hnf ⎭ ⎢ ∗
∗
∗ 1+r0hnf Prhnf
∗ ⎥
⎢ r b e ⎥
(49) 2
A0 (𝜏1 ) = ⎢
2hnf
⎥. (58)
In view of the principle of exchange of stabilities, we ⎢ ⎧ �2ar2hnf Prhnf 𝜏1�
∗ ∗
⎫ ⎥
⎢ ∗ ⎪ 1+r0∗hnf Pr∗hnf ⎪ ∗⎥
assume the small time scale on convective motion and thus ⎢ 0hnf ⎨
r e − 1 ⎬ + r ∗
2hnf
b ⎥
𝜀2 𝜏1 = 𝜏 ∗. We obtain the system at different orders of 𝜀 by ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥
⎣ ⎩ ⎭ ⎦
substituting Eq. (49) in Eqs. (42)–(44) and equating its like
powers. These systems are given by: In the following section, we shall derive the analyti-
LM1 = [0], (50) cal expression for the Nusselt number in both steady and
unsteady states.
[ ]Tr [ ]Tr
LM2 = M21 M22 M23 = 0, −r1∗ A1 + A1 C1 , −A1 B1 ,
hnf
Derivation of unsteady and steady finite amplitude
(51) Nusselt numbers at the lower boundary
[ ]Tr
LM3 = M31 M32 M33 The Nusselt number is quantified as follows:
[ dA dB ]Tr
d𝜏
1
∗
, d𝜏 ∗1 − ar∗1 A2 − ar∗2 A1 + aA1 C2 + aA2 C1 , Total heat transport by (conduction + convection)
= dC1
hnf hnf , Nu(𝜏1 ) = .
d𝜏 ∗
− A1 B2 − A2 B1 Heat transport by conduction
(52) (59)
where the linear operator and the matrix of amplitudes Mi At the lower boundary, for Z = − 21 , we have:
are given by:

13
Rayleigh–Bénard magnetoconvection with asymmetric boundary condition and comparison of results… 7341

[ ( ) ]
2𝜋
dΘb Chaotic motion
∫0
kc
Heat transport by conduction = kbf dX ,
dZ
Z= − 21
The system of nonlinear differential Eqs. (42)–(44) cannot
(60) be treated analytically due to the presence of two quadratic
[ ]
2𝜋
( ) nonlinearities, AB and AC . This system can, however, be
∫0
kc 𝜕Θ
Heat transport by convection = khnf
𝜕Z
dX , solved numerically. In the steady state, this system has
three solutions they are as follows:
1
Z= − 2

(61)
where kbf and khnf are the thermal conductivities of bf and �√0, 0),
Λ1 = (0,
√ � ⎫
⎪
HNF, respectively. Substituting Eqs. (60)–(61) in Eq. (59) Λ2 =
� √
b∗ (r∗ − 1), b∗ (r∗ − 1), (r∗ − 1) ,
� ⎬. (68)
√
and noting that Θb (Z) = ΔT (Tb (Z) − T0 ) , we arrive at the Λ3 = − b (r − 1), − b (r − 1), (r − 1) ⎪
1
⎭
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
Nusselt number expression as follows:
2𝜋 � � These points are the critical points of the dynamical sys-
∫
⎡ kc 𝜕Θ ⎤
khnf ⎢ 0 𝜕Z
dX ⎥ tem (42)–(44). The pre-onset critical point, Λ1, represents
the conduction state, while the other two, Λ2 and Λ3, are
kbf ⎢⎢ 2𝜋kc � dΘb � ⎥ (62)
Nu(𝜏1 ) = 1 + ,
⎣ ∫0
⎥
dX ⎦ post-onset critical points. Following the classical procedure
dZ Z= − 1 2 of obtaining the Hopf–Rayleigh number, rH∗ , for the Lorenz
system (42)–(44), we get:
In the conduction state, the liquid and solid phases are
in thermal equilibrium. Thus, kbf is used in the liquid ( ∗ )
Pr + b ∗
+ 3
phase, whereas in the convective regime, khnf is assumed. rH∗ = Pr ( ∗
∗
). (69)
Pr − b∗ − 1
It follows from this reason, the ratio khnf is seen in Nu(𝜏1 ) .
k
bf
Using the expression for Θ from Eq. (32) in Eq. (62), we Equation (69) is the scaled Hopf–Rayleigh number. In
obtain the Nusselt number in its unsteady and steady states order to get the Hopf–Rayleigh number, rH, for the problem,
as follows: we need to revert back to unscaled quantities. This procedure
{ } gives us rH in the form:
khnf 4𝜋Δ3
Nu(𝜏1 ) = 1 + C(𝜏1 ), (63) p4 p211 (1 − f (Q))2 Pr
{ }
kbf rhnf p8 p11 (1 − f (Q))Pr + p1 p14 b + 3p1 p8
rH = .
p1 p5 p12 p8 p11 (1 − f (Q))Pr − p1 p14 b − p1 p8
khnf (70)
Nu(∞) = 1 + {4𝜋}C(∞). (64) Having discussed analytical aspects of the present prob-
kbf
lem, we now move on to discuss the results of this study.
Using C(𝜏) from Eq. (49) and C(∞) from Eq. (39), we
arrive at:
{ ( ∗ ∗ )}
Results and discussion
khnf 4𝜋Δ3 rhnf − r0hnf
Nu(𝜏1 ) = 1 + A20 , (65)
kbf b∗ rhnf Rayleigh–Bénard system involving weakly electrically
conducting MNF and HNF between asymmetric bounda-
{ ( )} ries under the influence of a magnetic field is investigated
khnf 4𝜋p5 1
Nu(∞) = 1 + 1− . (66) in the paper. The representative MNF and HNF chosen are
kbf p7 rhnf ­H2O–Cu and H ­ 2O–Cu–Al2O3. We aim to analyze the effect
of suspended nanoparticles in the fluid and different bound-
In order to study the heat transport in the system, we
ary combinations on linear stability, heat transfer, and cha-
define the time-averaged Nusselt number, Nu , as follows:
otic motion. The maximum volume fraction of chosen nano-
𝜏1 particles is 2% and thereby agglomeration is discounted.
𝜏1 ∫0
1
Nu = Nu(𝜏1 )d𝜏1 . (67) The thermophysical properties of nanofluids such as den-
sity, specific heat, thermal diffusivity, and thermal expan-
Having quantified the heat transport, we now move on sion are calculated by using either phenomenological laws or
to make a study on chaotic motion. mixture theory (see Table 2), where Φ is the volume fraction
of nanoparticles in the base fluid, and Cp is the specific heat
of the nanofluid. The KVL model is used in modeling the
single-phase nanofluid.

13
7342 S. N. Arshika et al.

Table 2  Models to calculate the thermophysical properties of mono- Table 5  Models to calculate the thermophysical properties of hybrid
nanofluid nanofluid [60]
Models Thermophysical properties of Models Thermophysical properties of hybrid nanofluid
mono-nanofluid ( )(
Empiri- Cp
) (
𝜌0hnf 2 Mhnf
)
(k ) ( k ) khnf = kbf C hnf
Hamilton-Crosser model [56] kmnf k
np
+2 −2Φ 1− k
np
cal pbf 𝜌bf Mbf
( kbf ) ( k bf )
kbf
= np np models
kbf
+2 +Φ 1− k
bf
𝜇hnf = 𝜇bf + 0.07Φ
Brinkman model [57] 𝜇mnf 1 Mixture 𝜌hnf = (1 − Φ)𝜌bf + ΦAl2 O3 𝜌Al2 O3 + ΦCu 𝜌Cu
= (1−Φ)
𝜇bf 2.5
theory (𝜌Cp )hnf = (1 − Φ)𝜌bf Cpbf + ΦAl2 O3 𝜌Al2 O3 CpAl O + ΦCu 𝜌Cu CpCu
2 3
Mixture theory [6] 𝜌mnf
= (1 − Φ)
𝜌
+ Φ 𝜌np (𝜌𝛽)hnf = (1 − Φ)𝜌bf 𝛽bf + ΦAl2 O3 𝜌Al2 O3 𝛽Al2 O3 + ΦCu 𝜌Cu 𝛽Cu
𝜌bf bf
(𝜌Cp )mnf (𝜌C ) Mhnf = (1 − Φ)Mbf + ΦAl2 O3 MAl2 O3 + ΦCu MCu
= (1 − Φ) + Φ (𝜌Cp )np
(𝜌Cp )bf
(𝜌𝛽)
p bf
Other (Cp )hnf = 𝜌 p hnf ; 𝛽hnf = 𝜌 hnf .𝛼hnf = (𝜌Chnf)
(𝜌C ) (𝜌𝛽) k
expres-
(𝜌𝛽)mnf
(𝜌𝛽)bf
= (1 − Φ) + Φ (𝜌𝛽)np hnf hnf p hnf

sions
bf
kmnf
𝛼mnf = (𝜌Cp )mnf
Other expressions [58] (Cp )mnf =
(𝜌Cp )mnf
. 𝛽mnf =
(𝜌𝛽)mnf

0≤Φ=
𝜌mnf 𝜌mnf
Nanoparticle volume
< 1.
((Cu + Al2 O3 )nanoparticles + base fluid) volume
(72)
The volume fraction, Φ , in Table 2 can be written as
follows: We note that,

0≤Φ=
Nanoparticle volume ΦCu % + ΦAl2 O3 % = Φ%. (73)
< 1. (71)
(Nanoparticle + base fluid) volume
The mixture of Cu-Al2 O3 nanoparticles sums upto 2%,
The values of thermophysical quantities of H2 O, Cu, and where ΦCu and ΦAl2 O3 are in equal proportion. In Table 5,
Al2 O3 are those obtained from experiments (see Table 3). The Mhnf represents the molecular weight of HNF. Using the
values of thermophysical properties of H2 O−Cu are calculated models in Table 5, we can easily calculate the values of ther-
using Tables 2–3, and these have been documented in Table 4. mophysical properties of H2 O-Cu-Al2 O3. The so obtained
To calculate the values of thermophysical properties of values are recorded in Table 6.
H2 O−Cu − Al2 O3, we have used the experimental data of From Tables 3, 4, and 6, the following inequalities
Suresh et al. [59] for thermal conductivity and viscosity. become apparent:
Empirical models for the experimental data of Suresh et al.
[59] were proposed by Kanchana et al. [60], and this showed • kbf < kmnf < khnf ,
good match with their experimental data [59]. For the other • 𝜇bf < 𝜇mnf < 𝜇hnf ,
thermophysical properties, we have used the traditional mix- • 𝜌bf < 𝜌hnf < 𝜌mnf ,
ture theory. These expressions are given in Table 5. • (Cp )bf > (Cp )hnf > (Cp )mnf and
The volume fraction, Φ, in Table 5 can be written as follows: • 𝛽bf > 𝛽hnf > 𝛽mnf .

Table 3  Thermophysical Properties 𝜇 𝜌

k Cp 𝛼 × 107 𝛽 × 105
properties of H2 O, Cu, and
Al2 O3 at T = 300 K [10] H2 O 0.613 0.00089 997.1 4179 1.46632 21
Cu 401 – 8933 385 1163.1 1.67
Al2 O3 40 – 3970 765 131.7 0.85

Table 4  Thermophysical 𝜇mnf 𝜌mnf

Φ% kmnf Cpmnf 𝛼mnf × 107 𝛽mnf × 105
properties of H2 O−Cu nanofluid
at T = 300 K 0.10 0.614832 0.000892 1005.03 4145.30 1.47577 20.82
0.50 0.622198 0.000901 1036.77 4015.58 1.49450 20.16
0.75 0.626832 0.000906 1056.61 3938.46 1.50629 19.77
1 0.631489 0.000912 1076.45 3864.18 1.51814 19.39
2 0.650355 0.000936 1155.81 3592.56 1.56624 18.01

13
Rayleigh–Bénard magnetoconvection with asymmetric boundary condition and comparison of results… 7343

6. Quantify Hopf–Rayleigh number that signifies the onset

With regard to Φ, we see that increase in Φ increases k , 𝜌,
of chaos.
and 𝛼 whereas Cp and 𝛽 decrease with Φ. We next present the
variation of Pr with Φ for different liquids (see Fig. 2). From
All of these aspects shall be compared for the asymmetric
these figures, the following results are evident:
and symmetric boundaries in MNF (H2 O − Cu) and HNF
• PrΦ=0.1% > PrΦ=0.5% > PrΦ=0.75% > PrΦ=1% > PrΦ=2% for
(H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 ).
H2 O − Cu,
• PrΦ=0.1% < PrΦ=0.5% < PrΦ=0.75% < PrΦ=1% < PrΦ=2% for
Choice of parameters' values and nanoparticles
H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 and
• PrH2 O−Cu < PrH2 O < PrH2 O−Cu−Al2 O3.
Choice of values of Q for a weakly electrically conducting
MNF and HNF
In the sections that follow, we focus on the results con-
In the paper, we study Rayleigh–Bénard convection in a
cerning the following aspects:
weakly electrically conducting MNF and HNF. Thus, the
values of Q are chosen to be small, i.e., 3 and 5, and the rea-
1. The choice of parameters' values and nanoparticles, and
son for choosing these values is given below. The properties
their importance in the study,
such as electrical conductivity, 𝜎 , and magnetic permeabil-
2. The study on the effect of nanoparticles on the onset of
ity, 𝜇m , for H2 O, Cu , and Al2 O3 are documented in Table 7.
magnetoconvection,
The values of 𝜎 and 𝜇m at T = 300 K that are documented
3. Make a comparison between the unsteady and steady
in Table 7 have been obtained from their available values at
heat transports,
T = 293.15 K and T = 298.15 K using the method of linear
4. Compare streamlines of steady and unsteady regimes,
extrapolation.
5. Understand the regular, chaotic, and periodic behavior
of the solution of the Lorenz model through its attractor
and bifurcation diagram,

Table 6  Thermophysical 𝜇hnf 𝜌hnf

Φ% ΦAl2 O3 % ΦCu % khnf Cphnf 𝛼hnf × 107 𝛽hnf × 105 Mhnf
properties of H2 O-Cu-Al2 O3
nanoliquid at T = 300 K 0.10 0.0962 0.0038 0.617576 0.00096 1000.26 4164.68 1.48250 20.91 18.092
0.50 0.4810 0.0190 0.636106 0.00124 1012.90 4108.31 1.52862 20.58 18.422
0.75 0.7215 0.0285 0.647808 0.00141 1020.81 4073.74 1.55778 20.38 18.628
1 0.9620 0.0380 0.659598 0.00159 1028.71 4039.75 1.58719 20.18 18.834
2 1.9240 0.0760 0.707745 0.00229 1060.32 3908.81 1.70763 19.42 19.659

Fig. 2  Plot of Pr ver-

sus Φ for H2 O − Cu and 6.0 H2O–Cu H2O–Cu–Al2O3
12.0
H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 nanofluids
5.8
10.5
5.6
Pr Pr
9.0
5.4

7.5
5.2

5.0 6.0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Φ Φ

Table 7  Values of 𝜎 and 𝜇m for Properties 𝜎 at T = 293.15 K 𝜎 at T = 298.15 K 𝜎 at T = 300 K 𝜇m at T = 300 K

H2 O, Cu, and Al2 O3
H2 O 4.194 × ­10–2 [62] 5.5501 × ­10–2 [62] 5.984 × ­10–2 1.256627 × ­10–6 [61]
Cu – – 6.4 × ­107 [65] 1.256629 × ­10–6 [61]
Al2 O3 3.5 × ­107 [64] 3.8 × ­107 [63] 3.910 × ­107 1.256665 × ­10–6 [61]

13
7344 S. N. Arshika et al.

• For H2 O-Cu MNF, the expression for Q is given as fol- that the width of the channel h lies in the range [1, 5] for
lows: practical applicability [69]. Also, Cu and Al2 O3 are para-
magnetic nanoparticles; hence, their suspension in a para-
(𝜇m )2mnf 𝜎mnf H02 h2 magnetic fluid like H2 O shows a paramagnetic behavior.
Q= . (74)
𝜇mnf
Choice of values of Pr for a weakly electrically conducting
  The thermophysical properties (𝜇m )mnf and 𝜎mnf for
MNF and HNF
MNF present in the definition of Q, are calculated from
the mixture theory (see Table 2). We note here that the
The Pr values have been calculated for H2 O − Cu MNF
value of 𝜇mnf is taken from Table 4.
and H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 HNF, and their choice is justified
as follows:
• For H2 O-Cu-Al2 O3 HNF, the expression for Q is
given as follows: • For H2 O − Cu MNF, the expression for Prmnf is given by:
𝜇mnf
(𝜇m )2hnf 𝜎hnf H02 h2 Prmnf = . (76)
Q= . (75) 𝜌mnf 𝛼mnf
𝜇hnf

  The thermophysical properties (𝜇m )hnf and 𝜎hnf for

HNF present in the definition of Q , are calculated
from the mixture theory (see Table 5). We note here
that the value of 𝜇hnf is taken from Table 6.
The values of physical quantities such as 𝜇m , 𝜎 , and H0 ,
needed to justify the choice of values of Q , are documented
in Table 7. Most studies on magnetic fields consider a high
magnetic field density and few consider its lower values
[25, 33, 66, 67]. Some of the direct applications relating
to applied magnetic field on convection is in convection
control of crystal growing process, steel-casting process
and liquid metal cooling in a nuclear reactor [68]. In the
paper, we consider the strengths of the applied magnetic
field, H0 to be 12, 15, 18, 20, and 22 (in A∕m).
Tables 8–9 show that higher values of H0 are required
in the HNF problem when compared to that of MNF, so
The thermophysical properties 𝜇mnf , 𝜌mnf , and 𝛼mnf for
MNF present in Prmnf are taken from the calculated values
in Table 4.
• For H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 HNF, the expression for Prhnf is
given by:
𝜇hnf
Prhnf = . (77)
𝜌hnf 𝛼hnf
The thermophysical properties 𝜇hnf , 𝜌hnf , and 𝛼hnf for
HNF present in Prhnf are taken from the calculated values
in Table 6.
To retain the stability of the system, we take the max-
imum value of Φ to be 2%. Thus, corresponding to each
value of Φ, we calculate the values of Prmnf and Prhnf (see
Tables 10–11).

