Iniciar sesión
Registrarse
Restablecer contraseña
Publicar y Distribuir
Soluciones de Publicación
Soluciones de Distribución
Temas
Arquitectura y diseño
Artes
Ciencias Sociales
Ciencias de la Información y Bibliotecas, Estudios del Libro
Ciencias de la vida
Ciencias de los materiales
Deporte y tiempo libre
Estudios clásicos y del Cercano Oriente antiguo
Estudios culturales
Estudios judíos
Farmacia
Filosofía
Física
Geociencias
Historia
Informática
Ingeniería
Interés general
Ley
Lingüística y semiótica
Literatura
Matemáticas
Medicina
Música
Negocios y Economía
Química
Química industrial
Teología y religión
Publicaciones
Revistas
Libros
Actas
Editoriales
Blog
Contacto
Buscar
EUR
USD
GBP
Español
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Carrito
Home
Revistas
Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences
Volumen 3 (2018): Edición 1 (June 2018)
Acceso abierto
On the Method of Inverse Mapping for Solutions of Coupled Systems of Nonlinear Differential Equations Arising in Nanofluid Flow, Heat and Mass Transfer
Mangalagama Dewasurendra
Mangalagama Dewasurendra
y
Kuppalapalle Vajravelu
Kuppalapalle Vajravelu
| 03 oct 2018
Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences
Volumen 3 (2018): Edición 1 (June 2018)
Acerca de este artículo
Artículo anterior
Artículo siguiente
Resumen
Artículo
Figuras y tablas
Referencias
Autores
Artículos en este número
Vista previa
PDF
Cite
Compartir
Publicado en línea:
03 oct 2018
Páginas:
1 - 14
Recibido:
12 nov 2017
Aceptado:
05 feb 2018
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21042/AMNS.2018.1.00001
Palabras clave
Method of directly defining the inverse mapping
,
Nonlinear systems
,
Nanofluid
,
Brownian motion
,
Stretching surface
,
analytical methods
,
Homotopy analysis method
© 2018 Mangalagama Dewasurendra and Kuppalapalle Vajravelu, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
Fig. 1
Flow configuration.
Fig. 2
Plot of E(c0,δ), the squared residual error over η ∈ [0,499] as a function of c0 and δ using parameter values Le = 2, Nb = 2,Pr = 1, Nt = 1, n = 0.5, A = 0.1314. The error function has minimum E(c0,δ,A) = 9.71 × 10–5 where c0 = –0.6195 and δ = 0.8462963.
Fig. 3
Plot of E(c0,δ), the squared residual error over η ∈ [0,499] as a function of c0 and δ using parameter values Le = 3, Nb = 1,Pr = 5, Nt = 0, n = 1, A = 7.8902. The error function has minimum E(c0,δ,A) = 9.41 × 10–5 where c0 = –9.30195 and δ = 1.03944.
Fig. 4
Plot of E(c0,δ), the squared residual error over η ∈ [0,499] as a function of c0 and δ using parameter values Le = 2, Nb = 2,Pr = 7, Nt = 0.5, n = 0.8, A = 0.24764. The error function has minimum E(c0,δ,A) = 8.28 × 10–5 where c0 = –0.690605 and δ = 0.8462963.
Fig. 5
Plot of f̂(η), where Curve 1 has Le = 2, Nb = 2, Pr = 1, Nt = 1, n = 0.5, Curve 2 has Le = 3, Nb = 1, Pr = 5, Nt = 0, n = 1, and Curve 3 has Le = 2, Nb = 2, Pr = 7, Nt = 0.5, n = 0.8 using their respective error-minimizing convergence control parameter.
Fig. 6
Plot of f̂′(η), where Curve 1 has Le = 2, Nb = 2, Pr = 1, Nt = 1, n = 0.5, Curve 2 has Le = 3, Nb = 1, Pr = 5, Nt = 0, n = 1, and Curve 3 has Le = 2, Nb = 2, Pr = 7, Nt = 0.5, n = 0.8 using their respective error-minimizing convergence control parameter.
Fig. 7
Plot of θ̂(η), where Curve 1 has Le = 2, Nb = 2, Pr = 1, Nt = 1, n = 0.5, Curve 2 has Le = 3, Nb = 1, Pr = 5, Nt = 0, n = 1, and Curve 3 has Le = 2, Nb = 2, Pr = 7, Nt = 0.5, n = 0.8 using their respective error-minimizing convergence control parameter.
Fig. 8
Plot of ϕ̂(η), where Curve 1 has Le = 2, Nb = 2, Pr = 1, Nt = 1, n = 0.5, Curve 2 has Le = 3, Nb = 1, Pr = 5, Nt = 0, n = 1, and Curve 3 has Le = 2, Nb = 2, Pr = 7, Nt = 0.5, n = 0.8 using their respective error-minimizing convergence control parameter.
Fig. 9
Comparison of f(η), θ(η) and ϕ(η) obtained by the MDDiM 3-term approximation and shooting method solutions with Le = 2, Nb = 2, Pr = 1, Nt = 1, n = 0.5, where Curve 1 is shooting method results of f(η), Curve 2 is MDDiM results of f(η), Curve 3 is shooting method results of θ(η), Curve 4 is MDDiM results of θ(η), Curve 5 is shooting method results of ϕ(η), Curve 6 is MDDiM results of ϕ(η).
Fig. 10
Plot of Residual Error function verses Terms of approximation, where Curve 1 has Le = 2, Nb = 2, Pr = 1, Nt = 1, n = 0.5, Curve 2 has Le = 3, Nb = 1, Pr = 5, Nt = 0, n = 1, and Curve 3 has Le = 2, Nb = 2, Pr = 7, Nt = 0.5, n = 0.8 using their respective error-minimizing convergence control parameter.
Fig. 11
Plot of |–f̂″(0)| versus n, using Le = 3, Nb = 1, Pr = 5 and Nt = 0.
Fig. 12
Plot of |–θ̂′(0)|, where Curve 1 is |–θ̂′(0)| versus Nt using Le = 3, Nb = 1, Pr = 5, n = 1, Curve 2 is |–θ̂′(0)| versus Nb using Le = 3, Pr = 5, Nt = 0, n = 1.
Fig. 13
Plot of |–ϕ̂′(0)|, where Curve 1 is |–ϕ̂′(0)| versus Nt using Le = 2, Nb = 2, Pr = 1, n = 0.5, Curve 2 is |–ϕ̂′(0)| versus Nb using Le = 2, Pr = 1, Nt = 1, n = 0.5.
Minimum of the squared residual error E(A,c0,δ) for three different sets of parameters.
Le
Nb
Pr
Nt
n
A
c
0
δ
E
(
c
0
,
δ
,
A
)
2
2
1
1
0.5
0.1314
–0.6195
0.673
9.71 × 10
–5
3
1
5
0
1
7.8902
–9.3020
1.0394
9.71 × 10
–5
2
2
7
0.5
0.8
0.2476
–0.6906
0.8463
8.28 × 10
–5
Vista previa