We consider heat conduction models with phase change in heterogeneous materials. We are motivated by important applications including heat conduction in permafrost, phase change materials (PCM), and human tissue. We focus on the mathematical and computational challenges associated with the nonlinear and discontinuous character of constitutive relationships related to the presence of free boundaries and material interfaces. We propose a monolithic discretization framework based on lowest order mixed finite elements on rectangular grids well known for its conservative properties. We implement this scheme which we call P0-P0 as cell centered finite differences, and combine with a fully implicit time stepping scheme. We show that our algorithm is robust and compares well to piecewise linear approaches. While various basic theoretical properties of the algorithms are well known, we prove several results for the new heterogeneous framework, and point out challenges and open questions; these include the approximability of fluxes by piecewise continuous linears, while the true flux features a jump. We simulate a variety of scenarios of interest.
Citation: Lisa Bigler, Malgorzata Peszynska, Naren Vohra. Heterogeneous Stefan problem and permafrost models with P0-P0 finite elements and fully implicit monolithic solver[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(4): 1477-1531. doi: 10.3934/era.2022078
[1] | Shima Soleimani Manesh, Mansour Saraj, Mahmood Alizadeh, Maryam Momeni . On robust weakly $ \varepsilon $-efficient solutions for multi-objective fractional programming problems under data uncertainty. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 2331-2347. doi: 10.3934/math.2022132 |
[2] | Habibe Sadeghi, Fatemeh Moslemi . A multiple objective programming approach to linear bilevel multi-follower programming. AIMS Mathematics, 2019, 4(3): 763-778. doi: 10.3934/math.2019.3.763 |
[3] | Yanfei Chai . Robust strong duality for nonconvex optimization problem under data uncertainty in constraint. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(11): 12321-12338. doi: 10.3934/math.2021713 |
[4] | Vishwas Deep Joshi, Medha Sharma, Huda Alsaud . Solving a multi-choice solid fractional multi objective transportation problem: involving the Newton divided difference interpolation approach. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(6): 16031-16060. doi: 10.3934/math.2024777 |
[5] | Fei Yu . Multiperiod distributionally robust portfolio selection with regime-switching under CVaR risk measures. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(4): 9974-10001. doi: 10.3934/math.2025456 |
[6] | T. K. Buvaneshwari, D. Anuradha . Solving bi-objective bi-item solid transportation problem with fuzzy stochastic constraints involving normal distribution. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 21700-21731. doi: 10.3934/math.20231107 |
[7] | Guangjian Li, Guangjun He, Mingfa Zheng, Aoyu Zheng . Uncertain multi-objective dynamic weapon-target allocation problem based on uncertainty theory. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 5639-5669. doi: 10.3934/math.2023284 |
[8] | Sema Akin Bas, Beyza Ahlatcioglu Ozkok . An iterative approach for the solution of fully fuzzy linear fractional programming problems via fuzzy multi-objective optimization. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(6): 15361-15384. doi: 10.3934/math.2024746 |
[9] | Veliappan Vijayaraj, Chokkalingam Ravichandran, Thongchai Botmart, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Kasthurisamy Jothimani . Existence and data dependence results for neutral fractional order integro-differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 1055-1071. doi: 10.3934/math.2023052 |
[10] | Ya Qin, Rizk M. Rizk-Allah, Harish Garg, Aboul Ella Hassanien, Václav Snášel . Intuitionistic fuzzy-based TOPSIS method for multi-criterion optimization problem: a novel compromise methodology. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 16825-16845. doi: 10.3934/math.2023860 |
We consider heat conduction models with phase change in heterogeneous materials. We are motivated by important applications including heat conduction in permafrost, phase change materials (PCM), and human tissue. We focus on the mathematical and computational challenges associated with the nonlinear and discontinuous character of constitutive relationships related to the presence of free boundaries and material interfaces. We propose a monolithic discretization framework based on lowest order mixed finite elements on rectangular grids well known for its conservative properties. We implement this scheme which we call P0-P0 as cell centered finite differences, and combine with a fully implicit time stepping scheme. We show that our algorithm is robust and compares well to piecewise linear approaches. While various basic theoretical properties of the algorithms are well known, we prove several results for the new heterogeneous framework, and point out challenges and open questions; these include the approximability of fluxes by piecewise continuous linears, while the true flux features a jump. We simulate a variety of scenarios of interest.
In recent years, a useful extension has been proposed from the classical calculus by permitting derivatives and integrals of arbitrary orders is known as fractional calculus. It emerged from a celebrated logical conversation between Leibniz and L'Hopital in 1695 and was enhanced by different scientists like Laplace, Abel, Euler, Riemann, and Liouville [1]. Approaches based on the fractional calculus and fractional differential equations has been widely applied in diffusion equation, polymer physics, medical sciences, bioengineering mathematics, turbulence, fluid flow through porous media and in the model problems of nanoscale flow [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. The concept of this new calculus was applied in several distinguished areas previously with excellent developments in the frame of novel approaches and posted scholarly papers, see [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26].
Various notable generalized fractional integral operators such as the Riemann-Liouville, Hadamard, Caputo, Marichev-Saigo-Maeda, Riez, the Gaussian hypergeometric operators and so on, are helpful for researchers to recognize real world phenomena. Therefore, the Caputo, Riemann-Liouville and Hadamard were the most used fractional operators having singular kernels. It is remarkable that all the above mentioned operators are the particular cases of the operators investigated by Jarad et al. [27]. The utilities are currently working on weighted generalized fractional operators. Inspired by the consequences in the above mentioned papers, we introduce a new weighted framework of generalized proportional Hadamard fractional integral operator. Also, some new characteristics of the aforesaid operator are apprehended to explore new ideas, amplify the fractional operators and acquire fractional integral inequalities via generalized fractional operators (see Remark 2 below).
Recently, by employing the fractional integral operators, several researchers have established a bulk of fractional integral inequalities and their variant forms with fertile applications (see [28,29,30,31,32,33,34]). These sorts of speculations have remarkable use in fractional differential/difference equations and fractional Schrödinger equations [35].
Our intention is to establish a more general form for the most appealing and noteworthy Pólya-Szegö-Chebyshev type inequalities [36,37] and certain related variants via weighted generalized proportional Hadamard fractional integral that could be increasingly practicable and, also, more appropriate than the existing ones.
In 1882, Chebyshev pondered the noted result [36]:
P(˜f,˜g):=1η2−η1η2∫η1˜f(x)˜g(x)dx−(1η2−η1η2∫η1˜f(x)dx)(1η2−η1η2∫η1˜g(x)dx), | (1.1) |
for integrable functions ˜f and ˜g on [η1,η2] and both the functions are simultaneously increasing or decreasing for the same values of x in [η1,η2], that is,
(˜f(x)−˜f(y))(˜g(x)−˜g(y))≥0 |
for any x,y∈[η1,η2].
Butt et al. [38], Rashid et al. [39] and Set et al. [40] established the fractional integral inequalities via generalized fractional integral operator having Raina's function, generalized K-fractional integral and Katugampola fractional integral inequalities similar to the variant (1.1). For more recent literature, (see [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]).
The intensively studied Grüss inequality [52] for two integrable functions ˜f and ˜g on [η1,η2] is presented as follows:
P(˜f,˜g)≤(Q−q)(S−s)r, | (1.2) |
where the integrable functions ˜f and ˜g satisfy q≤˜f≤Q and s≤˜f≤S for all x∈[η1,η2] and for some q,s,Q,S∈R.
The Pólya-Szegö type inequality [37] can be stated as follows:
η2∫η1˜f2(x)dx1η2∫η1˜g2(x)dx(η2∫η1˜f(x)˜g(x)dx)2≤14(√QSqs+√qsQS)2. | (1.3) |
The constant 14 is best feasible in (1.3) make the experience it cannot get replaced by a smaller constant. With the aid of the Pólya-Szegö inequality, Dragomir and Diamond [53] derived the inequality
|P(˜f,˜g)|≤(Q−q)(S−s)4(η2−η1)2√qsQSη2∫η1˜f(x)dxη2∫η1˜g(x)dx |
holds for all x∈[η1,η2] if the mappings ˜f and ˜g defined on [η1,η2] satisfies q≤˜f(x)≤Q and s≤˜g(x)≤S. Here we should emphasize that, inequalities (1.1) and (1.3) are a remarkable instrument for reconnoitering plentiful scientific regions of investigation encompassing probability theory, statistical analysis, physics, meteorology, chaos and henceforth. Nisar et al. [54] proposed the weighted fractional integral inequalities of (1.1) and (1.3) within the weighted generalized fractional integral operator. Shen et al. [55] introduced the time scale version similar to (1.1) and (1.3), respectively. Ntouyas et al. [42] are the ones who contemplated the fractional version of (1.1) and (1.3) via Riemann-Liouville fractional integral operator. For more recent literature, we refer to the readers [56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63] and the references cited therein.