Table 8  Values of h in mm for 𝜎mnf

Φ% (𝜇m )mnf × 106 Q=3 Q=5
H2 O − Cu MNF, for different
values of Φ, Q, and H0 at H0 = 12 H0 = 15 H0 = 18 H0 = 12 H0 = 15 H0 = 18
T = 300 K
h in mm h in mm h in mm h in mm h in mm h in mm

1 640,000.0592 1.25662702 4.3359 3.4687 2.8906 5.5976 4.4781 3.7317

2 1,280,000.059 1.25662704 3.1060 2.4848 2.0706 4.0098 3.2079 2.6732

Table 9  Values of h in mm for H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 HNF, for different values of Φ, Q, and H0 at T = 300 K
Φ% ΦAl2 O3 % ΦCu % 𝜎hnf (𝜇m )hnf × 106 Q=3 Q=5
H0 = 18 H0 = 20 H0 = 22 H0 = 18 H0 = 20 H0 = 22
h in mm h in mm h in mm h in mm h in mm h in mm

1 0.9620 0.0380 400,462.0592 1.25662736 4.8250 4.3425 3.9477 6.2291 5.6062 5.0965
2 1.9240 0.0760 800,924.0586 1.25662773 4.0945 3.6850 3.3500 5.2860 4.7574 4.3249

13
Rayleigh–Bénard magnetoconvection with asymmetric boundary condition and comparison of results… 7345

Table 10  Values of Prmnf of Φ% Prmnf Choice of nanoparticles

H2 O − Cu at T = 300 K
0.10 6.01405 We choose Cu nanoparticle due to its high thermal conduc-
0.50 5.81495 tivity and less stability in contrast with Al2 O3 nanoparti-
0.75 5.69252 cle which has low thermal conductivity and high stability.
1 5.58070 Fluids having single and two nanoparticles are chosen in
2 5.17048 the study to check their effect on different aspects of the
problem.

Table 11  Values of Prhnf of H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 at T = 300 K

Results on the onset of magnetoconvection
Φ% ΦAl2 O3 % ΦCu % Prhnf

0.10 0.0962 0.0038 6.47386

This subsection presents the results on the onset of mag-
0.50 0.4810 0.0190 8.00858
netoconvection for three boundary combinations. Figure 3
0.75 0.7215 0.0285 8.89826
reveals that the effect of magnetic field is to stabilize the
1 0.9620 0.0380 9.73812
system, and we may infer that:
2 1.9240 0.0760 12.64750 (Rac )Q=0 < (Rac )Q=3 < (Rac )Q=5 , (78)

In the case of Prmnf , it is the thermal diffusivity that

increases faster with increase in Φ when compared with the
increase in viscosity with an increase in Φ.
In the case of Prhnf , the increase in thermal diffusivity
with increase in Φ is much smaller than the increase in vis-
cosity with an increase in Φ.
(Rac )FF < (Rac )RF < (Rac )RR . (79)
For a fixed magnetic field strength, viz., Q = 3, we make a
comparison of the critical Rayleigh number and wave num-
ber for different boundary combinations, and the findings
are recorded below:

Fig. 3  Plot of Ra versus k for 1225

different values of Q for RF, FF, Q=0
and RR boundaries Q=3
1200
Q=5
Ra

1175

1150
{1132.15,2.65}

1125

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

k
1000 2250
Q=0 Q=0
900 Q=3 2100 Q=3
Q=5 Q=5
800 1950
Ra

Ra

700 1800

{657.51,2.22} {1728.38,3.09}
600 1650

500 1500
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
k k

13
7346 S. N. Arshika et al.

RaRR
c
⎫ kcRR ⎫ 1800 RaHNF for FF
RaFF
= 2.36471, ⎪ = 1.34, ⎪
kcFF RaMNF for FF
⎪ ⎪
c
RaRR kcRR 1500
RaHNF for RF
c
RaRF
= 1.47959, ⎬ and kcRF
= 1.15, ⎬ (80)
c
RaRF ⎪ kcRF ⎪ 1200 RaMNF for RF
c
= 1.59821 ⎪ = 1.16. ⎪ RaHNF for RR

Ra
RaFF
c ⎭ kcFF
⎭ 900 RaMNF for RR

In order to understand the effect of nanoparticles on the 600

critical Rayleigh number, we rewrite the HNF and MNF
300
Rayleigh numbers as follows:
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Rahnf = F1 × Rabf , (81) Φ

Fig. 5  Plot of Ra versus Φ for the three boundary conditions (RF, FF,
Ramnf = F2 × Rabf , (82) and RR) for Q = 3
where
(𝜌𝛽)hnf 𝛼bf 𝜇bf (𝜌𝛽)mnf 𝛼bf 𝜇bf (𝜌𝛽)bf ΔTgh3 In Fig. 5, we explicitly show the boundary effect on the
F1 =
(𝜌𝛽)bf 𝛼hnf 𝜇hnf
; F2 =
(𝜌𝛽)bf 𝛼mnf 𝜇hnf
; Rabf =
𝜇bf 𝛼bf
. critical Rayleigh number for different values of Φ.
(83)
The expressions F1 and F2 represent the factors by which
Results on heat transfer
Rahnf and Ramnf differ from Rabf . The following results are
now clear: An increase in Φ shows a decrease in the factors
We now investigate the effect of magnetic field, thermal
Fi (i = 1,2) (see Fig. 4), and we also note the following:
Rayleigh number, and nanoparticles on the heat transport for
F1 < F2 < 1. (84) different boundary combinations. To analyze these effects,
we consider the plots of both unsteady and steady Nusselt
numbers (see Figs. 6–9). Figures 6–8 shows the plots by
We must also point here to the fact that F1 and F2 are taking Φ = 2% and for rhnf = 2, 4 . From these figures, we
independent of boundary influence (see Eq. (83)). The influ- infer the following results pertaining to the time-averaged
ence of boundaries is, however, seen on Rabf and thereby on Nusselt number:
(Rahnf )c and (Ramnf )c.
As a consequence of the result in Eq. (84), the following Nu
Q=5
< Nu
Q=3
< Nu
Q=0
. (86)
result becomes obvious:
( ) ( ) ( )
Rahnf c < Ramnf c < Rabf c . (85) On comparing the results concerning the nature of bound-
aries, we observe:
These results are reiterated in Fig. 5.
(87)
RR RF FF
Nu < Nu < Nu .
Also,

(88)
rhnf =2 rhnf =4
Nu < Nu .
1.0
The above finding in Eqs. (86) and (88) reveal that the
0.9 effect of external magnetic field is to diminish and that of
0.8 F1 for HNF the thermal Rayleigh number is to enhance the heat transport
0.7 F2 for MNF in the case of two nanoparticles, single nanoparticle and no
Factor

0.6 nanoparticle cases, i.e.,

0.5
(89)
H2 O H2 O−Cu H2 O−Cu−Al2 O3
Nu < Nu < Nu .
0.4

0.3 These results can be attributed to the findings reported in

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 the linear stability analysis.
Φ The steady Nusselt number is plotted for
H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 at Φ = 2% for the three considered
Fig. 4  Plot of factor versus Φ for MNF and HNF boundaries. Figure 9 leads to the following observation:

13
Rayleigh–Bénard magnetoconvection with asymmetric boundary condition and comparison of results… 7347

r=2 r=2 r=2

Q=0 Q=3 Q=5
4.0 4.0 4.0

2.8803

2.8720
r=4 r=4

2.8753
r=4

2.7843
2.7122

2.6952
3.5 3.5 3.5

2.4484

2.4361

2.4279
2.3096

2.2965

2.2877
3.0 3.0

2.0369

2.0117

1.9950
3.0

1.8463
1.2731

1.8285
2.5 2.5 2.5
Nu 2.0 Nu 2.0 Nu 2.0
1.5 1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0
H 2O H2O–Cu H2O–Cu–Al2O3 H 2O H2O–Cu H2O–Cu–Al2O3 H 2O H2O–Cu H2O–Cu–Al2O3

Fig. 6  Plot of Nu for H2 O, H2 O − Cu, and H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 for rhnf = 2, 4 and Φ = 2% for RF boundaries

r=2 r=2
Q=0 Q=3 r=2 Q=5
2.9590

2.9552
4.0 4.0

2.9490
r=4 4.0 r=4
2.7838

2.7794

2.7726
r=4
2.5014

2.4944
3.5 3.5 3.5

2.4996
2.3572

2.3549

2.3496
2.0748

2.0635
2.0708
3.0 3.0
1.9048

3.0

1.9002

1.8929
2.5 2.5 2.5
Nu 2.0 Nu 2.0 Nu 2.0
1.5 1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0
H 2O H2O–Cu H2O–Cu–Al2O3 H2O H2O–Cu H2O–Cu–Al2O3 H2 O H2O–Cu H2O–Cu–Al2O3

Fig. 7  Plot of Nu for H2 O, H2 O − Cu, and H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 for rhnf = 2, 4 and Φ = 2% for FF boundaries

r=2 r=2 r=2

Q=0 Q=3 Q=5
4.0
2.7252

4.0 r=4 4.0 r=4 r=4

2.7133

2.7053
2.5710

2.5306
2.5468

3.5 3.5 3.5

2.3335

2.3040

2.2843
2.1749

2.1539
2.2063

1.9546

3.0 3.0 3.0

1.8551
1.8949
1.8042

1.6984
1.7408

2.5 2.5 2.5

Nu 2.0 Nu 2.0 Nu 2.0
1.5 1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0
H2O H2O–Cu H2O–Cu–Al2O3 H2 O H2O–Cu H2O–Cu–Al2O3 H 2O H2O–Cu H2O–Cu–Al2O3

Fig. 8  Plot of Nu for H2 O, H2 O − Cu, and H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 for rhnf = 2, 4 and Φ = 2% for RR boundaries

Nu(∞)Q=5 < Nu(∞)Q=3 < Nu(∞)Q=0 , (90) Since we have the expression for A0 (𝜏1 ) in Eq. (58), we
shall revert back to the unscaled amplitude and also take
𝜏1 = 𝜀2 𝛿 2 𝜏 . On taking 𝜏 = 𝜀2𝜏𝛿2 , we get the following expres-
Nu(∞)RR < Nu(∞)RF < Nu(∞)FF . (91) sion for amplitude in its unsteady state:
2ar∗ Pr∗ 𝜏
2hnf hnf
� �
1+r∗ Pr∗
r2∗ b∗ e 0hnf hnf
Results on streamlines A0 (𝜏)2 = hnf
.
⎧ �2ar∗2hnf Pr∗hnf 𝜏� ⎫ (93)
Obtaining A0 (𝜏) from A(𝜏). ⎪ 1+r ∗ Pr∗ ⎪
r0∗ ⎨e 0hnf hnf − 1⎬ + r2∗ b∗
⎪ ⎪
hnf hnf

From the Fourier expansion of W , one can easily obtain the ⎩ ⎭

expression for the stream function, Ψ , as follows:
In the case of steady amplitude, we replace
A0 (𝜏) by A(∞) where A(∞) is given by Eq. (37).
a𝛿 2 Δ1
Ψ= Sin(kX)Sf (Z)A(𝜏). (92) Using the plot of stream function, a physical expla-
k nation of the results is made from Fig. 10. The stream-
lines are plotted by taking the streamline |Ψ(X, Z)| = 2 ,

13
7348 S. N. Arshika et al.

Fig. 9  Plot of Nu(∞) for 3.0

H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 at Φ = 2% RF
for Q = 0, 3, 5 and for different 2.5
boundaries
2.0 2.55

Nu(∞)
2.50
1.5
2.45
1.0 2200 23002400 2500
RF(263.05,1) for Q = 0
0.5 RF(271.18,1) for Q = 3
RF(276.60,1) for Q = 5
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Rahnf

3.0 3.0
FF RR
2.5 2.90 2.5
2.85
2.0 2.80 2.0 2.20
2.15
2.75
2.10
Nu(∞)

Nu(∞)
1.5 2.70 1.5 2.05
2000 2400 2800
2.00
1.0 1.0 1.95
2200 2400
FF(337.21,1) for Q = 0 RR(401.58,1) for Q = 0
0.5 FF(404.56,1) for Q = 3 0.5 RR(433.41,1) for Q = 3
FF(448.62,1) for Q = 5 RR(454.62,1) for Q = 5
0.0 0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Rahnf Rahnf

rhnf = 4 , 𝜏 = 0.05 and for H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 at Φ = 1% . Results on the onset of chaos

Since H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 transports maximum heat, we
have included the plot of streamlines of HNF to under-
stand its behavior under three boundary conditions. From
Fig. 10, we see that the cells are shrinking with an increase
in Q in the case of all three boundary conditions, which
confirms the stabilizing effect of Q in both steady and
unsteady states. There is no significant influence of mag-
netic parameter for RR boundaries, whereas in the case of
FF boundaries, its influence is seen. We understand that
this is so for weakly electrically conducting liquids.
Also, we observe that the cell size in the case of FF is
greater than those of RF and RR, which shows intense cell
activity in case of FF, intermediate in RF, and least in RR
for both steady and unsteady states.
The wavelength in which two counter-rotating (clock-
wise/anticlockwise) convective cells occur is 2𝜋 . Thus, a
k
c
single cell would have width k𝜋 . The width of a single cell
c whose window of periodicity is recorded in Table 13.
under the influence of magnetic field and for different bound-
ary conditions are documented in Table 12.
From Table 12, it is clear that the width of the cell
decreases with an increase in Q. Thus, more thermal energy
is required for the onset of convective motion and for con-
vective activity in the cell to occur.
In this section, we shall restrict our attention on the effect
of magnetic field in supporting or opposing chaos due to
the presence of nanoparticles. To facilitate this study, we
have defined a scaled Prandtl number, Pr∗, given in Eq. (13),
which incorporates the effect of magnetic field. The values
of rH for an increasing Q for three boundary combinations
together with information about their window of periodicity
for H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 are documented in Table 13.
In order to understand the chaotic regime in a bet-
ter manner, we have solved the scaled Lorenz model
(42)–(44) numerically using Runge–Kutta method by tak-
ing 𝜏1 = 0(0.1)50, with the initial condition (5, 5, 5). The
range of rhnf is chosen between 1 and 500 to get a better
picturization of chaotic and periodic regimes. These fig-
ures (see Figs. 11–13) show a drastic change from regular
convective motion to either a chaotic or a periodic motion
Clearly from Table 13, chaos is seen in all cases but at
distinct values of rH . The values of rH obtained analytically
and numerically are one and the same. These values coin-
cide very well with those obtained in the bifurcation dia-
gram. One can also observe a shift in the periodic motion

13
Rayleigh–Bénard magnetoconvection with asymmetric boundary condition and comparison of results… 7349

Fig. 10  Plot of streamlines for 0.5 0.5

H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 in its (a) (a) (b)
unsteady and (b)steady states 0.4 0.4
for different values of Q and for
Q=0 Q=0
RF, FF, and RR boundaries Q=3 Q=3
0.3 0.3 Q=5
Q=5

Z
0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
X X

1.0 1.0
(a) (b)
0.8 0.8
Q=0 Q=0
Q=3 Q=3
0.6 Q=5 0.6 Q=5
Z

Z
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
X X

0.4 (a) 0.4 (b)

0.2 Q=0 0.2 Q=0

Q=3 Q=3
Q=5 Q=5
0.0 0.0
Z

– 0.2 – 0.2

– 0.4 – 0.4

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
X X

Table 12  Wave number, Q FF RF RR

wavelength of Bénard cells,
and individual cell width for kc 2𝜋 𝜋
kc 2𝜋 𝜋
kc 2𝜋 𝜋
kc kc kc
Q = 0, 3, 5 and for different kc kc kc

boundaries 0 2.22 2.83 1.4 2.65 2.37 1.1 3.09 2.03 1

3 2.31 2.71 1.3 2.66 2.36 1.1 3.10 2.02 1
5 2.37 2.65 1.3 2.67 2.35 1.1 3.11 2.02 1

as we increase the values of Q . This aspect is identified rHQ=0 < rHQ=3 < rHQ=5 , (94)
for all three boundary combinations. From Table 13 and
bifurcation diagrams, the following results are evident:
rHFF < rHRF < rHRR . (95)

13
7350 S. N. Arshika et al.

