The unsteady, two-dimensional, laminar boundary-layer flow of a viscous nanofluid containing gyrotactic microorganisms is examined over a permeable, radiative stretching sheet subject to an inclined magnetic field, Darcy resistance, internal heat generation, wall mass suction, velocity slip and convective thermal/solutal wall conditions, with heat transport described by the Cattaneo–Christov constitutive law. The governing equations are reduced by similarity transformations to a coupled nonlinear ODE system and solved by a shooting procedure (fourth-order Runge–Kutta with Newton–Raphson correction of the wall gradients), with every case cross-checked against the MATLAB solver bvp4c and validated against previously published limiting cases (Tables 1–3). The axial velocity is reduced by both the Hartmann number and the field-inclination angle, since the Lorentz force enters the momentum balance through the single group M 2 sin 2 β ; wall suction and a larger stretching ratio thin the momentum layer, while velocity slip reduces the wall shear. The temperature falls as the thermal relaxation parameter δ 1 increases and rises with the thermal Biot number and the radiation parameter. The density of motile microorganisms is reduced by the bioconvection Péclet and Schmidt numbers. The skin-friction coefficient and the reduced Nusselt number respond in opposite senses to the sign of the unsteadiness parameter A, a coupling absents from the corresponding steady-state analysis. The principal contribution of this work is a corrected and internally consistent similarity reduction of the momentum equation for a stretching sheet with a genuinely moving free stream – the porous, magnetic and unsteady terms are shown to act on the velocity deficit ( f ′−1) rather than on f ′ alone, a distinction that is immaterial in most of the literature (where the free stream is quiescent) but is required here for the far-field boundary condition to be satisfied identically, and which we verify both analytically and by direct numerical solution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sharada et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: