The effects of different modes of foreign bank entry in the Turkish banking sector during the 2007–2009 Global financial crisis

Nereida Polovina; Ken Peasnell; Nereida Polovina; Ken Peasnell

doi:10.3934/QFE.2023002

Quantitative Finance and Economics

2023, Volume 7, Issue 1: 19-49. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2023002

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

The effects of different modes of foreign bank entry in the Turkish banking sector during the 2007–2009 Global financial crisis

Nereida Polovina ^{1
,
,},
Ken Peasnell ²

1.
Department of Accounting, Finance and Banking, Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, Manchester, M15 6BH, United Kingdom
2.
Department of Accounting and Finance, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster, LA1 4YX, United Kingdom

Received: 18 November 2022 Revised: 31 January 2023 Accepted: 13 February 2023 Published: 21 February 2023
JEL Codes: F65, G21, G32, L21, L25

This paper provides insights on how foreign bank entry modes (acquisition vs. greenfield investment) in an emerging market (Turkey) influenced bank strategies during the 2007–2009 global financial crisis. Using a comprehensive dataset comprising twenty-nine accounting variables from Turkish banks' financial statements during 2005–2010, we find important differences between foreign-acquired banks and foreign bank branches in lending and sourcing funds. We find that foreign bank branches continued to support international trade by issuing import loans during 2007–2009 global financial crisis, whereas foreign-acquired banks focused on issuing consumer and credit card loans. In terms of bank sourcing funds, we find that foreign-acquired banks were able to continue to use foreign currency deposits of Turkish residents and local interbank funding including participation (Islamic) banks. Foreign bank branches, on the other hand, relied on sourcing funds from international interbank funding and foreign currency deposits of residents abroad, which led to the necessity for them to change their strategies because of funding shortage in international markets. Our results show that the presence of foreign banks in Turkish banking sector enabled the continuity of bank lending activities in host market during the turmoil of 2007–2009 global financial crisis. Our findings on foreign bank entry mode provide new evidence and have important implications for both policy makers and practitioners in emerging markets.

Keywords:

Citation: Nereida Polovina, Ken Peasnell. The effects of different modes of foreign bank entry in the Turkish banking sector during the 2007–2009 Global financial crisis[J]. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2023, 7(1): 19-49. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2023002

Related Papers:

[1]	Zinia Pervin, Julia M Stephen . Effect of alcohol on the central nervous system to develop neurological disorder: pathophysiological and lifestyle modulation can be potential therapeutic options for alcohol-induced neurotoxication. AIMS Neuroscience, 2021, 8(3): 390-413. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2021021
[2]	Uzochukwu Adabanya, Ayoola Awosika, Anosh Khan, Ejike Oluka, Mayowa Adeniyi . Pediatric multiple sclerosis: an integrated outlook at the interplay between genetics, environment and brain-gut dysbiosis. AIMS Neuroscience, 2023, 10(3): 232-251. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2023018
[3]	Paul G. Nestor, Toshiyuki Ohtani, James J. Levitt, Dominick T. Newell, Martha E. Shenton, Margaret Niznikiewicz, Robert W. McCarley . Prefrontal Lobe Gray Matter, Cognitive Control and Episodic Memory in Healthy Cognition. AIMS Neuroscience, 2016, 3(3): 338-355. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2016.3.338
[4]	mgr Natalia Białoń, dr hab. n. o zdr. Dariusz Górka, mgr Mikołaj Górka . The brain-gut axis: communication mechanisms and the role of the microbiome as a neuroprotective factor in the development of neurodegenerative diseases: A literature overview. AIMS Neuroscience, 2024, 11(3): 289-311. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2024019
[5]	Mahmood Moosazadeh, Fatemeh Nabinezhad-Male, Mahdi Afshari, Mohammad Mehdi Nasehi, Mohammad Shabani, Motahareh Kheradmand, Iraj Aghaei . Vitamin D status and disability among patients with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIMS Neuroscience, 2021, 8(2): 239-253. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2021013
[6]	Sanaz Mehrabani, Mohsen Rastkar, Narges Ebrahimi, Mahsa Ghajarzadeh . Microbiomes and Pediatric onset multiple sclerosis (MS): A systematic review. AIMS Neuroscience, 2023, 10(4): 423-432. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2023031
[7]	Mark Reed, Christopher Miller, Cortney Connor, Jason S. Chang, Forshing Lui . Fat droplets in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) spaces of the brain. AIMS Neuroscience, 2024, 11(4): 484-489. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2024029
[8]	Pascale Voelker, Ashley N Parker, Phan Luu, Colin Davey, Mary K Rothbart, Michael I Posner . Increasing the amplitude of intrinsic theta in the human brain. AIMS Neuroscience, 2020, 7(4): 418-437. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2020026
[9]	Anthi Amaslidou, Ioanna Ierodiakonou-Benou, Christos Bakirtzis, Ioannis Nikolaidis, Theano Tatsi, Nikolaos Grigoriadis, Ioannis Nimatoudis . Multiple sclerosis and mental health related quality of life: The role of defense mechanisms, defense styles and family environment. AIMS Neuroscience, 2023, 10(4): 354-375. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2023027
[10]	Khue Vu Nguyen . β-Amyloid precursor protein (APP) and the human diseases. AIMS Neuroscience, 2019, 6(4): 273-281. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2019.4.273

Abstract

1. Introduction

Transport phenomena in porous media have widespread applications throughout manifold aspects of nature and industrial engineering, such as groundwater utilization, oil and gas extraction, chemical industry, building materials, biomedical development, etc. ^[1,2]. The relevant studies on heat transfer theory also permeate many scientific and technical fields ^[3]. On account of the structural complexity inside porous media and the diversity of fluids, convective flow and heat transfer in porous media have strongly nonlinear characteristics, and the classical linear Darcy's law is not applicable. Moreover, the coupled effects of velocity and temperature fields have important influences on the heat transfer process. Because of this, a novel constitutive equation and heat transfer model should be derived to characterize and simulate the internal physical mechanism inside the porous medium.

For the last few years, constitutive relationship equations with fractional derivatives have been frequently adopted in the description of complex dynamics ^[4,5,6,7], and simultaneously relevant research on fractional porous media has also been carried out widely. Wei et al. ^[8] proposed two fractional derivative models to describe non-Darcy flow in porous media. Yang et al. ^[9] discussed anomalous imbibition of non-Newtonian fluid in a porous medium by a spatiotemporal fractional model. Ahmed ^[10] used Caputo fractional derivatives to govern the mixed convective flow of hybrid nanofluids together with the Darcy model. Ai et al. ^[11] presented a viscoelastic model with fractional derivatives to simulate multilayered cross-anisotropic porous media. Jiang et al. ^[12] solved the governing equations of fractional second-grade fluid through a porous medium. Jiang et al. ^[13] developed a fractional Burgers model to simulate non-Newtonian fluid in porous media with complex physical-chemical conditions.