Table 13  Values of rH with Q FF RF RR

information on the window
of periodicity for different Q=0 30.5739 41.0920 57.1586
Q, and for symmetric and
Window of periodicity [99.8774, 112.9493] [260.2077, 296.2910] [628.2764, 703.3435]
asymmetric boundaries for
H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 at Φ = 0.1% Q=3 33.3903 42.4812 63.7059
Window of periodicity [141.8211, 161.3195] [279.2285, 317.6970] [769.0830, 858.8720]
Q=5 36.2928 43.4324 68.3017
Window of periodicity [176.4966, 202.4189] [291.7364, 332.3621] [877.6991, 975.8482]

350 600

300 500
250

rH = 30.5739
rH = 41.0920

400
C(τ 1)

C(τ 1)
200
300
150
200
100
100
50

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 100 200 300 400 500 r hnf
rhnf
500
350

300 400 rH = 33.3903

250
rH = 42.4812

C(τ 1)

300
C(τ 1)

200
200
150

100 100

50
0
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 100 200 300 400 500 r hnf
rhnf
400

300
rH = 36.2928

300
rH = 43.4324

C(τ 1)

200
200
C(τ 1)

100
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 r hnf
0 100 200 300 400 500
rhnf
Fig. 12  Plot of C(𝜏1 ) versus rhnf for Q = 0, 3, 5 for FF boundaries

Fig. 11  Plot of C(𝜏1 )versus rhnf for Q = 0, 3, 5 for RF boundaries

13
Rayleigh–Bénard magnetoconvection with asymmetric boundary condition and comparison of results… 7351

boundaries favor chaos much more than symmetric

300
boundaries.
250 Another aspect that we observe from Figs. 11–13 is that the

rH = 57.1586
200 RR boundaries have a larger window of periodicity. Periodic
C(τ 1)

motion occurs much later in the presence of magnetic field and

150
for RR boundaries. We witness a similar trend in the periodic
100 motion for the case of RR boundary as that observed in the
50 case of FF and RF boundaries but for a larger value of rhnf . It
is also noticed that the spells of periodicity occur between the
0
chaotic motion. We now move on to analyze the influence of
0 100 200 300 400 500
r hnf nanoparticles on the onset of chaos for the three boundaries.
From Table 14, we may infer the following:
300
H O H O−Cu H O−Cu−Al2 O3
250 rH2 < rH2 < rH2 , (96)
rH = 63.7059

200
C(τ 1)

rHΦ=0.5 < rHΦ=0.75 < rHΦ=1 , (97)

150

100 which shows that the effect of two suspended nanoparticles

is to greatly delay the onset of chaos when compared to
50
single or no nanoparticle in the fluid. Increasing the nano-
0 particle concentration also delays the chaos.
0 100 200 300 400 500 The critical points of the Lorenz attractor, correspond-
r hnf ing eigen values, and Lyapunov exponents 𝜆i (i = 1, 2, 3)
for Q = 0, 3 and for different boundary conditions in the
250 cases of H2 O − Cu and H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 at Φ = 0.1% are
documented in Tables 15–16. The value of rhnf ∗
is fixed
rH = 68.3017

200
for both the liquids and is chosen in a way that we may
150 witness chaotic motion (i.e., rhnf
∗
> rH ). We observe that
with an increase in Q , increases the magnitude of the criti-
C(τ 1)

100
50
0 must be chosen accordingly. On comparing the Lyapunov
0 100 200 300 400
r hnf
Fig. 13  Plot of C(𝜏1 ) versus rhnf for Q = 0, 3, 5 for RR boundaries
The effect of adding a rigid boundary in place of a free
boundary is to sustain chaos and allow periodic motion
only after witnessing chaos for a longer period. The
effect of adding two rigid boundaries in place of the two
free boundaries is to favor periodic motion and make an
early appearance, followed by chaos. Thus, asymmetric
cal points of the Lorenz attractor. The reason behind this
is the fact that the onset of chaos substantially increases
in the presence of Q . For this reason, the values of rhnf ∗
500 exponents for the fluids, we observe that the Lyapunov
exponents in the case of H2 O − Cu are slightly greater than
those of H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3. The increase in the positive 𝜆i
and decrease in the negative 𝜆i with the increase in rhnf for
different boundary combinations are observed from this
table. The sums of 𝜆i remain constant for a given value of
Q , decreases with an increase in Q and decreases as we
move along the boundaries from FF to RF and toward RR
boundaries. The maximal Lyapunov exponent gives the
exponential rate of growth of distance between the nearby

Table 14  Values of rH Boundary H2 O H2 O − Cu H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3

for H2 O, H2 O − Cu, and condition
H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 and for Φ = 0.5% Φ = 0.75% Φ = 1% Φ = 0.5% Φ = 0.75% Φ = 1%
values of Φ for different
boundary combinations FF 31.3061 33.0885 33.9743 34.9301 43.3414 50.7276 59.3389
RF 38.7484 40.0201 40.6165 41.2853 59.3124 71.3432 85.1548
RR 56.8587 57.7048 58.0640 58.5336 94.6583 116.751 142.0450

13
7352 S. N. Arshika et al.

Table 15  The critical points of the Lorenz attractor, corresponding eigen values, and Lyapunov exponents for Q = 0, 3 and for different boundary
conditions in the case of H2 O − Cu at Φ = 0.1% with Pr∗ and b∗ in each case calculated using their expressions in Eq. (45)
∑
BC Q rhnf ∗
rH Critical points Eigen values Lyapunov exponents (𝜆i) 𝜆i

FF 0 1 30.2133 Λ1 =(0, 0, 0) 0, − 7.0561342, − .6838068 0, − .0561342, − .6838068 − .7399

30.8 Λ2 =(8.9163, 8.9163, 29.8) − .7679553, 0.0140071–9.9833i, − .7679553, 0.0140071, 0.0140071 − .7399
0.0140071 + 9.9833i
30.8 Λ3 =(− .9163, − .9163, 29.8) − .7679553, 0.0140071–9.9833i, − .7679553, 0.0140071, 0.0140071 − .7399
0.0140071 + 9.9833i
3 1 31.7618 Λ1 =(0, 0, 0) 0, − .2826796, − .6117772 0, − .2826796, − .6117772 − 0.8944
34 Λ2 =(9.2560, 9.2560, 33) − 1.2419912, 0.1737671–10.5932i, − 1.2419912, 0.1737671, − 0.8944
0.1737671 + 10.5932i 0.1737671
34 Λ3 =(− .2560, − .2560, 33) − 1.2419912, 0.1737671 + 10.5932i, − 1.2419912, 0.1737671, − 0.8944
0.1737671 0.1737671
RF 0 1 37.9026 Λ1 =(0, 0, 0) 0, − .6770761, − .351022 0, − .6770761, − .351022 − 2.0280
41.6 Λ2 =(9.7409, 9.7409, 40.6) − 2.8607769, 0.4163393–11.3715i, − 2.8607769, 0.4163393, − 2.0280
0.4163393 + 11.3715i 0.4163393
41.6 Λ3 =(− .7409, − .7409, 40.6) − 2.8607769, 0.4163393–11.3715i, − 2.8607769, 0.4163393, − 2.0280
0.4163393 + 11.3715i 0.4163393
3 1 39.0826 Λ1 =(0, 0, 0) 0, − .9308595, − .3436782 0, − .9308595, − .3436782 − 2.2745
43 Λ2 =(9.8919, 9.8919, 42) − 3.1748969, 0.4501795–11.5741i, − 3.1748969, 0.4501795, − 2.2745
0.4501795 + 11.5741i 0.4501795
43 Λ3 =(− .8919, − .8919, 42) − 3.1748969, 0.4501795–11.5741i, − 3.1748969, 0.4501795, − 2.2745
0.4501795 + 11.5741i 0.4501795
RR 0 1 51.4028 Λ1 =(0, 0, 0) 0, − 2.7937043, − .0452986 0, − 2.7937043, − .0452986 − 4.8390
58.3 Λ2 =(10.7934, 10.7934, 57.3) − 6.3935093, 0.7772531–12.9979i, − 6.3935093, 0.7772531, − 4.8390
0.7772531 + 12.9979i 0.7772531
58.3 Λ3 =(− 0.7934, − 0.7934, 57.3) − 6.3935093, 0.7772531–12.9979i, − 6.3935093, 0.7772531, − 4.8390
0.7772531 + 12.9979i 0.7772531
3 1 57.0908 Λ1 =(0, 0, 0) 0, − 3.6932696, − .0387596 0, − 3.6932696, − .0387596 − 5.7320
64 Λ2 =(11.2995, 11.2995, 63) − 7.4761536, 0.8720622–13.6693i, − 7.4761536, 0.8720622, − 5.7320
0.8720622 + 13.6693i 0.8720622
64 Λ3 =(− 1.2995, − 1.2995, 63) − 7.4761536, 0.8720622–13.6693i, − 7.4761536, 0.8720622, − 5.7320
0.8720622 + 13.6693i 0.8720622

