Connexion
S'inscrire
Réinitialiser le mot de passe
Publier & Distribuer
Solutions d'édition
Solutions de distribution
Thèmes
Architecture et design
Arts
Business et économie
Chimie
Chimie industrielle
Droit
Géosciences
Histoire
Informatique
Ingénierie
Intérêt général
Linguistique et sémiotique
Littérature
Mathématiques
Musique
Médecine
Pharmacie
Philosophie
Physique
Sciences bibliothécaires et de l'information, études du livre
Sciences des matériaux
Sciences du vivant
Sciences sociales
Sport et loisirs
Théologie et religion
Études classiques et du Proche-Orient ancient
Études culturelles
Études juives
Publications
Journaux
Livres
Comptes-rendus
Éditeurs
Blog
Contact
Chercher
EUR
USD
GBP
Français
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Panier
Home
Journaux
Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences
Édition 3 (2018): Edition 1 (June 2018)
Accès libre
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
et
Kuppalapalle Vajravelu
Kuppalapalle Vajravelu
| 03 oct. 2018
Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences
Édition 3 (2018): Edition 1 (June 2018)
À propos de cet article
Article précédent
Article suivant
Résumé
Article
Figures et tableaux
Références
Auteurs
Articles dans cette édition
Aperçu
PDF
Citez
Partagez
Publié en ligne:
03 oct. 2018
Pages:
1 - 14
Reçu:
12 nov. 2017
Accepté:
05 févr. 2018
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21042/AMNS.2018.1.00001
Mots clés
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
Aperçu