Nevertheless, the restrictions of the mentioned research are fixed fractional derivative parameters that manifest a rather limited class of memory characteristics and nonlocal properties ^[14]. Recent developments in various fields, such as thermal management, manufacturing, blood flow, etc., emphasize the need to resolve the limitations of conventional models. The convective flow and heat transfer problems of viscoelastic fluids involve complex molecule internal structures and multi-scale effects. Therefore, the distributed order fractional derivative that was proposed by Caputo to develop the fractional derivative models ^[15] has been frequently applied to boundary layer flow and heat transfer in view of the advantage of integrating over a given range within a continuum. Liu et al. ^[16] utilized distributed order fractional derivatives to investigate boundary layer flow and heat transfer through a moving plate. Qiao et al. ^[17] solved the pipe flow governing equations of viscoelastic Maxwell fluids with distributed order time fractional derivatives. Long et al. ^[18] developed the generalized Maxwell and Cattaneo model with distributed order time fractional derivative to study unsteady Marangoni convective boundary layer flow and heat transfer. Yang et al. ^[19] discussed boundary layer flow and heat transfer by way of the space distributed-order constitution relationship. Feng et al. ^[20] investigated anomalous transport in a binary medium on finite domains and analyzed the properties of the distributed-order space fractional derivatives with nonlocal operators. Chen et al. ^[21] presented a study on start-up pipe flow with double time-distributed order Maxwell model. Niu et al. ^[22] proposed a fast numerical algorithm for the fractional Sobolev model, with non-smooth solutions for the nonlinear distributed-order equations in porous media. Liu et al. ^[23] constructed a novel distributed order time fractional model to solve heat conduction, anomalous diffusion, and viscoelastic flow problems. Hu et al. ^[24] applied a distributed order time fractional Maxwell constitutive fluid model to simulate viscoelastic blood flowing in a narrowing blood vessel with a uniform magnetic field. Zhang et al. ^[25] introduced the distributed-order time fractional derivative to establish the generalized fractional Bloch-Torrey equation in heterogeneous biological tissues.

On the other hand, there are very few studies on natural convective flow and heat transfer in porous media with distributed order time fractional derivatives. This is because the momentum and energy governing equations are strongly coupled, and the analytical solutions are difficult to obtain for the nonlinear fractional convection terms. Given this, the paper aims to further discuss the internal transport mechanism in natural convective flow and heat transfer of porous media within distributed order time fractional derivative models. The following Section 2 presents unsteady natural convective flow and heat transfer governing equations using the generalized Maxwell model and Darcy's law with initial and boundary conditions. Section 3 presents the fractional finite volume method together with the fractional L1 scheme to solve the nonlinear governing equations. A mid-point quadrature rule is employed to discretize the distributed order time fractional derivatives. Section 4 validates the acceptable accuracy of the numerical solutions after the grid independence test and comparisons with exact solutions. Section 5 analyzes and discusses the effects of active physical parameters on velocity and temperature distributions in detail. Section 6 summarizes the main conclusions of this paper.

2. Mathematical formulation

Consider unsteady convective flow and heat transfer of viscoelastic fluid over a vertical plate embedded in a porous medium. The wall temperature is denoted as T_w and is always maintained as a constant. The ambient temperature far away from the plate is T_∞. Particularly, the direction of the vertical plate is selected as the x-axis, while the y-axis is horizontal accordingly. It is assumed that the fluid is incompressible, and the Boussinesq approximation can apply to the external body force. The porous medium is also assumed to be isotropic and homogeneous. Under these assumptions, the momentum conservation equation in the porous medium follows

$\rho \left( {\frac{{\partial u}}{{\partial t}} + u\frac{{\partial u}}{{\partial x}} + v\frac{{\partial u}}{{\partial y}}} \right) = \frac{{\partial {\sigma _{xy}}}}{{\partial y}} + g{\beta _T}\left( {T - {T_\infty }} \right) + R ,$

(2.1)

where ρ is the fluid constant density, u and v are the corresponding velocity components, σ_xy is the shear stress tensor component, g is the acceleration due to gravity, β_T is the thermal expansion coefficient, T is the temperature, and R is the Darcy resistance.

The microscopic structure of the porous medium and associated environments introduce complexity via porosity and permeability. The distributed order fractional derivative provides more flexibility for simulating anomalous diffusion behaviors with multi-scale characteristics ^[26]. Thus, the generalized distributed order Maxwell model and Darcy's law are developed by integrating the order of the time-fractional derivative, respectively:

${\sigma _{xy}} + \int_0^1 {{\omega _1}(\alpha )\lambda _1^\alpha } \frac{{{\partial ^\alpha }{\sigma _{xy}}}}{{\partial {t^\alpha }}}d\alpha = \mu \frac{{\partial u}}{{\partial y}} ,$

(2.2)

$R + \int_0^1 {{\omega _1}(\alpha )\lambda _1^\alpha } \frac{{{\partial ^\alpha }R}}{{\partial {t^\alpha }}}d\alpha = - \frac{{\mu \varepsilon }}{K}u ,$

(2.3)

where α is the velocity fractional derivative parameter that characterizes the frequency-dependent complex modulus, λ₁ is the velocity relaxation time, ω₁(α) is the weight coefficient that follows ω₁(α) ≥ 0 and $\int_0^1 {{\omega _1}(\alpha)d\alpha = 1}$ ^[27], μ is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid, Κ and ε are the permeability and porosity of the porous medium, respectively, and $\frac{{{\partial ^\alpha }}}{{\partial {t^\alpha }}}$ denotes the Caputo fractional derivative operator defined as in (2.4) ^[28].

$\frac{{{\partial ^\alpha }}}{{\partial {t^\alpha }}}f(x, y, t) = \frac{1}{{\Gamma \left( {m - \alpha } \right)}}\int_0^t {{{\left( {t - \eta } \right)}^{m - \alpha - 1}}} \frac{{\partial {f^m}(x, y, \eta )}}{{\partial {\eta ^m}}}d\eta , m - 1 < \alpha < m ,$

(2.4)

where m∈ℕ⁺, Γ(∙) denotes the gamma function, and f(x, y, t) is simplified as f(t). Combining Eqs (2.1)-(2.3) to eliminate the terms σ_xy and R, the nonlinear coupled momentum equation with distributed order fractional derivative is derived as follows:

$\begin{array}{l} \frac{{\partial u}}{{\partial t}} + \frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {uu} \right) + \frac{\partial }{{\partial y}}\left( {vu} \right) + \int_0^1 {{\omega _1}(\alpha )\lambda _1^\alpha } \frac{{{\partial ^{\alpha + 1}}u}}{{\partial {t^{\alpha + 1}}}}d\alpha + \int_0^1 {{\omega _1}(\alpha )\lambda _1^\alpha } \frac{{{\partial ^\alpha }}}{{\partial {t^\alpha }}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {uu} \right)} \right)d\alpha \hfill \\ + \int_0^1 {{\omega _1}(\alpha )\lambda _1^\alpha } \frac{{{\partial ^\alpha }}}{{\partial {t^\alpha }}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial y}}\left( {vu} \right)} \right)d\alpha = - \frac{{{\nu _f}\varepsilon }}{K}u + {\nu _f}\frac{{{\partial ^2}u}}{{\partial {y^2}}} + g{\beta _T}\left( {T - {T_\infty }} \right) \hfill \\ + \int_0^1 {{\omega _1}(\alpha )\lambda _1^\alpha } \frac{{{\partial ^\alpha }}}{{\partial {t^\alpha }}}\left[ {g{\beta _T}\left( {T - {T_\infty }} \right)} \right]d\alpha . \hfill \\ \end{array}$

(2.5)

Similarly, the homologous energy equation with distributed order fractional derivative is obtained in the following:

$\begin{array}{l} \frac{{\partial T}}{{\partial t}} + \frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {uT} \right) + \frac{\partial }{{\partial y}}\left( {vT} \right) + \int_0^1 {{\omega _2}(\beta )\lambda _2^\beta } \frac{{{\partial ^{\beta + 1}}T}}{{\partial {t^{\beta + 1}}}}d\beta + \int_0^1 {{\omega _2}(\beta )\lambda _2^\beta } \frac{{{\partial ^\beta }}}{{\partial {t^\beta }}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {uT} \right)} \right)d\beta \hfill \\ + \int_0^1 {{\omega _2}(\beta )\lambda _2^\beta } \frac{{{\partial ^\beta }}}{{\partial {t^\beta }}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial y}}\left( {vT} \right)} \right)d\beta = {\alpha _f}\frac{{{\partial ^2}T}}{{\partial {y^2}}}, \hfill \\ \end{array}$

(2.6)

where ω₂(β) denotes the weight coefficient that is suitable for certain conditions as ω₂(β) ≥ 0 and $\int_0^1 {{\omega _2}(\beta)d\beta = 1}$ , β is the temperature fractional derivative parameter that improves the efficiency of the thermoelectric material figure-of-merit, λ₂ is the temperature relaxation time, and α_f is the thermal diffusion coefficient.

The initial conditions and boundary conditions of the natural convective flow in the porous medium are assumed as follows:

$u\left( {x, y, 0} \right) = 0 , \frac{{\partial u\left( {x, y, 0} \right)}}{{\partial t}} = 0 , v\left( {x, y, 0} \right) = 0 , T\left( {x, y, 0} \right) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} {T_w}, y = 0 \hfill \\ {T_\infty }, y \ne 0 \hfill \\ \end{array} \right. , \frac{{\partial T\left( {x, y, 0} \right)}}{{\partial t}} = 0 , \\ u\left( {x, 0, t} \right) = 0 , v\left( {x, 0, t} \right) = 0 , T\left( {x, 0, t} \right) = {T_w} , u\left( {0, y, t} \right) = 0 , T\left( {0, y, t} \right) = {T_\infty } , u\left( {x, \infty , t} \right) = 0 , T\left( {x, \infty , t} \right) = {T_\infty } .$

We employ non-dimensional quantities as follows:

${x^ * } = \frac{x}{L} , {y^ * } = \frac{y}{L}G{r^{1/4}} , {u^ * } = \frac{{uL}}{{{\nu _f}}}G{r^{ - 1/2}} , {v^ * } = \frac{{vL}}{{{\nu _f}}}G{r^{ - 1/4}} , {t^ * } = \frac{{{\nu _f}t}}{{{L^2}}}G{r^{1/2}} , \lambda _1^* = \frac{{{\lambda _1}{\nu _f}}}{{{L^2}}}G{r^{1/2}} , \\ \lambda _2^* = \frac{{{\lambda _2}{\nu _f}}}{{{L^2}}}G{r^{1/2}} , Da = \frac{K}{{{L^2}}} , Gr = \frac{{g{\beta _T}\left( {{T_w} - {T_\infty }} \right){L^3}}}{{\nu _f^2}} , \theta = \frac{{T - {T_\infty }}}{{{T_w} - {T_\infty }}} , Pr = \frac{{{\nu _f}}}{{{\alpha _f}}} ,$

where L is the total length of the plate, Da is the Darcy number, Gr is the Grashof number, and Pr is the Prandtl number.

Non-dimensional distributed order governing equations for the porous medium are derived with time-fractional derivatives after omitting the dimensionless sign "*":

$\frac{{\partial u}}{{\partial x}} + \frac{{\partial v}}{{\partial y}} = 0,$

(2.7)

$\begin{array}{l} \frac{{\partial u}}{{\partial t}} + \frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {uu} \right) + \frac{\partial }{{\partial y}}\left( {vu} \right) + \int_0^1 {{\omega _1}(\alpha )\lambda _1^\alpha } \frac{{{\partial ^{\alpha + 1}}u}}{{\partial {t^{\alpha + 1}}}}d\alpha + \int_0^1 {{\omega _1}(\alpha )\lambda _1^\alpha } \frac{{{\partial ^\alpha }}}{{\partial {t^\alpha }}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {uu} \right)} \right)d\alpha \hfill \\ + \int_0^1 {{\omega _1}(\alpha )\lambda _1^\alpha } \frac{{{\partial ^\alpha }}}{{\partial {t^\alpha }}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial y}}\left( {vu} \right)} \right)d\alpha = - \frac{{\varepsilon u}}{{DaG{r^{1/2}}}} + \frac{{{\partial ^2}u}}{{\partial {y^2}}} + \theta + \int_0^1 {{\omega _1}(\alpha )\lambda _1^\alpha } \frac{{{\partial ^\alpha }\theta }}{{\partial {t^\alpha }}}d\alpha , \hfill \\ \end{array}$

(2.8)

$\begin{array}{l} \frac{{\partial \theta }}{{\partial t}} + \frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {u\theta } \right) + \frac{\partial }{{\partial y}}\left( {v\theta } \right) + \int_0^1 {{\omega _2}(\beta )\lambda _2^\beta } \frac{{{\partial ^{\beta + 1}}\theta }}{{\partial {t^{\beta + 1}}}}d\beta + \int_0^1 {{\omega _2}(\beta )\lambda _2^\beta } \frac{{{\partial ^\beta }}}{{\partial {t^\beta }}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {u\theta } \right)} \right)d\beta \hfill \\ + \int_0^1 {{\omega _2}(\beta )\lambda _2^\beta } \frac{{{\partial ^\beta }}}{{\partial {t^\beta }}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial y}}\left( {v\theta } \right)} \right)d\beta = \frac{1}{{Pr}}\frac{{{\partial ^2}\theta }}{{\partial {y^2}}}. \hfill \\ \end{array}$

(2.9)

The non-dimensional initial conditions and boundary conditions are subject to

$u\left( {x, y, 0} \right) = 0 , \frac{{\partial u\left( {x, y, 0} \right)}}{{\partial t}} = 0 , v\left( {x, y, 0} \right) = 0 , \theta \left( {x, y, 0} \right) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} 1, y = 0 \hfill \\ 0, y \ne 0 \hfill \\ \end{array} \right. , \frac{{\partial \theta \left( {x, y, 0} \right)}}{{\partial t}} = 0 , \\ u\left( {x, 0, t} \right) = 0 , v\left( {x, 0, t} \right) = 0 , \theta \left( {x, 0, t} \right) = 1 , u\left( {0, y, t} \right) = 0 , \theta \left( {0, y, t} \right) = 0 , u\left( {x, \infty , t} \right) = 0 , \theta \left( {x, \infty , t} \right) = 0 .$

3. Numerical technique

Figure 1 shows the collocated grid system of the physical problem, where the computational domain is divided into discrete control volumes, and the general central nodal point is denoted as ΡP. The grid distances between the inner nodes in the x and y directions are denoted as Δx and Δy, respectively. The time step is denoted as Δt.

Figure 1. The grid system of the control volume.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

First, the following integral equation is derived by the integration of Eq (2.9):

$\begin{array}{l} \int_t^{t + \Delta t} {\int_{\Delta V} {\frac{{\partial \theta }}{{\partial t}}} } dVdt + \int_t^{t + \Delta t} {\int_{\Delta V} {\frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {u\theta } \right)} } dVdt + \int_t^{t + \Delta t} {\int_{\Delta V} {\frac{\partial }{{\partial y}}\left( {v\theta } \right)} } dVdt \hfill \\ + \int_t^{t + \Delta t} {\int_{\Delta V} {\int_0^1 {{\omega _2}(\beta )\lambda _2^\beta } \frac{{{\partial ^{\beta + 1}}\theta }}{{\partial {t^{\beta + 1}}}}d\beta } } dVdt + \int_t^{t + \Delta t} {\int_{\Delta V} {\int_0^1 {{\omega _2}(\beta )\lambda _2^\beta } \frac{{{\partial ^\beta }}}{{\partial {t^\beta }}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {u\theta } \right)} \right)d\beta } } dVdt \hfill \\ + \int_t^{t + \Delta t} {\int_{\Delta V} {\int_0^1 {{\omega _2}(\beta )\lambda _2^\beta } \frac{{{\partial ^\beta }}}{{\partial {t^\beta }}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial y}}\left( {v\theta } \right)} \right)d\beta } } dVdt = \int_t^{t + \Delta t} {\int_{\Delta V} {\frac{1}{{Pr}}\frac{{{\partial ^2}\theta }}{{\partial {y^2}}}} } dVdt, \hfill \\ \end{array}$

(3.1)

where ΔV is the control volume that equals Δx·Δy.

The backward difference scheme is implemented to discretize the first item of the time term in Eq (3.1) as follows:

$\int_t^{t + \Delta t} {\int_{\Delta V} {\frac{{\partial \theta }}{{\partial t}}} } dVdt = \left( {\theta _P^k - \theta _P^{k - 1}} \right) \cdot \Delta V + O(\Delta t) .$

(3.2)

The volume integrals inside the convective terms and diffusive term are substituted by surface integrals, which are carried out by the first-order upwind difference scheme. In addition, the gradient at the interface is approximated by the central difference format. After these methods of processing, the following discretized equations of integer derivatives are formulated:

$\begin{array}{l} \int_t^{t + \Delta t} {\int_{\Delta V} {\frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {u\theta } \right)} } dVdt = \left[ {\left( {uA\theta } \right)_n^k - \left( {uA\theta } \right)_s^k} \right] \cdot \Delta t \hfill \\ = \left( {u_P^{k - 1}{A_n}\theta _P^k - u_S^{k - 1}{A_s}\theta _S^k} \right) \cdot \Delta t + O(\Delta x), \hfill \\ \end{array}$

(3.3)

$\begin{array}{l} \int_t^{t + \Delta t} {\int_{\Delta V} {\frac{\partial }{{\partial y}}\left( {v\theta } \right)} } dVdt = \left[ {\left( {vA\theta } \right)_e^k - \left( {vA\theta } \right)_w^k} \right] \cdot \Delta t \hfill \\ = \left( {v_E^{k - 1}{A_e}\theta _E^k - v_P^{k - 1}{A_w}\theta _P^k} \right) \cdot \Delta t + O(\Delta y), \hfill \\ \end{array}$

(3.4)

$\begin{array}{l} \int_t^{t + \Delta t} {\int_{\Delta V} {\frac{{{\partial ^2}\theta }}{{\partial {y^2}}}} } dVdt = \left[ {\left( {A\frac{{\partial \theta }}{{\partial y}}} \right)_e^k - \left( {A\frac{{\partial \theta }}{{\partial y}}} \right)_w^k} \right] \cdot \Delta t \hfill \\ = \left( {{A_e}\frac{{\theta _E^k - \theta _P^k}}{{\Delta y}} - {A_w}\frac{{\theta _P^k - \theta _W^k}}{{\Delta y}}} \right) \cdot \Delta t + O(\Delta {y^2}), \hfill \\ \end{array}$

(3.5)

where A represents the face area of the control volume, and A_w = A_e = Δx, A_n = A_s = Δy.

Second, the mid-point quadrature rule is adopted to approximate the distributed order time fractional derivatives. Distributed-order fractional partial differential equations (PDEs) can be regarded as the limiting case of multi-term fractional PDEs ^[29]. Diethelm and Ford ^[30] have observed that small changes in the order of a fractional PDE lead to only slight changes in the final solution, which gives initial support to the employed numerical integration method. Thus, the summations of multi-fractional terms are acquired ^[31]:

$\int_0^1 {{\omega _2}(\beta )\lambda _2^\beta } \frac{{{\partial ^{\beta + 1}}\theta }}{{\partial {t^{\beta + 1}}}}d\beta \approx {h_\beta }\sum\limits_{s = 1}^K {{\omega _2}({\beta _s})\lambda _2^{{\beta _s}}} \frac{{{\partial ^{{\beta _s} + 1}}\theta }}{{\partial {t^{{\beta _s} + 1}}}} ,$

(3.6)

$\int_0^1 {{\omega _2}(\beta )\lambda _2^\beta } \frac{{{\partial ^\beta }}}{{\partial {t^\beta }}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {u\theta } \right)} \right)d\beta \approx {h_\beta }\sum\limits_{s = 1}^K {{\omega _2}({\beta _s})} \lambda _2^{{\beta _s}}\frac{{{\partial ^{{\beta _s}}}}}{{\partial {t^{{\beta _s}}}}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {u\theta } \right)} \right) ,$

(3.7)

$\int_0^1 {{\omega _2}(\beta )\lambda _2^\beta } \frac{{{\partial ^\beta }}}{{\partial {t^\beta }}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial y}}\left( {v\theta } \right)} \right)d\beta \approx {h_\beta }\sum\limits_{s = 1}^K {{\omega _2}({\beta _s})\lambda _2^{{\beta _s}}} \frac{{{\partial ^{{\beta _s}}}}}{{\partial {t^{{\beta _s}}}}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial y}}\left( {v\theta } \right)} \right) ,$

(3.8)

where ${h_\beta } = \frac{1}{K}$ denotes the fractional parameter step, and ${\beta _s} = \frac{{\left({s - 1} \right){h_\beta } + s{h_\beta }}}{2}$ .

The fractional L1 scheme is adopted to estimate the time-fractional derivative of order β_s, as 0 < β_s < 1 ^[32,33] under the assumption that f (t_k) ∈ C²[0, t]:

$\frac{{{\partial ^{{\beta _s}}}}}{{\partial {t^{{\beta _s}}}}}f({t_k}) = \frac{{\Delta {t^{ - {\beta _s}}}}}{{\Gamma \left( {2 - {\beta _s}} \right)}}\left[ {f({t_k}) - \beta _{k - 1}^sf\left( {{t_0}} \right) - \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{k - 1} {\left( {\beta _{j - 1}^s - \beta _j^s} \right)f({t_{k - j}})} } \right] + O\left( {\Delta {t^{2 - {\beta _s}}}} \right) ,$

(3.9)

where $\beta _j^s = {\left({j + 1} \right)^{1 - {\beta _s}}} - {j^{1 - {\beta _s}}}$ . For the order of β_s+1, the Caputo time fractional derivative has the following property ^[28]:

$\frac{{{\partial ^{{\beta _s} + 1}}}}{{\partial {t^{{\beta _s} + 1}}}}f({t_k}) = \frac{{{\partial ^{{\beta _s}}}}}{{\partial {t^{{\beta _s}}}}}f'({t_k}) ,$

(3.10)

where $f'({t_k}) = \left[{f({t_k})- f({t_{k- 1}})} \right]/\Delta t$ .

Utilizing Eqs (3.9) and (3.10), Eqs (3.6)-(3.8) can be transformed into the discretized forms

$\begin{array}{l} \int_0^1 {{\omega _2}(\beta )\lambda _2^\beta } \frac{{{\partial ^{\beta + 1}}\theta }}{{\partial {t^{\beta + 1}}}}d\beta \hfill \\ = {h_\beta }\Delta V\sum\limits_{s = 1}^K {{\omega _2}({\beta _s})\frac{{\lambda _2^{{\beta _s}} \cdot \Delta {t^{ - {\beta _s}}}}}{{\Gamma \left( {2 - {\beta _s}} \right)}}} \left[ {\theta _P^k - \theta _P^{k - 1} - \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{k - 1} {\left( {\beta _{j - 1}^s - \beta _j^s} \right)\left( {\theta _P^{k - j} - \theta _P^{k - j - 1}} \right)} } \right] + {R_1}, \hfill \\ \end{array}$

(3.11)

$\begin{array}{l} \int_0^1 {{\omega _2}(\beta )\lambda _2^\beta } \frac{{{\partial ^\beta }}}{{\partial {t^\beta }}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {u\theta } \right)} \right)d\beta = {h_\beta }\sum\limits_{s = 1}^K {{\omega _2}({\beta _s})} \frac{{\lambda _2^{{\beta _s}} \cdot \Delta {t^{ - {\beta _s} + 1}}}}{{\Gamma \left( {2 - {\beta _s}} \right)}} \cdot \hfill \\ \left[ {u_P^{k - 1}{A_n}\theta _P^k - u_S^{k - 1}{A_s}\theta _S^k - \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{k - 1} {\left( {\beta _{j - 1}^s - \beta _j^s} \right)\left( {u_P^{k - j - 1}{A_n}\theta _P^{k - j} - u_S^{k - j - 1}{A_s}\theta _S^{k - j}} \right)} } \right] + {R_2}, \hfill \\ \end{array}$

(3.12)

$\begin{array}{l} \int_0^1 {{\omega _2}(\beta )\lambda _2^\beta } \frac{{{\partial ^\beta }}}{{\partial {t^\beta }}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial y}}\left( {v\theta } \right)} \right)d\beta = {h_\beta }\sum\limits_{s = 1}^K {{\omega _2}({\beta _s})} \frac{{\lambda _2^{{\beta _s}} \cdot \Delta {t^{ - {\beta _s} + 1}}}}{{\Gamma \left( {2 - {\beta _s}} \right)}} \cdot \hfill \\ \left[ {v_E^{k - 1}{A_e}\theta _E^k - v_P^{k - 1}{A_w}\theta _P^k - \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{k - 1} {\left( {\beta _{j - 1}^s - \beta _j^s} \right)\left( {v_E^{k - j - 1}{A_e}\theta _E^{k - j} - v_P^{k - j - 1}{A_w}\theta _P^{k - j}} \right)} } \right] + {R_3}, \hfill \\ \end{array}$

(3.14)

where the truncation errors are ${R_1} \leqslant C(\Delta t)$ , ${R_2} \leqslant C(\Delta t + \Delta x)$ , ${R_3} \leqslant C(\Delta t + \Delta y)$ .

Finally, the iterative difference equation of Eq (2.9) is established:

${a_P}\theta _P^k = {a_S}\theta _S^k + {a_W}\theta _W^k + {a_E}\theta _E^k + {S_P} ,$

(3.15)

${a_P} = \left( {1 + \sum\limits_{s = 1}^K {{r_s}} } \right) \cdot \left( {\frac{{\Delta V}}{{\Delta t}} + \Delta y \cdot u_P^{k - 1} - \Delta x \cdot v_P^{k - 1}} \right) + \frac{{2\Delta x}}{{Pr \cdot \Delta y}} ,$

${a_S} = \left( {1 + \sum\limits_{s = 1}^K {{r_s}} } \right) \cdot \Delta y \cdot u_S^{k - 1} \text{, } {a_w} = \frac{{\Delta x}}{{Pr \cdot \Delta y}} \text{, } {a_E} = \frac{{\Delta x}}{{Pr \cdot \Delta y}} - \left( {1 + \sum\limits_{s = 1}^K {{r_s}} } \right) \cdot \Delta x \cdot v_E^{k - 1} \text{, }$

$\begin{array}{l} {S_P} = \left( {1 + \sum\limits_{s = 1}^K {{r_s}} } \right) \cdot \frac{{\Delta V}}{{\Delta t}} \cdot \theta _P^{k - 1} + \frac{{\Delta V}}{{\Delta t}} \cdot \sum\limits_{s = 1}^K {{r_s}} \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{k - 1} {\left( {\beta _{j - 1}^s - \beta _j^s} \right)\left( {\theta _P^{k - j} - \theta _P^{k - j - 1}} \right)} \hfill \\ + \Delta y \cdot \sum\limits_{s = 1}^K {{r_s}} \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{k - 1} {\left( {\beta _{j - 1}^s - \beta _j^s} \right)\left( {u_P^{k - j - 1}\theta _P^{k - j} - u_S^{k - j - 1}\theta _S^{k - j}} \right)} \hfill \\ + \Delta x \cdot \sum\limits_{s = 1}^K {{r_s}} \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{k - 1} {\left( {\beta _{j - 1}^s - \beta _j^s} \right)\left( {v_E^{k - j - 1}\theta _E^{k - j} - v_P^{k - j - 1}\theta _P^{k - j}} \right), } \hfill \\ \end{array}$

where ${r_s} = {h_\beta }{\omega _2}\left({{\beta _s}} \right)\frac{{\lambda _2^{{\beta _s}} \cdot \Delta {t^{ - {\beta _s}}}}}{{\Gamma \left({2 - {\beta _s}} \right)}}$ .

The velocity terms of Eq (2.8) are carried out to deduce the discretized forms similarly. The semi-implicit scheme is utilized for the integration of the single velocity and temperature terms:

$\int_t^{t + \Delta t} {\int_{\Delta V} u } dVdt = \frac{{\Delta t \cdot \Delta V}}{2}\left( {u_P^k + u_P^{k - 1}} \right) + O(\Delta t) ,$

(3.16)

$\int_t^{t + \Delta t} {\int_{\Delta V} \theta } dVdt = \frac{{\Delta t \cdot \Delta V}}{2}\left( {\theta _P^k + \theta _P^{k - 1}} \right) + O(\Delta t) ,$

(3.17)

$\begin{array}{l} \int_t^{t + \Delta t} {\int_{\Delta V} {\int_0^1 {{\omega _1}(\alpha )\lambda _1^\alpha } \frac{{{\partial ^\alpha }\theta }}{{\partial {t^\alpha }}}d\alpha } } dVdt \approx \frac{{{h_\alpha }\Delta V}}{2}\sum\limits_{s = 1}^K {{\omega _1}({\alpha _s})} \frac{{\lambda _1^{{\alpha _s}} \cdot \Delta {t^{ - {\alpha _s} + 1}}}}{{\Gamma \left( {2 - {\alpha _s}} \right)}} \cdot \hfill \\ \left[ {\theta _P^k + \theta _P^{k - 1} - \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{k - 1} {\left( {\alpha _{j - 1}^s - \alpha _j^s} \right)\left( {\theta _P^{k - j} + \theta _P^{k - j - 1}} \right)} } \right] + O(\Delta t), \hfill \\ \end{array}$

(3.18)

where ${h_\alpha } = \frac{1}{K}$ , ${\alpha _s} = \frac{{\left({s - 1} \right){h_\alpha } + s{h_\alpha }}}{2}$ , $\alpha _j^s = {\left({j + 1} \right)^{1 - {\alpha _s}}} - {j^{1 - {\alpha _s}}}$ .

Meanwhile, Eq (2.7) is integrated to obtain the velocity component in the y direction as follows:

$\begin{array}{l} 0 = \int_t^{t + \Delta t} {\int_{\Delta V} {\frac{{\partial u}}{{\partial x}}{\text{ }}} } dVdt + \int_t^{t + \Delta t} {\int_{\Delta V} {\frac{{\partial v}}{{\partial y}}} } {\text{ }}dVdt \hfill \\ = \frac{{\Delta t}}{2}\left[ {\left( {uA} \right)_n^k - \left( {uA} \right)_s^k + \left( {uA} \right)_n^{k - 1} - \left( {uA} \right)_s^{k - 1}} \right] + \frac{{\Delta t}}{2}\left[ {\left( {vA} \right)_e^k - \left( {vA} \right)_w^k + \left( {vA} \right)_e^{k - 1} - \left( {vA} \right)_w^{k - 1}} \right], \hfill \\ \end{array}$

(3.19)

$v_P^k = - v_P^{k - 1} + v_W^k + v_W^{k - 1} - \frac{{\Delta y}}{{\Delta x}}\left( {u_P^k - u_S^k + u_P^{k - 1} - u_S^{k - 1}} \right) + O\left( {\Delta x + \Delta y} \right).$

(3.20)

4. Validation of the numerical results

4.1. Solvability of the iterative difference equation

Theorem 1. The iterative difference equation (3.14) is uniquely solvable.

Proof. The values of θ at the kth time level are acquired from the iterative difference equation (3.14). We summarize the difference scheme on a particular i-level in matrix form:

${G_i}\theta _i^k = {H_i}\theta _i^{k - 1} + S_i^k ,$

(4.1)

$\theta _i^k = {\left[ {\theta _{i, 2}^k, \theta _{i, 3}^k, \cdots , \theta _{i, j}^k, \cdots , \theta _{i, N - 1}^k} \right]^T} , \theta _i^{k - 1} = {\left[ {\theta _{i, 2}^{k - 1}, \theta _{i, 3}^{k - 1}, \cdots , \theta _{i, j}^{k - 1}, \cdots , \theta _{i, N - 1}^{k - 1}} \right]^T} ,$

${G_i} = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{a_P}\left( {i, 2} \right)} \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{array}{\text{ }}\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} { - {a_E}\left( {i, 3} \right)} \\ \cdots \\ \ldots \end{array}{\text{ }}\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} \ldots \\ { - {a_w}\left( {i, j - 1} \right)} \\ \ldots \end{array}{\text{ }}\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} \ldots \\ {{a_P}\left( {i, j} \right)} \\ \ldots \end{array}{\text{ }}\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} \ldots \\ { - {a_E}\left( {i, j + 1} \right)} \\ \ldots \end{array}{\text{ }}\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} \ldots \\ \cdots \\ { - {a_W}\left( {i, N - 2} \right)} \end{array}{\text{ }}\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 0 \\ 0 \\ {{a_P}\left( {i, N - 1} \right)} \end{array}} \right) ,$

${H_i} = {\left[ {{a_s}\left( {i, 2} \right), {a_s}\left( {i, 3} \right), \cdots , {a_s}\left( {i, j} \right), \cdots , {a_s}\left( {i, N - 1} \right)} \right]^T} ,$

$S_i^k = {\left[ {{S_P}\left( {i, 2} \right) + {a_W}\left( {i, 2} \right)\theta _{i, 1}^k, {S_P}\left( {i, 3} \right), \cdots , {S_P}\left( {i, j} \right), \cdots , {S_P}\left( {i, N - 1} \right) + {a_E}\left( {i, N} \right)\theta _{i, N}^k} \right]^T} ,$

where G_i is a tri-diagonal and full-rank matrix.

Therefore, the difference scheme (3.20) is uniquely solvable. The numerical solutions of $u_i^k$ and $v_i^k$ are similarly proved. □

4.2. Grid independence verification

The computational domain is regarded as a rectangle with sides X_max = 1 and Y_max = 12, respectively, where Y_max represents y→∞ approximately. The coordinate mesh sizes are fixed as Δx = 0.05 and Δy = 0.1, respectively, and the time step is selected as Δt = 0.1. To compromise between numerical precision and computation time, the absolute differences between two consecutive time steps are set as smaller than 10⁻³ within the whole domain. To measure the grid independence, Figure 2 presents the numerical solutions through different groups of grid systems. The velocity curves are in good coincidence, which demonstrates that the selected mesh sizes are appropriate for the calculations.

Figure 2. Grid independence test.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

4.3. Numerical test with source terms

To verify the numerical error accuracy of the presented fractional finite volume method, comparisons are implemented between numerical solutions and exact solutions with two source terms:

$\begin{array}{l} \frac{{\partial u}}{{\partial t}} + \frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {uu} \right) + \frac{\partial }{{\partial y}}\left( {vu} \right) + \int_0^1 {{\omega _1}(\alpha )\lambda _1^\alpha } \frac{{{\partial ^{\alpha + 1}}u}}{{\partial {t^{\alpha + 1}}}}d\alpha + \int_0^1 {{\omega _1}(\alpha )\lambda _1^\alpha } \frac{{{\partial ^\alpha }}}{{\partial {t^\alpha }}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}\left( {uu} \right)} \right)d\alpha \hfill \\ + \int_0^1 {{\omega _1}(\alpha )\lambda _1^\alpha } \frac{{{\partial ^\alpha }}}{{\partial {t^\alpha }}}\left( {\frac{\partial }{{\partial y}}\left( {vu} \right)} \right)d\alpha = - \frac{{\varepsilon u}}{{DaG{r^{1/2}}}} + \frac{{{\partial ^2}u}}{{\partial {y^2}}} + \theta + \int_0^1 {{\omega _1}(\alpha )\lambda _1^\alpha } \frac{{{\partial ^\alpha }\theta }}{{\partial {t^\alpha }}}d\alpha + {f_1}\left( {x, y, t} \right), \hfill \\ \end{array}$

(4.12)

(4.13)

The homogeneous initial conditions and boundary conditions are given as follows:

$u\left( {x, y, 0} \right) = 0 , \frac{{\partial u\left( {x, y, 0} \right)}}{{\partial t}} = 0 , v\left( {x, y, 0} \right) = 0 , \theta \left( {x, y, 0} \right) = 0 , \frac{{\partial \theta \left( {x, y, 0} \right)}}{{\partial t}} = 0 , u\left( {x, 0, t} \right) = 0 , v\left( {x, 0, t} \right) = 0 , \theta \left( {x, 0, t} \right) = 0 , u\left( {0, y, t} \right) = 0 , \theta \left( {0, y, t} \right) = 0 , u\left( {x, 1, t} \right) = 0 , \theta \left( {x, 1, t} \right) = 0 .$

The eligible exact solutions are chosen specially as

$u\left( {x, y, t} \right) = {x^2}{\left( {1 - x} \right)^2}{y^2}{\left( {1 - y} \right)^2}{t^2} ,$

$v\left( {x, y, t} \right) = - 2x\left( {1 - x} \right)\left( {1 - 2x} \right)\left( {\frac{1}{3}{y^3} - \frac{1}{2}{y^4} + \frac{1}{5}{y^5}} \right){t^2} ,$

$\theta \left( {x, y, t} \right) = {x^2}{\left( {1 - x} \right)^2}{y^2}{\left( {1 - y} \right)^2}{t^2} .$

The two source terms are constructed by reverse derivation:

$\begin{array}{l} {f_1}\left( {x, y, t} \right) = \hfill \\ \left[ {\int_0^1 {{\omega _1}} (\alpha )\frac{{2\lambda _1^\alpha {t^{1 - \alpha }}}}{{\Gamma \left( {2 - \alpha } \right)}}d\alpha + 2t - \int_0^1 {{\omega _1}} (\alpha )\frac{{2\lambda _1^\alpha {t^{2 - \alpha }}}}{{\Gamma \left( {3 - \alpha } \right)}}d\alpha - {t^2}} \right]{x^2}{\left( {1 - x} \right)^2}{y^2}{\left( {1 - y} \right)^2} \hfill \\ + \left( {\int_0^1 {{\omega _1}} (\alpha )\frac{{24\lambda _1^\alpha {t^{4 - \alpha }}}}{{\Gamma \left( {5 - \alpha } \right)}}d\alpha + {t^4}} \right)\left[ {{{\left( {1 - x} \right)}^3}\left( {2{x^3} - 4{x^4}} \right)\left( {{y^4} - {y^5}} \right)\left( {\frac{1}{3} - \frac{2}{3}y + \frac{3}{5}{y^2} - \frac{1}{5}{y^3}} \right)} \right] \hfill \\ - 2{x^2}{\left( {1 - x} \right)^2}\left( {1 - 6y + 6{y^2}} \right){t^2} + \frac{{\varepsilon {x^2}{{\left( {1 - x} \right)}^2}{y^2}{{\left( {1 - y} \right)}^2}{t^2}}}{{DaG{r^{1/2}}}}, \hfill \\ \end{array}$

$\begin{array}{l} {f_2}\left( {x, y, t} \right) = \hfill \\ \left[ {\int_0^1 {{\omega _2}} (\beta )\frac{{\lambda _2^\beta {t^{1 - \beta }}}}{{\Gamma \left( {2 - \beta } \right)}}d\beta + t} \right]2{x^2}{\left( {1 - x} \right)^2}{y^2}{\left( {1 - y} \right)^2} - \frac{2}{{\Pr }}{x^2}{\left( {1 - x} \right)^2}\left( {1 - 6y + 6{y^2}} \right){t^2} \hfill \\ + \left( {\int_0^1 {{\omega _2}} (\beta )\frac{{24\lambda _2^\beta {t^{4 - \beta }}}}{{\Gamma \left( {5 - \beta } \right)}}d\beta + {t^4}} \right)\left[ {{{\left( {1 - x} \right)}^3}\left( {2{x^3} - 4{x^4}} \right)\left( {{y^4} - {y^5}} \right)\left( {\frac{1}{3} - \frac{2}{3}y + \frac{3}{5}{y^2} - \frac{1}{5}{y^3}} \right)} \right]. \hfill \\ \end{array}$

Figure 3. Comparison between numerical solutions and exact solutions.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 3 illustrates the comparisons between the exact solutions and numerical solutions of u and θ. The velocity and temperature distributions are both in fine consistency, which verifies that the presented fractional finite volume method has reliable convergence accuracy.