40 40 40 40 40
B 20 B 20 B 20 B 20 B 20
0 0 0 0 0
– 20 – 20 – 20 – 20 – 20
– 40 – 40 – 40 – 40 – 40
80 80 80 80 80

60 60 60 60 60
C C C C C
40 40 40 40 40
20 20 20 20 20
0 0 0 0 0
– 20 – 20 – 20 – 20 – 20
0 0 0 0 0
A 20 A 20 A 20 A 20 A 20

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Fig. 14  Plot of Lorenz attractor at rhnf

∗
= 18.828, 18.842, 44, 45.75, 47.7 and Q = 3 for RF boundaries in H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 for Φ = 0.1%

∑
trajectories of the Lorenz attractor, while 𝜆i gives the condition (1,5,10). Figure 14 captures the transition of the
rate of change of 3D volume element. Lorenz attractor that initializes from a regular convective
The phase space plots in Fig. 14 are plotted by solving motion (for rhnf < rH = 42.4812) and then shifts between
≥ rH = 42.4812).
∗

(42)–(44) numerically using the classical Runge–Kutta chaotic and periodic motion (for rhnf ∗

method in the time range 𝜏1 = 0(0.1)30 with initial Let us now compare this figure with the properties of the

13
Rayleigh–Bénard magnetoconvection with asymmetric boundary condition and comparison of results… 7353

Table 16  The critical points of the Lorenz attractor, corresponding eigen values, and Lyapunov exponents for Q = 0, 3 and for different boundary
conditions in the case of H2 O − Cu − Al2 O3 at Φ = 0.1% with Pr∗ and b∗ in each case calculated using their expressions in Eq. (45)
∑
BC Q rhnf ∗
rH Critical points Eigen values Lyapunov exponents (𝜆i) 𝜆i

FF 0 1 30.5739 Λ1 =(0, 0, 0) 0, − .5560724, − .6971458 0, − .5560724, − .6971458 − 0.2532

30.8 Λ2 =(8.9163, 8.9163, 29.8) − 0.3564622,0.0516220–10.1343i, − 0.3564622, 0.0516220, − 0.2532
0.0516220 + 10.1343i 0.0516220
30.8 Λ3 =(− .9163, − .9163, 29.8) − 0.3564622,0.0516220–10.1343i, − 0.3564622, 0.0516220, − 0.2532
0.0516220 + 10.1343i 0.0516220
3 1 33.3903 Λ1 =(0, 0, 0) 0, − .8473823, − .6247581 0, − .8473823, − .6247581 − 1.4721
34 Λ2 =(9.2560, 9.2560, 33) − 1.8749844, 0.2014219– − 1.8749844, 0.2014219, − 1.4721
10.7487321i, 0.2014219
0.2014219 + 10.7487321i
34 Λ3 =(− .2560, − .2560, 33) − 1.8749844, 0.2014219– − 1.8749844, 0.2014219, − 1.4721
10.7487321i, 0.2014219
0.2014219 + 10.7487321i
RF 0 1 41.0920 Λ1 =(0, 0, 0) 0, − 0.3913612, − .3627070 0, − 0.3913612, − .3627070 − 2.7540
41.6 Λ2 =(9.7409, 9.7409, 40.6) − 3.6306489, 0.4382903–11.5450i, − 3.6306489, 0.4382903, − 2.7540
0.4382903 + 11.5450i 0.4382903
41.6 Λ3 =(− .7409, − .7409, 40.6) − 3.6306489, 0.4382903–11.5450i, − 3.6306489, 0.4382903, − 2.7540
0.4382903 + 11.5450i 0.4382903
3 1 42.4812 Λ1 =(0, 0, 0) 0, − 0.6659489, − .3553266 0, − 0.6659489, − .3553266 − 3.0212
43 Λ2 =(9.8919, 9.8919, 42) − 3.9640797, 0.4714020–11.7506i, − 3.9640797, 0.4714020, − 3.0212
0.4714020 + 11.7506i 0.4714020
43 Λ3 =(− .8919, − .8919, 42) − 3.9640797, 0.4714020–11.7506i, − 3.9640797, 0.4714020, − 3.0212
0.4714020 + 11.7506i 0.4714020
RR 0 1 57.1586 Λ1 =(0, 0, 0) 0, − 3.7630463, − .0554640 0, − 3.7630463, − .0554640 − 5.8185
58.3 Λ2 =(10.7934, 10.7934, 57.3) − 7.3879849, 0.7847372–13.1923i, − 7.3879849, 0.7847372, − 5.8185
0.7847372 + 13.1923i 0.7847372
58.3 Λ3 =(− 0.7934, − 0.7934, 57.3) − 7.3879849, 0.7847372–13.1923i, − 7.3879849, 0.7847372, − 5.8185
0.7847372 + 13.1923i 0.7847372
3 1 63.7059 Λ1 =(0, 0, 0) 0, − 4.7361338, − .0488926 0, − 4.7361338, − .0488926 − 6.7850
64 Λ2 =(11.2995, 11.2995, 63) − 8.5396090, 0.8772913–13.8727i, − 8.5396090, 0.8772913, − 6.7850
0.8772913 + 13.8727i 0.8772913
64 Λ3 =(− 1.2995, − 1.2995, 63) − 8.5396090, 0.8772913–13.8727i, − 8.5396090, 0.8772913, − 16.7850
0.8772913 + 13.8727i 0.8772913

Table 17  Comparison of Authors Investigation Limiting case Observation

present work with those of
previous investigations in Rac k rH
certain limiting cases
Siddheshwar and Titus [70] For FFI boundaries Ri = 0, Pr = 10 657.51 2.22 24.74
Present study For FFI boundaries Q = 0, Pr = 10 657.51 2.22 24.74
Siddheshwar and Sakshath [71] For RFI boundaries M = 1, Λ = 1 and σ2 = 0 1132.15 2.65 –
Present study For RFI boundaries Q = 0, Pr = 10 1132.15 2.65 25.6389
Siddheshwar et al. [72] For RRI boundaries Pr = 6.06739 1728.38 3.09 22.7597
Present study For RRI boundaries Q = 0, Pr = 6.06739 1728.38 3.09 22.6715

Lorenz model. The Lorenz attractor in Fig. 14 revolves
around its critical points Λ2 and Λ3 and never intersect
each other. This confirms the property of uniqueness of
the Lorenz model. We also witness the boundedness of the
attractor within an ellipsoid. These features of the Lorenz
model validate the resemblance of Lorenz model in Eqs.
(42)–(44) to that of the classical Lorenz model.
Validation of the results with those of previous
investigations
Validation of the present results is done by comparing
the values of critical Rayleigh number, wave number, and
Hopf–Rayleigh number under certain limiting conditions
with those of the previous investigations (see Table 17).

13
7354 S. N. Arshika et al.

Conclusions 6. Increase in the Rayleigh number leads to an enhanced

heat transfer situation,
In the paper, we investigate Rayleigh–Bénard convection
(106)
rhnf =2 rhnf =4
in weakly electrically conducting MNF and HNF bounded Nu < Nu .
by asymmetric boundaries (rigid–free isothermal) and sub- 7. The effect of suspended nanoparticles gives rise to the
jected to a vertical magnetic field. To model the proper- following observation:
ties of MNF, we have used the single-phase KVL model
[6], and for HNF, we have used the empirical models [60]. Nu
H2 O
< Nu
H2 O−Cu
< Nu
H2 O−Cu−Al2 O3
. (107)
The mathematical formulation is restricted to asymmetric
boundaries, and the results of asymmetric and symmetric 8. The Hopf–Rayleigh number shows a transition from a
boundary conditions are compared. The following are the stable system to a chaotic one, which can be delayed by
general conclusions from this study: an external magnetic field. Thus, an externally applied
magnetic field plays a vital role in preserving the stable
1. The strength of the applied magnetic field required in the state of the system,
case of MNF to maintain a particular cell size needs to
be much stronger in the case of HNF in order to maintain rHQ =0 < rHQ =3 < rHQ =5 . (108)
the chosen cell size.
9. The influence of different boundary combinations on
2. The region of convective stability increases in the pres-
the onset of chaos is as follows:
ence of an external magnetic field and is decreased in
the presence of suspended nanoparticles, rHFF < rHRF < rHRR . (109)
(Rac )Q =0 < (Rac )Q =3 < (Rac )Q =5 , (98) 10. On increasing the strength of the magnetic field, the
cell size decreases.
(Rac )H2 O−Cu−Al2 O3 < (Rac )H2 O−Cu < (Rac )H2 O . (99) 11. The effect of suspended nanoparticles on the onset of
chaos is described by:
3. For a constant magnetic field, we have:
H O H O−Cu H O−Cu−Al2 O3
rH2 < rH2 < rH2 . (110)
RaRR
c RaRF
c
RaRR
c
kcRR kcRF kcRR
< < = 2.36471 and < < = 1.34.
RaRF
c RaFF
c RaFF
c
kcRF kcFF kcFF 12. The effect of volume fraction of nanoparticles on the
(100) onset of chaos is described by:
4. The results of asymmetric boundaries can be obtained
rHΦ=0.5 < rHΦ=0.75 < rHΦ=1 . (111)
from those of symmetric boundaries. However, one
needs to scale the critical Rayleigh number and the criti- 13. The domain of periodicity is enlarged in the case of
cal wave number as follows: symmetric boundaries of type-II when compared with
1 that of symmetric boundaries of type-I and asymmetric
(Rahnf )c = × Rahnf , (101) boundaries.
24
14. The period doubling is the route to chaos.
15. The Lorenz model for asymmetric boundaries retains
1
kc = × k. (102) the features of the classical Lorenz model with sym-
2
metric boundaries of type-I.
The results on the effect of boundary conditions on
onset are as follows: Acknowledgements Authors are grateful to the management of
CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru, India, for their con-
tinued support to accomplish this research work. Authors would also
(Rac )FF < (Rac )RF < (Rac )RR . (103) like to thank the reviewers for their useful comments that improved the
5. We infer the following in the case of heat transport: paper to its present form.