The motivation for this paper is twofold. First, we introduce a novel framework named weighted generalized proportional Hadamard fractional integral operator, then current operator employed to on the Pólya-Szegö-Chebyshev and certain related inequalities for exploring the analogous versions of (1.1) and (1.3). The study is enriched by giving remarkable cases of our results which are not computed yet. Interestingly, particular cases are designed for Hadamard fractional integral, generalized proportional Hadamard fractional integral and weighted Hadamard fractional integral inequalities. It is worth mentioning that these operators have the ability to recapture several generalizations in the literature by considering suitable assumptions of ϖ and φ.
This section demonstrates some essential preliminaries, definitions and fractional operators which will be utilized in this paper.
Definition 2.1. ([27]) Let ϖ≠0 bea mapping defined on [η1,η2], ˜g is a differentiable strictly increasing function on [η1,η2]. The space χpϖ(η1,η2),1≤p<∞ is the space of all Lebesgue measurable functions ˜f defined on [η1,η2] for which ‖˜f‖χpϖ, where
‖˜f‖χpϖ=(η2∫η1|ϖ(x)˜f(x)|p˜g′(x)dx)1p,1<p<∞ | (2.1) |
and
‖˜f‖χpϖ=esssupη1≤x≤η2|ϖ(x)˜f(x)|<∞. | (2.2) |
Remark 1. Clearly we see that ˜f∈χpϖ(η1,η2) ⟹ ϖ(x)˜f(x)(˜g′(x))1/p∈Lp(η1,η2) for 1≤p<∞ and ˜f∈χpϖ(η1,η2) ⟹ ϖ(x)˜f(x)∈L∞(η1,η2).
Now, we show a novel fractional integral operator which is known as the weighted generalized proportional Hadamard fractional integral operator as follows.
Definition 2.2. ([29]) Let ˜f∈χpϖ[1,∞) and ϖ≠0 be a function on [1,∞). Then the left and right-sided weighted generalized proportional Hadamard fractional integral operator of order ℘>0 are described as:
HϖJφ;℘η1˜f(x)=ϖ−1(x)φ℘Γ(℘)x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxϕ)1−℘˜f(ϕ)ϖ(ϕ)ϕdϕ,η1<x | (2.3) |
and
HϖJφ;℘η2˜f(x)=ϖ−1(x)φ℘Γ(℘)η2∫xexp[φ−1φ(lnϕx)](lnϕx)1−℘˜f(ϕ)ϖ(ϕ)ϕdϕ,x<η2, | (2.4) |
where φ∈(0,1] is the proportionality index, ℘∈C,ℜ(℘)>0 and Γ(x)=∫∞0ϕx−1e−ϕdϕ is the Gamma function.
Remark 2. Some particular fractional operators are the special cases of (2.5) and (2.6).
I. Setting ϖ(x)=1 in Definition 2.2, then we get the generalized proportional Hadamard fractional operator introduced by Rahman et al. [62] stated as follows:
HJφ;℘η1˜f(x)=1φ℘Γ(℘)x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxϕ)1−℘˜f(ϕ)ϕdϕ,η1<x | (2.5) |
and
HJφ;℘η2˜f(x)=1φ℘Γ(℘)η2∫xexp[φ−1φ(lnϕx)](lnϕx)1−℘˜f(ϕ)ϕdϕ,x<η2. | (2.6) |
II. Setting φ=1 in Definition 2.2, then we get the weighted Hadamard fractional operators stated as follows:
HϖJ℘η1˜f(x)=ϖ−1(x)Γ(℘)x∫η1˜f(ϕ)ϖ(ϕ)dϕϕ(lnxϕ)1−℘,η1<x | (2.7) |
and
HϖJ℘η2˜f(x)=ϖ−1(x)Γ(℘)η2∫x˜f(ϕ)ϖ(ϕ)dϕϕ(lnϕx)1−℘,x<η2. | (2.8) |
II. Setting ϖ(x)=1 and φ=1 in Definition 2.2, then we get the Hadamard fractional operator proposed by Samko et al. [18] and Kilbas et al. [19], respectively, stated as follows:
HJ℘η1˜f(x)=1Γ(℘)x∫η1˜f(ϕ)dϕϕ(lnxϕ)1−℘,η1<x | (2.9) |
and
HJ℘η2˜f(x)=1Γ(℘)η2∫x˜f(ϕ)dϕϕ(lnϕx)1−℘,x<η2. | (2.10) |
Remark 3. (Semi-group property) For ℘,ψ>0,φ∈(0,1] with 1≤p<∞ and let ˜f∈χpϖ(η1,η2). Then
(HϖJφ;℘η1HϖJφ;ψη1)˜f=(HϖJφ;℘+ψη1)˜f. | (2.11) |
This section consists of some novel Pólya-Szegö type inequalities regarding the generalized proportional Hadamard fractional operators which are also utilized to obtain Chebyshev type integral inequalities and related variants. Throughout the present investigation, for the consequences related to (1.1) and (1.3), it is assumed that all functions are integrable in the Riemann sense.
Theorem 2.3. Let two positive integrable functions ˜f and ˜g defined on [η1,∞). Assume that there exist four integrable functions υ1,υ2,υ3 and υ4 defined on [η1,∞) such that
(A)0<υ1(ℓ)≤˜f(ℓ)≤υ2(ℓ)and0<υ3(ℓ)≤˜g(ℓ)≤υ4(ℓ), | (2.12) |
for all ℓ∈[η1,x](x>η1),η1∈R+0. Then, the inequality
HϖJφ;℘η1{υ3υ4˜f2}(x)HϖJφ;℘η1{υ1υ2˜g2}(x)(HϖJφ;℘η1{(υ1υ3+υ2υ4)˜f˜g}(x))2≤14 | (2.13) |
holds for all φ∈(0,1],℘∈C and ℜ(℘)>0 with ϖ>0.
Proof. By means of given hypothesis, we obtain
˜f(ℓ)˜g(ℓ)≤υ2(ℓ)υ3(ℓ)andυ1(ℓ)υ4(ℓ)≤˜f(ℓ)˜g(ℓ)(ℓ∈[η1,x](x>η1)). | (2.14) |
Thus, we have
(υ2(ℓ)υ3(ℓ)+υ1(ℓ)υ4(ℓ))˜f(ℓ)˜g(ℓ)≥˜f2(ℓ)˜g2(ℓ)+υ1(ℓ)υ2(ℓ)υ3(ℓ)υ4(ℓ). | (2.15) |
which imply that
(υ1(ℓ)υ3(ℓ)+υ2(ℓ)υ4(ℓ))˜f(ℓ)˜g(ℓ)≥υ3(ℓ)υ4(ℓ)˜f2(ℓ)+υ1(ℓ)υ2(ℓ)˜g2(ℓ). | (2.16) |
Here, taking product each side of the above inequality by the following term 1φ℘Γ(℘)exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)](lnxℓ)1−℘ϖ(ℓ)ℓ(ℓ∈[η1,x])(x>η1) and integrating the resulting inequality with respect to ℓ on [η1,x], we have
1φ℘Γ(℘)x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)](lnxℓ)1−℘ϖ(ℓ)(υ1(ℓ)υ3(ℓ)+υ2(ℓ)υ4(ℓ))˜f(ℓ)˜g(ℓ)ℓdℓ≥1φ℘Γ(℘)x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)](lnxℓ)1−℘ϖ(ℓ)υ3(ℓ)υ4(ℓ)˜f2(ℓ)ℓdℓ+1φ℘Γ(℘)x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)](lnxℓ)1−℘ϖ(ℓ)υ1(ℓ)υ2(ℓ)˜g2(ℓ)ℓdℓ. | (2.17) |
Multiplying both sides of the above equation by ϖ−1(x) and employing Definition 2.2, we have
HϖJφ;℘η1{(υ1υ3+υ2υ4)˜f˜g}(x)≥HϖJφ;℘η1{υ3υ4˜f2}(x)HϖJφ;℘η1{υ1υ2˜g2}(x). | (2.18) |
Taking into account the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality, we have
HϖJφ;℘η1{(υ1υ3+υ2υ4)˜f˜g}(x)≥2√HϖJφ;℘η1{υ3υ4˜f2}(x)HϖJφ;℘η1{υ1υ2˜g2}(x), | (2.19) |
which leads to the inequality (2.13). This completes the proof.
Corollary 1. Let two positive integrable functions ˜f and ˜g defined on [η1,∞) such that
0<q≤˜f(ℓ)≤Qand0<s≤˜g(ℓ)≤S, | (2.20) |
for all ℓ∈[η1,x](x>η1),η1∈R+0 with ϖ>0. Then, the inequality holds:
HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f2}(x)HϖJφ;℘η1{˜g2}(x)(HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f˜g}(x))2≤14(√sqQS+√QSsq)2. | (2.21) |
Remark 4. Under all assumptions of Theorem 2.3 and Corollary 1:
(1) If we take ϖ(x)=φ=1, then we get the result similar to Lemma 2.1 (by taking κ=1) of [64].
(2) If we take ϖ(x)=φ=1, then we get the result similar to Corollary 1 (by taking κ=1) of [64].
Theorem 2.4. Let two positive integrable functions ˜f and ˜g defined on [η1,∞) such that the assumption (A) satisfying (2.12). Then, for all ℓ,ϕ∈[η1,x](x>η1),η1∈R+0, the inequality
HϖJφ;ψη1{υ3υ4}HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f2}(x)+HϖJφ;℘η1{υ1υ2}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜g2}(x)(HϖJφ;℘η1{υ1˜f}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{υ3˜g}(x)+HϖJφ;℘η1{υ2˜f}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{υ4˜g}(x))2≤14 | (2.22) |
holds for all φ∈(0,1],℘,ψ∈C and ℜ(℘),ℜ(ψ)>0 with ϖ>0.
Proof. By means of assumption (2.12), we have
(υ2(ℓ)υ3(ϕ)−˜f(ℓ)˜g(ϕ))≥0and(˜f(ℓ)˜g(ϕ)−υ1(ℓ)υ4(ϕ))≥0(ℓ,ϕ∈[η1,x](x>η1)), | (2.23) |
which imply that
(υ1(ℓ)υ4(ϕ)+υ2(ℓ)υ3(ϕ))˜f(ℓ)˜g(ϕ)≥˜f2(ℓ)˜g2(ϕ)+υ1(ℓ)υ2(ℓ)υ3(ϕ)υ4(ϕ). | (2.24) |
Conducting product each side of the inequality (2.24) by υ1(ϕ)υ2(ϕ)˜g2(ϕ), we get
υ1(ℓ)˜f(ℓ)υ3(ϕ)˜g(ϕ)+υ2(ℓ)˜f(ℓ)υ4(ϕ)˜g(ϕ)≥υ3(ϕ)υ4(ϕ)˜f2(ℓ)+υ1(ℓ)υ2(ℓ)˜g2(ϕ). | (2.25) |
Here, taking product each side of the above inequality by the following term
1φ℘+ψΓ(℘)Γ(ψ)exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)]exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxℓ)1−℘(lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ℓ)ϖ(ϕ)ℓϕ(ℓ,ϕ∈[η1,x],x>η1) |
and integrating the resulting inequality with respect to ℓ and ϕ on [η1,x]. Then, multiplying both sides of the inequality by ϖ−2(x) and employing Definition 2.2, we obtain
HϖJφ;℘η1{υ1˜f}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{υ3˜g}(x)+HϖJφ;℘η1{υ2˜f}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{υ4˜g}(x)≥HϖJφ;ψη1{υ3υ4}HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f2}(x)+HϖJφ;℘η1{υ1υ2}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜g2}(x). | (2.26) |
By employing the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality, we have
HϖJφ;℘η1{υ1˜f}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{υ3˜g}(x)+HϖJφ;℘η1{υ2˜f}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{υ4˜g}(x)≥2√HϖJφ;ψη1{υ3υ4}HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f2}(x)+HϖJφ;℘η1{υ1υ2}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜g2}(x), | (2.27) |
which leads to the desired inequality (2.22). Hence the proof is complete.
Corollary 2. Let two positive integrable functions ˜f and ˜g defined on [η1,∞) satisfying (2.20). Then for all ℓ,ϕ∈[η1,x](x>η1),η1∈R+0, the inequality
HϖJφ;℘η1{I}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{I}(x)HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f2}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜g2}(x)(HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜g}(x))2≤14(√qsQS+√QSqs)2 | (2.28) |
holds for all φ∈(0,1],℘,ψ∈C and ℜ(℘),ℜ(ψ)>0 and I(x) is the identity mapping.
Remark 5. Under all assumptions of Theorem 2.4 and Corollary 2:
(1) If we take ϖ(x)=φ=1, then we get the result similar to Lemma 2.2 (by taking κ=1) of [64].
(2) If we take ϖ(x)=φ=1, then we get the result similar to Corollary 2 (by taking κ=1) of [64].
Theorem 2.5. Under the assumption of Theorem 2.4, then for all x>η1 and ℓ,ϕ∈[η1,x]. Then, the inequality
HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f2}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜g2}(x)≤HϖJφ;℘η1{υ2˜f˜gυ3}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{υ4˜f˜gυ1}(x) | (2.29) |
holds for all φ∈(0,1],℘,ψ∈C and ℜ(℘),ℜ(ψ)>0.
Proof. By means of assumption (2.12), we have
1φ℘Γ(℘)x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)](lnxℓ)1−℘ϖ(ℓ)˜f2(ℓ)ℓdℓ≤1φ℘Γ(℘)x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)](lnxℓ)1−℘ϖ(ℓ)υ2(ℓ)˜f(ℓ)˜g(ℓ)ℓυ3(ℓ)dℓ. | (2.30) |
Multiplying both sides of the above equation by ϖ−1(x) and employing of Definition 2.2, we have
HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f2}(x)≤HϖJφ;℘η1{υ2˜f˜gυ3}(x). | (2.31) |
By similar argument, we have
1φψΓ(ψ)x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ϕ)˜g2(ϕ)ℓdϕ≤1φψΓ(ψ)x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ϕ)υ4(ϕ)˜f(ϕ)˜g(ϕ)ϕυ1(ϕ)dϕ. | (2.32) |
Multiplying both sides of the above equation by ϖ−1(x) and employing Definition 2.2, we have
HϖJφ;ψη1{˜g2}(x)≤HϖJφ;ψη1{υ4˜f˜gυ1}(x). | (2.33) |
Taking product of the inequalities (2.31) and (2.33) side by side, then we obtain the desired inequality (2.29).
Corollary 3. Let two positive integrable functions ˜f and ˜g defined on [η1,∞) satisfying (2.20). Then for all ℓ,ϕ∈[η1,x](x>η1),η1∈R+0, the inequality
HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f2}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜g2}(x)(HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f˜g}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜f˜g}(x))2≤QSqs | (2.34) |
holds for all φ∈(0,1],℘,ψ∈C and ℜ(℘),ℜ(ψ)>0 with ϖ>0.
Remark 6. Under all assumptions of Theorem 2.5 and Corollary 3:
(1) If we take ϖ(x)=φ=1, then we get the result similar to Lemma 2.3 (by taking κ=1) of [64].
(2) If we take ϖ(x)=φ=1, then we get the result similar to Corollary 3 (by taking κ=1) of [64].
Our next result is the Chebyshev type integral inequality within the weighted generalized proportional Hadamard fractional integral operator defined in (2.3), with the aid of Pólya-Szegö type inequality established in Theorem 2.3.
Theorem 2.6. Let two positive integrable functions ˜f and ˜g defined on [η1,∞) such that the assumption (A) satisfying (2.12). Then, for all ℓ,ϕ∈[η1,x](x>η1),η1∈R+0, the inequality
|HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f˜g}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{I}(x)+HϖJφ;ψη1{˜f˜g}(x)HϖJφ;℘η1{I}(x)−HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜g}(x)−HϖJφ;ψη1{˜f}(x)HϖJφ;℘η1{˜g}(x)|≤|Υ1(˜f,υ1,υ2)(x)+Υ2(˜f,υ1,υ2)(x)|12×|Υ1(˜g,υ3,υ4)(x)+Υ2(˜g,υ3,υ4)(x)|12, | (2.35) |
where
Υ1(˜f,υ1,υ2)(x):=(HϖJφ;℘η1{(υ1+υ2)˜f2}(x))24HϖJφ;℘η1{υ1υ2}(x)−HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜f}(x) | (2.36) |
and
Υ2(˜f,υ1,υ2)(x):=(HϖJφ;ψη1{(υ1+υ2)˜f2}(x))24HϖJφ;ψη1{υ1υ2}(x)−HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜f}(x) | (2.37) |
holds for all φ∈(0,1],℘,ψ∈C and ℜ(℘),ℜ(ψ)>0 with ϖ>0.
Proof. For ℓ,ϕ∈[η1,x] with x>η1, we define Δ(ℓ,ϕ) as
Δ(ℓ,ϕ):=(˜f(ℓ)−˜f(ϕ))(˜g(ℓ)−˜g(ϕ)), | (2.38) |
or, equivalently,
Δ(ℓ,ϕ)=˜f(ℓ)˜g(ℓ)+˜f(ϕ)˜g(ϕ)−˜f(ℓ)˜g(ϕ)−˜f(ϕ)˜g(ℓ). | (2.39) |
Taking product each side of the above inequality by the following term
1φ℘+ψΓ(℘)Γ(ψ)exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)]exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxℓ)1−℘(lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ℓ)ϖ(ϕ)ℓϕ(ℓ,ϕ∈[η1,x],x>η1) |
and integrating the resulting inequality with respect to ℓ and ϕ on [η1,x], then we have
1φ℘+ψΓ(℘)Γ(ψ)x∫η1x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)]exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxℓ)1−℘(lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ℓ)ϖ(ϕ)ℓϕΔ(ℓ,ϕ)dℓdϕ=1φ℘+ψΓ(℘)Γ(ψ)x∫η1x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)]exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxℓ)1−℘(lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ℓ)ϖ(ϕ)ℓϕ˜f(ℓ)˜g(ℓ)dℓdϕ+1φ℘+ψΓ(℘)Γ(ψ)x∫η1x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)]exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxℓ)1−℘(lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ℓ)ϖ(ϕ)ℓϕ˜f(ϕ)˜g(ϕ)dℓdϕ−1φ℘+ψΓ(℘)Γ(ψ)x∫η1x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)]exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxℓ)1−℘(lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ℓ)ϖ(ϕ)ℓϕ˜f(ℓ)˜g(ϕ)dℓdϕ−1φ℘+ψΓ(℘)Γ(ψ)x∫η1x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)]exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxℓ)1−℘(lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ℓ)ϖ(ϕ)ℓϕ˜f(ϕ)˜g(ℓ)dℓdϕ. | (2.40) |
Multiplying both sides of the above equation by ϖ−2(x) and employing Definition 2.2, we have
ϖ−2(x)φ℘+ψΓ(℘)Γ(ψ)x∫η1x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)]exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxℓ)1−℘(lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ℓ)ϖ(ϕ)ℓϕΔ(ℓ,ϕ)dℓdϕ=HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f˜g}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{I}(x)+HϖJφ;ψη1{˜f˜g}(x)HϖJφ;℘η1{I}(x)−HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜g}(x)−HϖJφ;ψη1{˜f}(x)HϖJφ;℘η1{˜g}(x). | (2.41) |
Thanks to the weighted Cauchy-Schwartz integral inequality for double integrals in (2.41), we can write that
|ϖ−2(x)φ℘+ψΓ(℘)Γ(ψ)x∫η1x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)]exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxℓ)1−℘(lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ℓ)ϖ(ϕ)ℓϕΔ(ℓ,ϕ)dℓdϕ|≤[ϖ−2(x)φ℘+ψΓ(℘)Γ(ψ)x∫η1x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)]exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxℓ)1−℘(lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ℓ)ϖ(ϕ)ℓϕ˜f2(ℓ)dℓdϕ+ϖ−2(x)φ℘+ψΓ(℘)Γ(ψ)x∫η1x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)]exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxℓ)1−℘(lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ℓ)ϖ(ϕ)ℓϕ˜f2(ϕ)dℓdϕ−2ϖ−2(x)φ℘+ψΓ(℘)Γ(ψ)x∫η1x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)]exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxℓ)1−℘(lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ℓ)ϖ(ϕ)ℓϕ˜f(ℓ)˜f(ϕ)dℓdϕ]12×[ϖ−2(x)φ℘+ψΓ(℘)Γ(ψ)x∫η1x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)]exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxℓ)1−℘(lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ℓ)ϖ(ϕ)ℓϕ˜g2(ℓ)dℓdϕ+ϖ−2(x)φ℘+ψΓ(℘)Γ(ψ)x∫η1x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)]exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxℓ)1−℘(lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ℓ)ϖ(ϕ)ℓϕ˜g2(ϕ)dℓdϕ−2ϖ−2(x)φ℘+ψΓ(℘)Γ(ψ)x∫η1x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)]exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxℓ)1−℘(lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ℓ)ϖ(ϕ)ℓϕ˜g(ℓ)˜g(ϕ)dℓdϕ]12. | (2.42) |
In view of Definition 2.2, we get
|ϖ−2(x)φ℘+ψΓ(℘)Γ(ψ)x∫η1x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)]exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxℓ)1−℘(lnxϕ)1−ψϖ(ℓ)ϖ(ϕ)ℓϕΔ(ℓ,ϕ)dℓdϕ|≤[HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f2}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{I}(x)+HϖJφ;ψη1{˜f2}(x)HϖJφ;℘η1{I}−2HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜f}(x)]12×[HϖJφ;℘η1{˜g2}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{I}(x)+HϖJφ;ψη1{˜g2}(x)HϖJφ;℘η1{I}−2HϖJφ;℘η1{˜g}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜g}(x)]12. | (2.43) |
Applying Theorem 2.3 and setting υ3(x)=υ4(x)=˜g(x)=1, we find
HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f2}(x)≤(HϖJφ;℘η1{(υ1+υ2)˜f2}(x))24HϖJφ;℘η1{υ1υ2}(x). | (2.44) |
This implies that
HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f2}(x)−HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜f}(x)≤(HϖJφ;℘η1{(υ1+υ2)˜f2}(x))24HϖJφ;℘η1{υ1υ2}(x)−HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜f}(x)=Υ1(˜f,υ1,υ2)(x) | (2.45) |
and
HϖJφ;ψη1{˜f2}(x)−HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜f}(x)≤(HϖJφ;ψη1{(υ1+υ2)˜f2}(x))24HϖJφ;ψη1{υ1υ2}(x)−HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜f}(x)=Υ2(˜f,υ1,υ2)(x). | (2.46) |
Analogously, setting υ1(x)=υ2(x)=˜f(x)=1, we find
HϖJφ;℘η1{˜g2}(x)−HϖJφ;℘η1{˜g}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜g}(x)≤Υ1(˜g,υ3,υ4)(x) | (2.47) |
and
HϖJφ;ψη1{˜g2}(x)−HϖJφ;℘η1{˜g}(x)HϖJφ;ψη1{˜g}(x)≤Υ2(˜g,υ3,υ4)(x). | (2.48) |
A combination of (2.42)–(2.48), we get the immediate consequence (2.35). This completes the proof of (2.35).
Remark 7. If we take ϖ(x)=φ=1 in Theorem 2.6, then we get the result similar to Theorem 1 (by taking κ=1) of [64].
The following lemma play a vital role for generating new outcomes by employing weighted generalized proportional Hadamard fractional integral operator
Lemma 2.7. ([65]) Let σ≥0,θ1≥θ2≥0 and θ≠0. Then
σθ2/θ1≤(θ2θ1κθ2−θ1θ1σ+θ1−θ2θ2κθ2/θ1),foranyκ>0. |
Theorem 2.8. For θ1≥θ2≥0,θ1≠0 and let an integrable function ˜f defined on [η1,∞). Moreover, assume that there exist two integrable functions υ1,υ2 defined on [η1,∞) such that
υ1(ℓ)≤˜f(ℓ)≤υ2(ℓ),∀η1∈R+0. | (2.49) |
Then, the inequality
(c1)HϖJφ;℘η1{(υ2−˜f)θ2θ1}(x)+θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(x)≤θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1HϖJφ;℘η1{υ2}(x)+θ1−θ2θ1κθ2θ1HϖJφ;℘η1{I}(x),(c2)HϖJφ;℘η1{(˜f−υ1)θ2θ1}(x)+θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1HϖJφ;℘η1{υ1}(x)≤θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(x)+θ1−θ2θ1κθ2θ1HϖJφ;℘η1{I}(x) | (2.50) |
holds for all φ∈(0,1],℘∈C and ℜ(℘)>0 with ϖ>0.
Proof. By means of Lemma 2.7 and utilizing the assumption (2.49), for θ1≥θ2≥0,θ1≠0, for any κ>0, it follows that
(υ2(ℓ)−˜f(ℓ))θ2θ1≤θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1(υ2(ℓ)−˜f(ℓ))+θ1−θ2θ1κθ2θ1. | (2.51) |
Taking product each side of the above inequality by the following non-negative term 1φ℘Γ(℘)exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)](lnxℓ)1−℘ϖ(ℓ)ℓ(ℓ∈[η1,x],x>η1) and integrating the resulting inequality with respect to ℓ on [η1,x], we have
1φ℘Γ(℘)x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)](lnxℓ)1−℘ϖ(ℓ)(υ2(ℓ)−˜f(ℓ))θ2θ1ℓdℓ≤θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1φ℘Γ(℘)x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)](lnxℓ)1−℘ϖ(ℓ)(υ2(ℓ)−˜f(ℓ))ℓdℓ+θ1−θ2θ1κθ2θ1φ℘Γ(℘)x∫η1exp[φ−1φ(lnxℓ)](lnxℓ)1−℘ϖ(ℓ)ℓdℓ, | (2.52) |
Multiplying both sides of the above equation by ϖ−1(x) and employing of Definition 2.2, we have
HϖJφ;℘η1{(υ2−˜f)θ2θ1}(x)≤θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1HϖJφ;℘η1{υ2}(x)θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1−HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(x)+θ1−θ2θ1κθ2θ1HϖJφ;℘η1{I}(x), | (2.53) |
which leads to inequality (c1). Inequality (c2) can be proved by similar argument.
Theorem 2.9. For θ1≥θ2≥0,θ1≠0 and under the assumptions of Theorem 2.3. Then, the inequalities
(c3)ϖHJη1φ;℘{(υ2−˜f)θ2θ1(υ4−˜g)θ2θ1}(x)+θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1[ϖHJη1φ;℘{υ4˜f}(x)+ϖHJη1φ;℘{υ2˜g}(x)]≤θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1ϖH[Jη1φ;℘{υ2υ4}(x)+ϖHJη1φ;℘{˜f˜g}(x)]+θ1−θ2θ1κθ2θ1ϖHJη1φ;℘{I}(x),(c4)ϖHJη1φ;℘{(υ2−˜f)θ2θ1}(x)ϖHJη1φ;ψ{(υ4−˜g)θ2θ1}(x)+θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1[ϖHJη1φ;℘{υ2}(x)ϖHJη1φ;ψ{˜g}(x)+ϖHJη1φ;ψ{υ4}(x)ϖHJη1φ;℘{˜f}(x)]≤θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1[ϖHJη1φ;℘{υ2}(x)ϖHJη1φ;ψ{υ4}(x)+ϖHJη1φ;℘{˜f}(x)ϖHJη1φ;ψ{˜g}(x)]+θ1−θ2θ1κθ2θ1ϖHJη1φ;℘{I}(x)ϖHJη1φ;ψ{I}(x),(c5)ϖHJη1φ;℘{(˜f−υ1)θ2θ1(˜g−υ3)θ2θ1}(x)+θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1[ϖHJη1φ;℘{υ3˜f}(x)ϖHJη1φ;℘{υ1˜g}(x)]≤θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1[ϖHJη1φ;℘{˜f˜g}(x)ϖHJη1φ;ψ{υ1υ3}(x)]+θ1−θ2θ1κθ2θ1ϖHJη1φ;℘{I}(x),(c6)ϖHJη1φ;℘{(˜f−υ1)θ2θ1}(x)ϖHJη1φ;ψ{(˜g−υ3)θ2θ1}(x)+θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1[ϖHJη1φ;ψ{υ3}(x)ϖHJη1φ;℘{˜f}(x)+ϖHJη1φ;℘{υ1}(x)ϖHJη1φ;ψ{˜g}(x)]≤θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1[ϖHJη1φ;℘{υ1}(x)ϖHJη1φ;ψ{υ3}(x)+ϖHJη1φ;℘{˜f}(x)ϖHJη1φ;ψ{˜g}(x)]+θ1−θ2θ1κθ2θ1ϖHJη1φ;℘{I}(x)ϖHJη1φ;ψ{I}(x), | (2.54) |
holds for all φ∈(0,1],℘,ψ∈C and ℜ(℘),ℜ(ψ)>0 with ϖ>0.
Proof. The inequalities (c3)−(c6) can be deduced by utilizing Lemma 2.7 and the following assumptions:
(c3)σ=(υ2(ℓ)−˜f(ℓ))(υ4(ℓ)−˜g(ℓ)),(c4)σ=(υ2(ℓ)−˜f(ℓ))(υ4(ϕ)−˜g(ϕ)),(c5)σ=(˜f(ℓ)−υ1(ℓ))(˜g(ℓ)−υ3(ℓ)),(c6)σ=(˜f(ℓ)−υ1(ℓ))(˜g(ϕ)−υ3(ϕ)). | (2.55) |
Remark 8. Under all assumptions of Theorem 2.8 and Theorem 2.9:
(1) If we take ϖ(x)=φ=1, then we get the result similar to Theorem 15 of [66].
(2) If we take ϖ(x)=φ=1, then we get the result similar to Theorem 22 of [66].
In the sequel, we derive the certain novel estimates via weighted generalized proportional Hadamard fractional and generalized Hadamard fractonal integral operator as follows.
I. Setting ℘=ψ and considering Theorem 2.6, then we get a new result for weighted generalized proportional Hadamard fractional integral operator.
Corollary 4. Let two positive integrable functions ˜f and ˜g defined on [η1,∞) such that the assumption (A) satisfying (2.12). Then, for all ℓ∈[η1,x](x>η1),η1∈R+0, the inequality
|HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f˜g}(x)HϖJφ;℘η1{I}(x)−HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(x)HϖJφ;℘η1{˜g}(x)|≤|Υ(˜f,υ1,υ2)(x).Υ(˜g,υ3,υ4)(x)|12, |
where
Υ(˜f,υ1,υ2)(x):=(HϖJφ;℘η1{(υ1+υ2)˜f2}(x))24HϖJφ;℘η1{υ1υ2}(x)−(HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(x))2 |
holds for all φ∈(0,1],℘∈C and ℜ(℘)>0 with ϖ>0.
II. Considering the assertion (2.20) and Theorem 2.6, then we get a new result for weighted generalized proportional Hadamard fractional integral operator.
Corollary 5. Let two positive integrable functions ˜f and ˜g defined on [η1,∞). Then, the inequality
|HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f˜g}(x)HϖJφ;℘η1{I}(x)−HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(x)HϖJφ;℘η1{˜g}(x)|≤(S−s)(Q−q)4√sqSQHϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(x)HϖJφ;℘η1{˜g}(x)|, |
holds for all φ∈(0,1],℘∈C and ℜ(℘)>0 with ϖ>0.
II. Setting φ=1, then we get a new result for generalized proportional Hadamard fractional integral operator.
Corollary 6. Suppose all assumptions of Theorem 2.8 be satisfied. Then, the inequality
(d1)HϖJ℘η1{(υ2−˜f)θ2θ1}(x)+θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1HϖJ℘η1{˜f}(x)≤θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1HϖJ℘η1{υ2}(x)+θ1−θ2θ1κθ2θ1HϖJ℘η1{I}(x),(d2)HϖJ℘η1{(˜f−υ1)θ2θ1}(x)+θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1HϖJ℘η1{υ1}(x)≤θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1HϖJ℘η1{˜f}(x)+θ1−θ2θ1κθ2θ1HϖJ℘η1{I}(x), | (3.1) |
holds for all ℘∈C and ℜ(℘)>0.
IV. Setting φ=1, then we get a new result for generalized proportional Hadamard fractional integral operator.
Corollary 7. For θ1≥θ2≥0,θ1≠0 and under the assumptions of Theorem 2.3. Then, the inequalities
(c3)HϖJ℘η1{(υ2−˜f)θ2θ1(υ4−˜g)θ2θ1}(x)+θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1[HϖJ℘η1{υ4˜f}(x)+HϖJ℘η1{υ2˜g}(x)]≤θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1Hϖ[J℘η1{υ2υ4}(x)+HϖJ℘η1{˜f˜g}(x)]+θ1−θ2θ1κθ2θ1HϖJ℘η1{I}(x),(c4)HϖJ℘η1{(υ2−˜f)θ2θ1}(x)HϖJψη1{(υ4−˜g)θ2θ1}(x)+θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1[HϖJ℘η1{υ2}(x)HϖJψη1{˜g}(x)+HϖJψη1{υ4}(x)HϖJ℘η1{˜f}(x)]≤θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1[HϖJ℘η1{υ2}(x)HϖJψη1{υ4}(x)+HϖJ℘η1{˜f}(x)HϖJψη1{˜g}(x)]+θ1−θ2θ1κθ2θ1HϖJ℘η1{I}(x)HϖJψη1{I}(x),(c5)HϖJ℘η1{(˜f−υ1)θ2θ1(˜g−υ3)θ2θ1}(x)+θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1[HϖJ℘η1{υ3˜f}(x)HϖJ℘η1{υ1˜g}(x)]≤θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1[HϖJ℘η1{˜f˜g}(x)HϖJψη1{υ1υ3}(x)]+θ1−θ2θ1κθ2θ1HϖJ℘η1{I}(x),(c6)HϖJ℘η1{(˜f−υ1)θ2θ1}(x)HϖJψη1{(˜g−υ3)θ2θ1}(x)+θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1[HϖJψη1{υ3}(x)HϖJ℘η1{˜f}(x)+HϖJ℘η1{υ1}(x)HϖJψη1{˜g}(x)]≤θ2θ1κ(θ2−θ1)/θ1[HϖJ℘η1{υ1}(x)HϖJψη1{υ3}(x)+HϖJ℘η1{˜f}(x)HϖJψη1{˜g}(x)]+θ1−θ2θ1κθ2θ1HϖJ℘η1{I}(x)HϖJψη1{I}(x), | (3.2) |
holds for all φ∈(0,1],℘,ψ∈C and ℜ(℘),ℜ(ψ)>0 with ϖ>0.
Example 3.1. Let η1>1,φ,℘>0,p1,q1>1 having p−11+q−11=1, and ϖ≠0 be a function defined on [0,∞). Let ˜f be an integrable function defined on [1,∞) and HϖJφ;℘η1˜f be the weighted generalized proportional Hadamard fractional integral operator. Then we have
|HϖJφ;℘η1˜f(x)|≤Ξ‖(˜f∘ϖ)ϕ‖L1(1,x), |
Ξ=ϖ−1(x)φ℘Γ(℘)(φx1−p1(φ+p1)−2p1φ)1/p1×Υ1/p1((℘−1)p1+1,(p1+φ−2p1φ)lnx)‖(˜f∘ϖ)ϕ‖L1(1,x) |
and Υ(℘,x)=x∫0e−yy℘−1dy is the incomplete gamma function [68].
Proof. In view of Definition 2.2 and applying modulus property that
|HϖJφ;℘η1˜f(x)|≤ϖ−1(x)φ℘Γ(℘)x∫1exp[φ−1φ(lnxϕ)](lnxϕ)1−℘|˜f(ϕ)ϖ(ϕ)|ϕdϕ, |
for ϕ>1.
By the virtue of the noted Hölder inequality, we have
|HϖJφ;℘η1˜f(x)|≤ϖ−1(x)φ℘Γ(℘)(x∫1exp[p1(φ−1φ(lnxϕ))]ϕp1(lnxϕ)p1(1−℘)dϕ)1/p1‖(˜f∘ϖ)ϕ‖L1(1,x). |
Substituting ν=ln(xϕ). Then elaborated computations represents
|HϖJφ;℘η1˜f(x)|≤ϖ−1(x)φ℘Γ(℘)(φx1−p1(φ+p1)−2p1φ)1/p1×Υ1/p1((℘−1)p1+1,(p1+φ−2p1φ)lnx)‖(˜f∘ϖ)ϕ‖L1(1,x). |
In the sequel we demonstrate a new methodology for establishing the four bounded mappings and employ them to show certain bounds of Chebyshev type weighted generalized proportional Hadamard fractional integral inequalities of two unknown mappings.
Consider a unit step function χ be defined as
χ(x)={1,x>0,0,x≥0. |
and assuming a Heaviside unit step function χη1(x) defined by
χη1(x)=χ(x−η1)={1,x≥η1,0,x<η1. |
The main characteristic of the unit step function are its frequent use in the differential equations and piece-wise continuous functions when sum of pieces defined by the series of functions. Assume that a piece-wise continuous function υ1(ℓ) defined on [η1,T] can be presented a follows:
υ1(x)=h1(sx0(x)−sx1(x))+h2(sx1(x)−sx2(x))+h3(sx3(x)−sx2(x))+...+hq+1sxq(x)=h1sx0+(h2−h1)sx1(x)+(h3−h2)sx2(x)+...+(hq+1−hq)sxq(x)=q∑i=0(hi+1−hi)sxi(x), | (4.1) |
where h0,hj∈R(j=0,1,...,i+1) and η1=x0<x1<x2<...<xi<xi+1=T. Analogously, we define the mappings υ2,υ3 and υ4 as follows
υ2(x)=q∑i=0(Hi+1−Hi)sxi(x),υ3(x)=q∑i=0(ri+1−ri)sxi(x),υ4(x)=q∑i=0(Ri+1−Ri)sxi(x), | (4.2) |
where r0=R0=H0=0 and rj,Rj,Hj∈R(j=0,1,...,q).
Suppose an integrable function ˜f defined on [η1,T] satisfying assumption (2.12), (4.1) and (4.2), respectively, then we have hl+1≤˜f(x)≤Hl+1 for every x∈(xl,xl+1)(l=0,1,...,q). Specifically, q=4, the time theory of ˜f presented in (4.1).
The weighted generalized proportional Hadamard fractional integral of ˜f on [η1,T] can be described as follows:
HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f}(T)=q∑l=0HϖJφ;℘xl,xl+1{˜f}(x), | (4.3) |
where
HϖJφ;℘xl,xl+1{˜f}(x):=ϖ−1(x)φ℘Γ(℘)xl+1∫xlexp[φ−1φln(xϕ)](ln(xϕ))1−℘ϖ(ϕ)˜f(ϕ)dϕϕ(l=0,1,2,...,i) | (4.4) |
Proposition 1. Let two integrable functions ˜f and ˜g defined on [η1,T] satisfying the assumptions (2.12), (4.1) and (4.2), respectively. Then, the inequality
(q∑l=0rl+1Rl+1HϖJφ;℘xl,xl+1{˜f2}(T))(q∑l=0hl+1Hl+1HϖJφ;℘xl,xl+1{˜g2}(T))≤14q∑l=0(rl+1hl+1+Rl+1Hl+1)(HϖJφ;℘η1{˜f˜g}(T))2 | (4.5) |
holds for all φ∈(0,1],℘∈C and ℜ(℘)>0 with ϖ>0.
Proof. By employing Definition 2.2, we have
HϖJφ;℘η1{υ3υ4˜f2}(T)=q∑l=0rl+1Rl+1HϖJφ;℘xl,xl+1{˜f2}(T)HϖJφ;℘η1{υ1υ2˜g2}(T)=q∑l=0hl+1Hl+1HϖJφ;℘xl,xl+1{˜g2}(T) | (4.6) |
and
HϖJφ;℘η1{(υ1υ3+υ2υ4)˜f˜g}(T)=q∑l=0(rl+1hl+1+Rl+1Hl+1)HϖJφ;℘xl,xl+1{˜f˜g}(T). | (4.7) |
Using the fact of Lemma 2.3, inequalities (4.6) and (4.7), the desired inequality (4.5) is established.
Proposition 2. Let two positive integrable functions ˜f and ˜g defined on [η1,T] such that the assumption (A) satisfying (2.12). Then, the inequality
![]() |
(4.8) |
holds for all φ∈(0,1],℘,ψ∈C and ℜ(℘),ℜ(ψ)>0.
Proof. The proof is simple by following (4.1), (4.2) and Theorem 2.4.
Remark 9. The accuracy of the approximated estimates (4.5) and (4.8) depends on the value of q∈N.
This paper proposes a new generalized fractional integral operator. The novel investigation is used to generate novel weighted fractional operators in the Hadamard and generalized proportional Hadamard fractional operator, which effectively alleviates the adverse effect of weight function ϖ and proportionality index φ. Utilizing the weighted generalized proportional Hadamard fractional operator technique, we derived the analogous versions of the weighted Pólya-Szegö-Chebyshev and certain associated type inequalities that improve the accuracy and efficiency of the proposed technique. Contemplating the Remark 2, several existing results can be identified in the literature. It is important to note that our generalizations are refinements of the results obtained by [69]. Some innovative particular cases constructed by this method are tested and analyzed for statistical theory, fractional Schrödinger equation [35]. The results show that the method proposed in this paper can stably and efficiently generate integral inequalities for convexity with better operators' performance, thus providing a reliable guarantee for its application in control theory [67].
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to referees for improving the article and also thanks to Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 61673169) for providing financial assistance to support this research. The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to the support of Taif University Researchers Supporting Project Number (TURSP-2020/155), Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.
The work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 61673169, 11601140) and the Scientific Research Fund of Hunan Provincial Education Department (Grant No. 16B047).
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
[1] |
E. Ahmed, J. Jaffré, J. E. Roberts, A reduced fracture model for two-phase flow with different rock types, Math. Comput. Simul., 137 (2017), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2016.10.005 doi: 10.1016/j.matcom.2016.10.005
![]() |
[2] | C. Alboin, J. Jaffré, J. E. Roberts, X. Wang, C. Serres, Domain decomposition for some transmission problems in flow in porous media, Numer. Treat. Multiphase Flows Porous Media, 552 (2000), 22–34. |
[3] |
J. Rulla, N. J. Walkington, Optimal rates of convergence for degenerate parabolic problems in two dimensions, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 33 (1996), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1137/0733004 doi: 10.1137/0733004
![]() |
[4] | E. Magenes, R. H. Nochetto, C. Verdi, Energy error estimates for a linear scheme to approximate nonlinear parabolic problems, ESAIM: M2AN, 21 (1987), 655–678. |
[5] |
R. H. Nochetto, C. Verdi, The combined use of a nonlinear Chernoff formula with a regularization procedure for two-phase Stefan problems, Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim., 9 (1988), 1177–1192. https://doi.org/10.1080/01630568808816279 doi: 10.1080/01630568808816279
![]() |
[6] | J. A. Wheeler, Simulation of heat transfer from a warm pipeline buried in permafrost, Am. Inst. Chem. Eng., (1973), 267–284. |
[7] | J. A. Wheeler, Permafrost thermal design for the trans-Alaska pipeline, Moving Boundary Probl., (1978), 267–284. |
[8] |
D. Nicolsky, V. Romanovsky, G. Tipenko, Using in-situ temperature measurements to estimate saturated soil thermal properties by solving a sequence of optimization problems, The Cryosphere, 1 (2007), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-1-41-2007 doi: 10.5194/tc-1-41-2007
![]() |
[9] | S. Marchenko, V. Romanovsky, G. Tipenko, Numerical modeling of spatial permafrost dynamics in alaska, in Proceedings of Ninth International Conference on Permafrost, Ninth International Conference on Permafrost, (2008), 1125–1130. |
[10] |
E. E. Jafarov, S. S. Marchenko, V. E. Romanovsky, Numerical modeling of permafrost dynamics in alaska using a high spatial resolution dataset, The Cryosphere, 6 (2012), 613–624. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-6-613-2012 doi: 10.5194/tc-6-613-2012
![]() |
[11] |
T. Kelley, J. Rulla, Solution of the discretized Stefan problem by Newton's method, Nonlinear Anal., 14 (1990), 851–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/0362-546X(90)90025-C doi: 10.1016/0362-546X(90)90025-C
![]() |
[12] | M. F. Wheeler, M. Peszynska, Computational engineering and science methodologies for modeling and simulation of subsurface applications, Adv. Water Resour., 25 (2002), 1147–1173. |
[13] |
C. Dawson, S. Sun, M. F. Wheeler, Compatible algorithms for coupled flow and transport, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 193 (2004), 2565–2580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2003.12.059 doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2003.12.059
![]() |
[14] |
R. L. Michalowski, A constitutive model of saturated soils for frost heave simulations, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 22 (1993), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-232X(93)90045-A doi: 10.1016/0165-232X(93)90045-A
![]() |
[15] | Y. Zhang, R. Michalowski, Thermal-hydro-mechanical analysis of frost heave and thaw settlement, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 141 (2015). |
[16] |
H. Liu, P. Maghoul, A. Shalaby, A. Bahari, Thermo-hydro-mechanical modeling of frost heave using the theory of poroelasticity for frost-susceptible soils in double-barrel culvert sites, Trans. Geotech., 20 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2019.100251 doi: 10.1016/j.trgeo.2019.100251
![]() |
[17] | F. Yu, P. Guo, Y. Lai, D. Stolle, Frost heave and thaw consolidation modelling. part 2: One-dimensional thermohydromechanical (THM) framework, Can. Geotech. J., 57 (2020), 1595–1610. |
[18] |
M. Peszynska, A. Trykozko, Pore-to-core simulations of flow with large velocities using continuum models and imaging data, Comput. Geosci., 17 (2013), 623–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-013-9344-4 doi: 10.1007/s10596-013-9344-4
![]() |
[19] |
M. Peszynska, A. Trykozko, G. Iltis, S. Schlueter, D. Wildenschild, Biofilm growth in porous media: Experiments, computational modeling at the porescale, and upscaling, Adv. Water Res., 95 (2016), 288–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2015.07.008 doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2015.07.008
![]() |
[20] |
C. Shin, A. Alhammali, L. Bigler, N. Vohra, M. Peszynska, Coupled flow and biomass-nutrient growth at pore-scale with permeable biofilm, adaptive singularity and multiple species, Math. Biosci. Eng., 18 (2021), 2097–2149. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2021108 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021108
![]() |
[21] | M. Peszynska, J. Umhoefer, C. Shin, Reduced model for properties of multiscale porous media with changing geometry, Computation, 9 (2021), 1–44. |
[22] |
T. Arbogast, M. F. Wheeler, N. Y. Zhang, A nonlinear mixed finite element method for a degenerate parabolic equation arising in flow in porous media, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 33 (1996), 1669–1687. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036142994266728 doi: 10.1137/S0036142994266728
![]() |
[23] | C. S. Woodward, C. N. Dawson, Analysis of expanded mixed finite element methods for a nonlinear parabolic equation modeling flow into variably saturated porous media, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 37 (2000), 701–724. |
[24] | M. Peszynska, E. Jenkins, M. F. Wheeler, Boundary conditions for fully implicit two-phase flow model, in Recent Advances in Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations and Applications (eds. X. Feng and T. P. Schulze), Contemporary Mathematics Series, American Mathematical Society, 306 (2002), 85–106. |
[25] | R. E. Showalter, Monotone operators in Banach space and nonlinear partial differential equations, vol. 49 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1090/surv/049 |
[26] | J. C. Rogers, A. E. Berger, M. Ciment, The alternating phase truncation method for numerical solution of a Stefan problem, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 16 (1979), 563–587. |
[27] | A. Visintin, Models of phase transitions, vol. 28 of Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications, Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4078-5 |
[28] | L. W. Lake, Enhanced oil recovery, Prentice Hall, 1989. |
[29] | T. Roubicek, The Stefan problem in heterogeneous media, Ann. l'Inst. Henri Poincaré Anal. Linéaire, 6 (1989), 481–501. |
[30] |
E. Javierre, C. Vuik, F. Vermolen, S. van der Zwaag, A comparison of numerical models for one-dimensional Stefan problems, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 192 (2006), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2005.04.062 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2005.04.062
![]() |
[31] | X. Jiang, R. Nochetto, A P1–P1 finite element method for a phase relaxation model Ⅰ: Quasiuniform mesh, Siam J. Numer. Anal., 35 (1998), 1176–1190. |
[32] |
S. M. Allen, J. M. Cahn, A microscopic theory for antiphase boundary motion and its application to antiphase domain coarsening, Acta Metall., 27 (1979), 1085–1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6160(79)90196-2 doi: 10.1016/0001-6160(79)90196-2
![]() |
[33] |
Y. Oono, S. Puri, Study of phase-separation dynamics by use of cell dynamical systems, I. modeling, Phys. Rev. A, 38 (1988), 434–453. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.38.434 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.38.434
![]() |
[34] |
J. F. Blowey, C. M. Elliott, The Cahn–Hilliard gradient theory for phase separation with non-smooth free energy part Ⅰ: Mathematical analysis, Eur. J. Appl. Math., 2 (1991), 233–280. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095679250000053X doi: 10.1017/S095679250000053X
![]() |
[35] |
P. Reddy, C. Gunasekar, A. Mhaske, V. Krishna, Enhancement of thermal conductivity of pcm using filler graphite powder materials, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., 402 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/402/1/012173 doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/402/1/012173
![]() |
[36] | Rubitherm ® Technologies GmbH, 2021. https://www.rubitherm.eu |
[37] |
D. Yu, Z. He, Shape-remodeled macrocapsule of phase change materials for thermal energy storage and thermal management, Appl. Energy, 247 (2019), 503–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.072 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.072
![]() |
[38] |
M. L. Cohen, Measurement of the thermal properties of human skin: A review, J. Invest. Dermatol., 69 (1977), 333–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/1523-1747.ep12507965 doi: 10.1111/1523-1747.ep12507965
![]() |
[39] | Engineering Toolbox, 2021. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com |
[40] | Wikipedia, 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org |
[41] | O. B. Andersland, B. Ladanyi, Frozen Ground Engineering, 2nd edition, Wiley, ASCE, Hoboken, 2004. |
[42] |
G. H. Meyer, Multidimensional Stefan problems, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 10 (1973), 522–538. https://doi.org/10.1137/0710047 doi: 10.1137/0710047
![]() |
[43] |
J. W. Jerome, M. E. Rose, Error estimates for the multidimensional two-phase Stefan problem, Math. Comput., 39 (1982), 377–414. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0025-5718-1982-0669635-2 doi: 10.1090/S0025-5718-1982-0669635-2
![]() |
[44] | C. Verdi, A. Visintin, Error estimates for a semi-explicit numerical scheme for Stefan-type problems., Numer. Math., 52 (1987/88), 165–186. http://eudml.org/doc/133231 |
[45] | D. Boffi, M. Fortin, F. Brezzi, Mixed Finite Element Methods and Applications, Springer series in computational mathematics, 2013. |
[46] | A. Ern, J. L. Guermond, Theory and practice of finite elements, vol. 159 of Applied Mathematical Sciences, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4355-5 |
[47] | F. Brezzi, M. Fortin, Mixed and hybrid finite element methods, vol. 15 of Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991. |
[48] |
A. Weiser, M. F. Wheeler, On convergence of block-centered finite differences for elliptic problems, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 25 (1988), 351–375. https://doi.org/10.1137/0725025 doi: 10.1137/0725025
![]() |
[49] | T. F. Russell, M. F. Wheeler, Finite element and finite difference methods for continuous flows in porous media, Math. Reservoir Simul., (1983), 35–106. |
[50] |
R. E. Showalter, Nonlinear degenerate evolution equations in mixed formulation, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 42 (2010), 2114–2131. https://doi.org/10.1137/100789427 doi: 10.1137/100789427
![]() |
[51] |
E. Schneid, P. Knabner, F. Radu, A priori error estimates for a mixed finite element discretization of the Richards' equation, Numer. Math., 98 (2004), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00211-003-0509-2 doi: 10.1007/s00211-003-0509-2
![]() |
[52] | M. Ulbrich, Semismooth Newton methods for variational inequalities and constrained optimization problems in function spaces, vol. 11 of MOS-SIAM Series on Optimization, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 2011. |
[53] | T. Roubicek, Numerical solution of the nonlinear heat equation in heterogeneous media, Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim., 11 (1990), 793–810. |
[54] | T. Roubicek, A finite-element approximation of Stefan problems in heterogeneous media, in Free Boundary Value Problems, (1990), 267–275. |
[55] | R. Glowinski, M. F. Wheeler, Domain decomposition and mixed finite element methods for elliptic problems, in First International Symposium on Domain Decomposition Methods for Partial Differential Equations (eds. R. Glowinski, G. H. Golub, G. A. Meurant and J. Periaux), SIAM, Philadelphia, (1988), 144–172. |
[56] | A. Quarteroni, A. Valli, Domain decomposition methods for partial differential equations, Numerical Mathematics and Scientific Computation, Oxford University Press, New York, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5412-38 |
[57] |
I. Pawlow, A variational inequality approach to generalized two-phase Stefan problem in several space variables, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl., 131 (1982), 333–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01765160 doi: 10.1007/BF01765160
![]() |
[58] |
M. Niezgodka, I. Pawłow, A generalized Stefan problem in several space variables, Appl. Math. Optim., 9 (1982), 193–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01460125 doi: 10.1007/BF01460125
![]() |
[59] |
N. L. Gibson, F. P. Medina, M. Peszynska, R. E. Showalter, Evolution of phase transitions in methane hydrate, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 409 (2014), 816–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2013.07.023 doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2013.07.023
![]() |
[60] |
M. Peszynska, R. Showalter, J. Webster, Advection of methane in the hydrate zone: Model, analysis and examples, Mathe. Methods Appl. Sci., 38 (2015), 4613–4629. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.3401 doi: 10.1002/mma.3401
![]() |
[61] |
M. Peszynska, C. Shin, Stability of a numerical scheme for methane transport in hydrate zone under equilibrium and non-equilibrium conditions, Comput. Geosci., 5 (2021), 1855–1886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-021-10053-2 doi: 10.1007/s10596-021-10053-2
![]() |
[62] |
D. Foster, T. Costa, M. Peszynska, G. Schneider, Multiscale modeling of solar cells with interface phenomena, J. Coupled Syst. Multiscale Dyn., 1 (2013), 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1166/jcsmd.2013.1013 doi: 10.1166/jcsmd.2013.1013
![]() |
[63] | T. Costa, D. Foster, M. Peszynska, Domain decomposition for heterojunction problems in semiconductors, in VECPAR 2014, High Performance Computing for Computational Science - VECPAR 2014, 11th International Conference, (2014), 92–101. http://arXiv.org/abs/1412.7946. |
[64] |
T. Costa, D. H. Foster, M. Peszynska, Progress in modeling of semiconductor structures with heterojunctions, J. Coupled Syst. Multiscale Dyn., 3 (2015), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1166/jcsmd.2015.1066 doi: 10.1166/jcsmd.2015.1066
![]() |
[65] |
M. Discacciati, E. Miglio, A. Quarteroni, Mathematical and numerical models for coupling surface and groundwater flows, Appl. Numer. Math., 43 (2002), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9274(02)00125-3 doi: 10.1016/S0168-9274(02)00125-3
![]() |
[66] | M. Sandells, D. Flocco, Introduction to the Physics of the Cryosphere, Morgan and Claypool, 2014. |
[67] | T. Osterkamp, C. Burn, Permafrost, in Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences, (2003), 1717–1729. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-227090-8/00311-0 |
[68] |
X. Zhang, Y. Wu, E. Zhai, P. Ye, Coupling analysis of the heat-water dynamics and frozen depth in a seasonally frozen zone, J. Hydrol., 593 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125603 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125603
![]() |
[69] |
X. Zhang, E. Zhai, Y. Wu, D. Sun, Y. Lu, Theoretical and numerical analyses on hydro–thermal–salt–mechanical interaction of unsaturated salinized soil subjected to typical unidirectional freezing process, Int. J. Geomech., 21 (2021), 04021104. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0002036 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0002036
![]() |
[70] |
J. Wettlaufer, M. G. Worster, Premelting dynamics, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 38 (2006), 427–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fluid.37.061903.175758 doi: 10.1146/annurev.fluid.37.061903.175758
![]() |
[71] |
A. W. Rempel, J. S. Wettlaufer, M. G. Worster, Premelting dynamics in a continuum model of frost heave, J. Fluid Mech., 498 (2004), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fluid.37.061903.175758 doi: 10.1146/annurev.fluid.37.061903.175758
![]() |
[72] | C. W. Lovell, Temperature effects on phase composition and strength of partially-frozen soil, Highw. Res. Board Bull., 1957. |
[73] |
V. Romanovsky, T. Osterkamp, Effects of unfrozen water on heat and mass transport in the active layer and permafrost, Permafrost Periglacial Processes, 11 (2000), 219–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1530(200007/09) doi: 10.1002/1099-1530(200007/09)
![]() |
[74] | Ulrich Hornung, Homogenization and porous media, vol. 6 of Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997. |
[75] |
H. Zhang, J. Zhang, Z. Zhang, J. Chen, Y. You, A consolidation model for estimating the settlement of warm permafrost, Comput. Geotech., 76 (2016), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.02.013 doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.02.013
![]() |
[76] | C. T. Kelley, Iterative methods for linear and nonlinear equations, SIAM, Philadelphia, 1995. |
[77] |
M. Paolini, G. Sacchi, C. Verdi, Finite element approximations of singular parabolic problems, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 26 (1988), 1989–2007. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1620260907 doi: 10.1002/nme.1620260907
![]() |
1. | Suyan Tan, Yilin Guo, A study of the impact of scientific collaboration on the application of Large Language Model, 2024, 9, 2473-6988, 19737, 10.3934/math.2024963 | |
2. | Serap Nur Ozata Canli, Murat Sercemeli, The impact of environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures on corporate financial performance in the energy sector, 2025, 1750-6220, 10.1108/IJESM-09-2024-0039 |