5. Results and discussion

In this section, the effects of the active physical parameters on velocity and temperature distributions are illustrated graphically: namely, the porosity, Darcy number, and the relaxation time parameters. The distributed order fractional derivatives are integrated over a given range [0, 1], and the summations of multi-fractional terms are acquired by the mid-point quadrature rule in Eqs (3.6)-(3.8). For this reason, the effects of the fractional derivative parameters are not discussed in this paper. The Prandtl number and Grashof number are both fixed as constants for brevity.

Figure 4. Temperature profiles with different ε.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 5. Velocity profiles with different ε.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 4 shows temperature profiles with different values of porosity. The temperature distribution is monotone decreasing for a single value of porosity. With the increase of ε, the temperature distribution increases, and the thickness of the thermal boundary layer gets bigger. The velocity profiles with different ε are depicted in Figure 5. Each velocity profile is not monotone and possesses a maximum value. As the porosity increases, the velocity distribution declines, and the velocity boundary layer becomes thinner. In addition, the point location of the maximum value gets closer to the vertical plate. These results demonstrate that larger porosity imposes negative restrictions on momentum transfer.

The effects of Darcy number on temperature and velocity profiles are illustrated in Figures 6 and 7. It is found in Figure 6 that the temperature distribution shifts down with the increase of Da, but the thickness of the temperature boundary layer declines slightly. In Figure 7, the velocity distribution rises with the increase of Da, but the increasing magnitude lessens distinctly. The result proves that the permeability accelerates the development of the velocity. It can be concluded that the porosity and permeability have opposite influences on temperature and velocity fields.

Figure 6. Temperature profiles with different Da.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 7. Velocity profiles with different Da.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 8. Temperature profiles with different λ₂.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 9. Velocity profiles with different λ₁.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figures 8-10 present the effects of the relaxation time λ₁ and λ₂ on velocity and temperature. It can be seen from Figure 8 that the temperature distribution decreases apparently with the increase of λ₂. In Figure 9, the velocity distribution rises as the relaxation time λ₁ increases, where the Newtonian fluid that responds to λ₁ = 0 has the smallest velocity values. The result verifies that the velocity relaxation time promotes the momentum transfer. In Figure 10, the velocity distribution descends with the augment of λ₂, which has inverse effects compared with the relaxation time λ₁. The velocity profiles stay close to each other near the plate and separate evidently at a certain distance from the plate. Meanwhile, the velocity boundary layer thickness reduces slightly with the increase of λ₂.

Figure 10. Velocity profiles with different λ₂.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

6. Conclusions

This paper discussed the unsteady natural convective flow and heat transfer of generalized Maxwell viscoelastic fluids with distributed order time fractional derivatives embedded in a porous medium. The finite volume method combined with the fractional L1 scheme rule was applied to solve the nonlinear governing equations. Numerical solutions of velocity and temperature were discussed after the grid independence test and comparisons with exact solutions. Results are concluded as follows: (i). The temperature distribution rises with the increase of ε but declines as Da and λ₂ become larger. (ii). The velocity distribution ascends with the augment of Da and λ₁ but reduces with the increase of ε and λ₂.

Acknowledgments

The work is supported by the Outstanding Youth Research Project of Anhui Universities (2023AH030075), the National Natural Science Foundations of China (No. 12102093), the Natural Science Research Project of Anhui Universities (2022AH051336), the Talent Project of Fuyang Normal University (rcxm202105).

Use of AI tools declaration

The authors declare that they have not used artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