NuQ =5 < NuQ =3 < NuQ =0 , (104) Authors' contribution NAS helped in mathematical formulation
(equal), result analysis (equal), and revision of the manuscript (equal).
PGS helped in mathematical formulation (equal), result analysis
NuRR < NuRF < NuFF . (105) (equal), and critical revision of the manuscript (equal). ST helped in
mathematical formulation (equal), result analysis (equal), and revi-
sion of the manuscript (equal). All authors approved the final version
These results are true at all times. of the paper.

13
Rayleigh–Bénard magnetoconvection with asymmetric boundary condition and comparison of results…
Declaration
Competing interest Authors declare no competing interests that could
have affected the work. Authors declare that this work has neither been
published before nor is under consideration elsewhere.
References
1. Choi SUS, Eastman JA. Enhancing thermal conductivity of fluids
with nanoparticles. J Chem Eng Data. 1995;8:281–5.
2. Masuda H, Ebata A, Teramae K, Hishinuma N. Alteration of ther-
mal conductivity and viscosity of liquid by dispersing ultra-fine
particles. Netsu Bussei. 1993. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2963/​jjtp.7.​227.
3. Eastman JA, Choi SUS, Li S, Yu W, Thompson LJ. Anomalously
increased effective thermal conductivities of ethylene glycol-
based nanofluids containing copper nanoparticles. Appl Phys Lett.
2001. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1063/1.​13412​18.
4. Das SK, Putra N, Thiesen P, Roetzel W. Temperature depend-
ence of thermal conductivity enhancement for nanofluids. ASME
J Heat Transf. 2003. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1115/1.​15710​80.
5. Buongiorno J, Hu W. Nanofluid coolants for advanced nuclear
power plants. Korea. 2005.
6. Khanafer K, Vafai K, Lightstone M. Buoyancy-driven heat transfer
enhancement in a two-dimensional enclosure utilizing nanoflu-
ids. Int J Heat Mass Trans. 2003. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0017-​
9310(03)​00156-X.
7. Buongiorno J. Convective transport in nanofluids. ASME J Heat
Trans. 2006. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1115/1.​21508​34.
8. Garoosi F, Bagheri G, Talebi F. Numerical simulation of natural
convection of nanofluids in a square cavity with several pairs
of heaters and coolers (HACs) inside. Int J Heat Mass Transf.
2013. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijhea​tmass​trans​fer.​2013.​08.​034.
9. Siddheshwar PG, Kanchana C, Kakimoto Y, Nakayama A.
Steady finite-amplitude Rayleigh–Bénard convection in
nanoliquids using a two-phase model: theoretical answer to the
phenomenon of enhanced heat transfer. J Heat Transf. 2016.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1115/1.​40344​84.
10. Siddheshwar PG, Meenakshi N. Amplitude equation and heat
transport for Rayleigh–Bénard convection in Newtonian liquids
with nanoparticles. Int J Appl Comput Math. 2017. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s40819-​015-​0106-y.
11. Kanchana C, Siddheshwar PG, Zhao Y. A study of Rayleigh–
Bénard convection in hybrid nanoliquids with physically real-
istic boundaries. Eur Phys J Spec Top. 2019. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1140/​epjst/​e2019-​900074-1.
12. Esfe MH, Wongwises S, Naderi A, Asadi A, Safaei MR, Ros-
tamian H, Dahari M, Karimipour A. Thermal conductivity of
Cu/TiO 2-water/EG hybrid nanofluid: experimental data and
modeling using artificial neural network and correlation. Int
Commun Heat Mass Transf. 2015. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 016/j.​
ichea​tmass​trans​fer.​2015.​05.​014.
13. Hayat T, Nadeem S. Heat transfer enhancement with Ag-CuO/
water hybrid nanofluid. Results Phys. 2017. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​r inp.​2017.​06.​034.
14. Alshehri F, Goraniya J, Combrinck ML. Numerical investiga-
tion of heat transfer enhancement of a water/ethylene glycol
mixture with A ­ l2O3–TiO2 nanoparticles. Appl Math Comput.
2020. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​amc.​2019.​124836.
15. Afshari A, Akbari M, Toghraie D, Yazdi ME. Experimen-
tal investigation of rheological behavior of the hybrid nano-
f luid of MWCNT–alumina/water (80%)–ethylene-glycol
(20%). J Therm Anal Calorim. 2018. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10973-​018-​7009-1.
7355
16. Akhgar A, Toghraie D. An experimental study on the stability
and thermal conductivity of water-ethylene glycol/TiO2-MWC-
NTs hybrid nanofluid: developing a new correlation. Powder
Technol. 2018. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​powtec.​2018.​07.​086.
17. Khaboshan HN, Yousefi E, Nazif HR. Effect of tube flattening
on thermal-hydraulic performance of ferrofluids flow under the
non-uniform magnetic field. In: The 28th annual international
conference of Iranian society of mechanical engineers. 2020.
18. Khaboshan HN, Nazif HR. Heat transfer enhancement and
entropy generation analysis of ­A l 2O 3-water nanofluid in an
alternating oval cross-section tube using two-phase mixture
model under turbulent flow. Heat Mass Transf. 2018. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00231-​018-​2345-z.
19. Davidson PA. Magnetohydrodynamics in materials processing.
Annu Rev Fluid Mech. 1999. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1146/​annur​ev.​
fluid.​31.1.​273.
20. Tagare SG, Rameshwar Y. Magnetoconvection in rotating stars.
Astrophys Space Sci. 2003. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/A:​10233​
20607​718.
21. Weiss NO. Modelling stellar magnetoconvection. In: Sympo-
sium—International Astronomical Union. 2003. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1017/​S0074​18090​01333​15.
22. Bushby PJ, Houghton SM, Proctor MRE, Weiss NO. Convec-
tive intensification of magnetic fields in the quiet Sun. Mon Not
R Astron Soc. 2008. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1365-​2966.​2008.​
13276.x.
23. Weiss NO, Tobias SM. Physical causes of solar activity. Space
Sci Rev. 2000. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/A:​10267​90416​627.
24. Zürner T, Schindler F, Vogt T, Eckert S, Schumacher J. Flow
regimes of Rayleigh–Bénard convection in a vertical magnetic
field. J Fluid Mech. 2020. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​jfm.​2020.​264.
25. Chandrasekhar S. Hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability.
London: Oxford University Press; 1961.
26. Zakinyan A, Kunikin S, Chernyshov A, Aitov V. Magnetic field
inhibition of convective heat transfer in magnetic nanofluid. Mag-
netochemistry. 2021. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​magne​toche​mistr​
y7020​021.
27. Abasher A, Gubara M, Sheen S, Bashir I. Numerical Study of
Rayleigh–Bénard Problem under the effect of magnetic field. Int
J Anal Appl. 2021;19:440–54.
28. Gupta U, Ahuja J, Wanchoo RK. Magneto convection in a nano-
fluid layer. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2013. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.​
ijhea​tmass​trans​fer.​2013.​05.​035.
29. Chand R. On the onset of Rayleigh–Bénard convection in a layer
of nanofluid in hydromagnetics. Int J Nanosci. 2013. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1142/​S0219​581X1​35003​85.
30. Yadav D, Bhargava R, Agrawal GS, Hwang GS, Lee J, Kim MC.
Magneto-convection in a rotating layer of nanofluid. Asia Pac J
Chem Eng. 2014. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​apj.​1796.
31. Khalid IK, Mokhtar NFM, Ibrahim ZB. Rayleigh–Bénard convec-
tion in rotating nanofluids layer with feedback control subjected
to magnetic field. J Phys Conf Ser. 2019. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​
1742-​6596/​1366/1/​012025.
32. Zierep J. Rayleigh–Bénard convection with magnetic field. J
Therm Sci. 2000;9:289–92.
33. Idris R, Hashim I. Effects of a magnetic field on chaos for low
Prandtl number convection in porous media. Nonlinear Dyn. 2010.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11071-​010-​9773-8.
34. Rameshwar Y, Sayeed MAR, Rani HP, Laroze D. Finite ampli-
tude cellular convection under the influence of a vertical magnetic
field. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2017. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijhea​
tmass​trans​fer.​2017.​06.​076.
35. Hsia CH, Nishida T. A route to chaos in Rayleigh–Bénard heat
convection. J Math Fluid Mech. 2022. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s00021-​022-​00659-6.
13
7356
36. Lorenz EN. Deterministic nonperiodic flow. J Atmos Sci. 1963.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1175/​1520-​0469(1963)​020%​3c0130:​DNF%​
3e2.0.​CO;2.
37. Saltzman B. Finite amplitude free convection as an initial value
problem-I. J Atmos Sci. 1962. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1175/​1520-​
0469(1962)​019%​3c0329:​FAFCAA%​3e2.0.​CO;2.
38. Lorenz EN. The local structure of a chaotic attractor in four
dimensions. Phys D Nonlinear Phenom. 1984. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/​0167-​2789(84)​90272-0.
39. Laroze D, Siddheshwar PG, Pleiner H. Chaotic convection in a
ferrofluid. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul. 2013. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cnsns.​2013.​01.​016.
40. Sprott JC. Simplifications of the Lorenz attractor. Nonlinear Dyn
Psychol. Life Sci. 2009;13:271–8.
41. Barrio R, Serrano S. Bounds for the chaotic region in the Lorenz
model. Phys D Nonlinear Phenom. 2009. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.​
physd.​2009.​04.​019.
42. Vadasz P. Analytical prediction of the transition to chaos in Lorenz
equations. Appl Math Lett. 2010. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​aml.​
2009.​12.​012.
43. Puigjaner D, Herrero J, Simό C, Giralt F. From steady solutions
to chaotic flows in a Rayleigh–Bénard problem at moderate Ray-
leigh numbers. Phys D Nonlinear Phenom. 2011. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​physd.​2011.​01.​007.
44. Paul S, Verma MK, Wahi P, Reddy SK, Kumar K. Bifurcation
analysis of the flow patterns in two-dimensional Rayleigh–Bénard
convection. Int J Bifurcat Chaos. 2012. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1142/​
S0218​12741​23001​82.
45. Sparrow C. The Lorenz equations: bifurcations, chaos, and strange
attractors. 1st ed. New York: Springer; 1982.
46. Lichtenberg AJ, Lieberman MA. Regular and chaotic dynamics.
2nd ed. New York: Springer; 1992.
47. Strogatz SH. Nonlinear dynamics and chaos. 2nd ed. Massachu-
setts: Westview Press; 1994.
48. Kanchana C, Zhao Y, Siddheshwar PG. A comparative study of
individual influences of suspended multiwalled carbon nanotubes
and alumina nanoparticles on Rayleigh–Bénard convection in
water. Phys Fluids. 2018. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1063/1.​50372​42.
49. Bhardwaj R, Das S. Chaos in nanofluidic convection of CuO
nanofluid. In: Manchanda P, Lozi R, Siddiqi A, editors. Industrial
mathematics and complex systems. Singapore: Springer; 2017. p.
283–93.
50. Azhar FA, Jawdat J, Md Basir MF, Jaafar NA. Mathematical
modeling on chaotic convection in a hybrid nanofluids. Waves
in Random and Complex Media. 2022. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
17455​030.​2022.​20995​97
51. Dèdèwanou SJ, Monwanou AV, Koukpémèdji AA, Hinvi AL,
Miwadinou CH, Orou JBC. Thermal Instability and Chaos in a
Hybrid Nanofluid Flow. Int J Bifurcat Chaos. 2022. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1142/​S0218​12742​25010​24.
52. Bekki N, Moriguchi H. Temporal chaos in Boussinesq magneto-
convection. Phys Plasmas. 2007. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1063/1.​24305​
17.
53. Dèdèwanou SJ, Monwanou AV, Koukpémèdji AA, Hinvi AL,
Miwadinou CH, Orou JBC. Thermal convective instabilities and
chaos in a rotating hybrid nanofluid layer with Cattaneo-Christov
Heat Flux Model. Complexity. 2022. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​
2022/​90843​94.
54. Kanchana C, Siddheshwar PG, Zhao Y. The effect of boundary
conditions on the onset of chaos in Rayleigh–Bénard convection
using energy-conserving Lorenz models. Appl Math Modell.
2020. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apm.​2020.​06.​062.
55. Siddheshwar PG, Kanchana C, Laroze D. Weakly nonlinear sta-
bility analysis and study of chaotic Darcy–Bénard convection of
a combusting fluid. Appl Math Comput. 2023. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​amc.​2022.​127821.
13
S. N. Arshika et al.
56. Hamilton RL, Crosser OK. Thermal conductivity of heterogene-
ous two component systems. Ind Eng Chem Fundamen. 1962.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​i1600​03a005.
57. Brinkman HC. The viscosity of concentrated suspensions and
solutions. J Chem Phys. 1952. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 063/1.1​ 70049​ 3.
58. Siddheshwar PG, Kanchana C. Unicellular unsteady Ray-
leigh–Bénard convection in Newtonian liquids and Newtonian
nanoliquids occupying enclosures: New findings. Int J Mech Sci.
2017. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijmec​sci.​2017.​07.​050.
59. Suresh S, Venkitaraj KP, Selvakumar P, Chandrasekar M. Synthe-
sis of A­ l2O3–Cu/water hybrid nanofluids using two step method
and its thermophysical properties. Colloids Surf A Physicochem
Eng Asp. 2011. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​colsu​rfa.​2011.​08.​005.
60. Kanchana C, Zhao Y, Siddheshwar PG. Küppers-Lortz instabil-
ity in rotating Rayleigh–Bénard convection bounded by rigid/free
isothermal boundaries. Appl Math Comput. 2020. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​amc.​2020.​125406.
61. Permeability. In: Engineering ToolBox. https://​www.​engin​eerin​
gtool​box.​com. Accessed 22 Dec 2022.
62. Conductivity measurement in high purity water samples below
10 microsiems/cm. In: Environmental XPRT. 2012. https://​www.​
envir​onmen​tal-​expert.​com/​artic​les/​condu​ctivi​ty-​measu​rement-​
in-​high-​purity-​water-​sampl​es-​below-​10-​micro​siems-​cm-​357841.
Accessed 22 Dec 2022.
63. Oxtoby DW, Gillis HP, Campion A. Principles of modern chemis-
try. 7th ed. Brooks: Cole Publishing Company; 2011. pp 1–1120
64. Helmenstine AM. In: ThoughtCo. A table of electrical conductiv-
ity and resistivity of common materials. https://​www.​thoug​htco.​
com/t​ able-o​ f-e​ lectr​ ical-r​ esist​ ivity-c​ onduc​ tivit​ y-6​ 08499. Accessed
22 Dec 2022.
65. Conducting materials. In: BrainKart.com. https://​www.​brain​kart.​
com/​artic​le/​Solved-​Probl​ems--​Condu​cting-​Mater ​ials/_​6818/.
Accessed 22 Dec 2022.
66. Kraszewska A, Pyrda L, Donizak J. High magnetic field impact on
the natural convection behaviour of a magnetic fluid. Heat Mass
Transf. 2017. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00231-​017-​2153-x.
67. Rudraiah N, Barron RM, Venkatachalappa M, Subbaraya CK.
Effect of a magnetic field on free convection in a rectangular
enclosure. Int J Eng Sci. 1995. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0020-​
7225(94)​00120-9.
68. Ozoe H. Magnetic convection. Imperial college press and distrib-
uted by World Scientific Publishing Co. Singapore. 2005.
69. How many amps does a convection oven use. In: Dominate
Kitchen. https://​www.​domin​ateki​tchen.​com/​how-​many-​amps-​
does-a-​conve​ction-​oven-​use/. Accessed 22 Dec 2022.
70. Siddheshwar PG, Titus PS. Nonlinear Rayleigh–Bénard convec-
tion with variable heat source. ASME J Heat Transf. 2013. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1115/1.​40249​43.
71. Siddheshwar PG, Sakshath TN. Steady finite-amplitude Ray-
leigh–Bénard convection of ethylene glycol–copper nanoliquid
in a high-porosity medium made of 30% glass fiber-reinforced
polycarbonate. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2021. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s10973-​019-​09214-4.
72. Siddheshwar PG, Shivakumara BN, Zhao Y, Kanchana C. Ray-
leigh–Bénard convection in a Newtonian liquid bounded by rigid
isothermal boundaries. Appl Math Comput. 2019. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​amc.​2019.​124942.
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.