[1]	Akinci DA, Matousek R, Radic N, et al. (2013) Monetary policy and the banking sector in Turkey. J Int Financ Mark Inst Money 27: 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2013.08.001 doi: 10.1016/j.intfin.2013.08.001
[2]	Akyuz Y, Boratav K (2003) The Making of the Turkish Financial Crisis. World Dev 31: 1549–1566. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00108-6 doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00108-6
[3]	Althammer W, Haselmann R (2011) Explaining foreign bank entrance in emerging markets. J Comp Econ 39: 486–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2011.03.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jce.2011.03.002
[4]	Aras ON (2010) Effects of the global economic crisis on Turkish banking sector. Int J Econ Financ Stud 2: 113–120. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijefs/issue/26156/275506
[5]	Arayssi M, Fakih A, Haimoun N (2019) Did the Arab spring reduce MENA countries' growth? Appl Econ Lett 26: 1579–1585. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2019.1588938 doi: 10.1080/13504851.2019.1588938
[6]	Antzoulatos AA, Thanopoulos J, Tsoumas Ch (2008) Financial system structure and change—1986–2005 Evidence from the OECD countries. J Econ Integr 23: 977–1001.
[7]	Assaf AG, Matousek R, Tsionas EG (2013) Turkish bank efficiency: Bayesian estimation with undesirable outputs. J Bank Financ 37: 506–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2012.09.009 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2012.09.009
[8]	Atici G, Gursoy G (2011) Financial crisis and capital buffer: evidence from the Turkish banking sector. Bank Bank Syst 6: 72–86.
[9]	Aysan AF, Mustafa D, Duygun M, et al. (2018) Religiosity versus rationality: Depositor behavior in Islamic and conventional banks. J Comp Econ 46: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2017.03.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jce.2017.03.001
[10]	Banks Association of Turkey (2012) Historical Data. Available from: http://www.tbb.org.tr/en/banks-and-banking-sector-information/member-banks/historical-data/40.
[11]	Beck Th, Brown M (2015) Foreign bank ownership and household credit. J Financ Intermed 24: 466–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfi.2013.10.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jfi.2013.10.002
[12]	Berger AN, Klapper LF, Udell GF (2001) The ability of banks to lend to informationally opaque small businesses. J Bank Financ 25: 2127–2167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(01)00189-3 doi: 10.1016/S0378-4266(01)00189-3
[13]	Bonin JP, Louie D (2017). Did foreign banks stay committed to emerging Europe during recent financial crises? J Comp Econ 45: 793–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2016.08.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jce.2016.08.003
[14]	Cerutti E, Dell'Ariccia G, Martinez Peria MS (2007) How banks go abroad: Branches or subsidiaries? J Bank Financ 31: 1669–1692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.11.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.11.005
[15]	Cetorelli N, Goldberg LS (2011) Global Banks and International Shock Transmission: Evidence from the Crisis. IMF Econ Rev 59: 41–76. https://doi.org/10.1057/imfer.2010.9 doi: 10.1057/imfer.2010.9
[16]	Chen M, Wu J, Jeon BN, et al. (2017) Do foreign banks take more risk? Evidence from emerging economies. J Bank Financ 82: 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2017.05.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2017.05.004
[17]	Claeys S, Hainz Ch (2014) Modes of foreign bank entry and effects on lending rates: Theory and evidence. J Comp Econ 42: 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2013.01.009 doi: 10.1016/j.jce.2013.01.009
[18]	Cokgezen M, Kuran T (2015) Between consumer demand and Islamic law: The evolution of Islamic credit cards in Turkey. J Comp Econ 43: 862–882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2015.07.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jce.2015.07.005
[19]	Claessens S, Van Horen N (2015) The Impact of the Global Financial Crisis on Banking Globalization. IMF Econ Rev 63:868–918.
[20]	Cull R, Martinez Peria MS (2013) Bank ownership and lending patterns during the 2008–2009 financial crisis: Evidence from Latin America and Eastern Europe. J Bank Financ 37: pp. 4861–4878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.08.017
[21]	Curi C, Lozano-Vivas A, Zelenyuk V (2015) Foreign bank diversification and efficiency prior to and during the financial crisis: Does one business model fit all? J Bank Financ 61: 522–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.04.019 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.04.019
[22]	De Haas R, Van Horen N (2013) Running for the exit? International bank lending during a financial crisis. Rev Financ Stud 26: 244–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhs113 doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhs113
[23]	De Haas R, Korniyenko Y, Pivovarsky A, et al. (2014) Taming the herd? Foreign banks, the Vienna Initiative and crisis transmission. J Financ Intermed 24: 325–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfi.2014.05.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jfi.2014.05.003
[24]	De Haas R, Van Levyled I (2010) Internal capital markets and lending by multinational bank subsidiaries. J Financ Intermed 19: 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfi.2009.02.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jfi.2009.02.001
[25]	Degryse H, Havrylchyk O, Jurzyk E, et al. (2012) Foreign bank entry, credit allocation and lending rates in emerging markets: Empirical evidence from Poland. J Bank Financ 36: 2949– 2959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2011.12.006 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2011.12.006
[26]	Dekle R, Lee M (2015) Do foreign bank affiliates cut their lending more than the domestic banks in a financial crisis? J Int Money Financ 50: 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2014.08.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2014.08.005
[27]	Dell'Ariccia G, Marquez R (2004). Information and bank credit allocation. J Financ Econ 27: 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(03)00210-1 doi: 10.1016/S0304-405X(03)00210-1
[28]	Dietrich A, Wanzenreid G (2011) Determinants of bank profitability before and during the crisis: Evidence from Switzerland. J Int Financ Mark Inst Money 21: 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2010.11.002 doi: 10.1016/j.intfin.2010.11.002
[29]	Dungey M, Gajurel D (2015) Contagion and banking crisis—International evidence for 2007–2009. J Bank Financ 60: 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.08.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.08.007
[30]	Egert B (2007) Central bank interventions, communication and interest rate policy in emerging European economies. J Comp Econ 35: 387–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2007.02.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jce.2007.02.004
[31]	El-Gamal MA., Inanoglu H (2005) Inefficiency and heterogeneity in Turkish banking: 1990– 2000. J Appl Econ 20: 641–664. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.835 doi: 10.1002/jae.835
[32]	Fiegenbaum A, Thomas H (1993) Industry and strategic group dynamics: Competitive strategy in the insurance industry, 1970–84. J Manag Stud 30: 69–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1993.tb00296.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1993.tb00296.x
[33]	Frey R, Kerl C (2015) Multinational banks in crisis: Foreign affiliate lending as a mirror of funding pressure and competition on the internal capital market. J Bank Financ 50: 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2014.06.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2014.06.005
[34]	Fukuyama H, Matousek R (2011) Efficiency of Turkish banking: Two-stage network system. Variable returns to scale model. J Int Financ Mark Inst Money 21: 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2010.08.004 doi: 10.1016/j.intfin.2010.08.004
[35]	Ghosh S (2016) Political transition and bank performance: How important was the Arab Spring? J Comp Econ 44: 372–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2015.02.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jce.2015.02.001
[36]	Gunes H, Yildirim D (2016) Estimating cost efficiency of Turkish commercial banks under unobserved heterogeneity with stochastic frontier models. Cent Bank Rev 16: 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbrev.2016.12.001 doi: 10.1016/j.cbrev.2016.12.001
[37]	Hair JFJr, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, et al. (1995) Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings. Prentice-Hall Inc, NJ, United States.
[38]	Hand, DJ, Mannila H, Smyth P (2001) Principles of Data Mining. MIT Press, United States of America.
[39]	Halaj G, Zochowski D (2009) Strategic Groups and Banks' Performance. Financ Theory and Pract 33: 153–186.
[40]	Havrylchyk O, Jurzyk E (2011) Inherited or earned? Performance of foreign banks in Central and Eastern Europe. J Bank Financ 35: 1291–1302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.10.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.10.007
[41]	Iwanicz-Drozdowska M, Witkowski B (2016) Determinants of the Credit Growth in CESEE Countries. Coll Econ Anal Ann 41: 161–174.
[42]	Jeon BN, Olivero MP, Wu J (2013) Multinational banking and the international transmission of financial shocks: Evidence from foreign bank subsidiaries. J Bank Financ 37: 952–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2012.10.020 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2012.10.020
[43]	Koller W (2001) Strategic group in Austrian banking 1995–2000. Available from: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi = 10.1.1.201.1285 & rep = rep1 & type = pdf.
[44]	Lehner M, Schnitzer M (2008) Entry of foreign banks and their impact on host countries. J Comp Econ 36: 430–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2008.02.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jce.2008.02.002
[45]	Miller SR, Parkhe A (2002) Is there a liability of foreignness in global banking? An empirical test of banks x-efficiency. Strateg Manag J 23: 55–75.
[46]	Mihaljek D (2011) Domestic bank intermediation in emerging market economies during the crisis: locally owned versus foreign-owned banks. In: Bank for International Settlements (ed.), The global crisis and financial intermediation in emerging market economies 54: 31–48.
[47]	Moreno R, Mihaljek D, Villar A, et al. (2010) The Global Crisis and Financial Intermediation in Emerging Market Economies. BIS Paper 54. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract = 1959828.
[48]	Onder Z, Ozyldirim S (2008) Market Reaction to Risky Banks: Did Generous Deposit Guarantee Change It? World Dev 36: 1415–1435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.08.007 doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.08.007
[49]	Ongena S, Peydro JL, Van Horen N (2015) Shocks Abroad, Pain at Home? Bank-Firm-Level Evidence on the International Transmission of Financial Shocks. IMF Econ Rev 63: 698–750. https://doi.org/10.1057/imfer.2015.34 doi: 10.1057/imfer.2015.34
[50]	Popov A, Udell GF (2012) Cross-border banking, credit access, and the financial crisis. J Int Econ 87: 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2012.01.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2012.01.008
[51]	Sudharshan D, Thomas H, Fiegenbaum A (1991) Assessing mobility barriers in dynamic strategic group analysis. J Manag Stud 28: 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1991.tb00762.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1991.tb00762.x
[52]	Ward JHJr (1963) Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function. J Am Stat Assoc 58: 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845 doi: 10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845
[53]	Wagner Ch, Winkler A (2013) The Vulnerability of Microfinance to Financial Turmoil—Evidence from the Global Financial Crisis. World Dev 51: 71–90 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.05.008 doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.05.008
[54]	Wu J, Chen M, Jeon BN, Wang R (2017) Does foreign bank penetration affect the risk of domestic banks? Evidence from emerging economies. J Financ Stability 31: 45–61 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2017.06.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jfs.2017.06.004
[55]	Xu Y, La HA (2015) Foreign banks and international shock transmission: Does bank ownership still matter? J Int Financ Mark Inst Money 38: 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2015.05.006 doi: 10.1016/j.intfin.2015.05.006
[56]	Zuniga-Vicente JA, De La Fuente-Sabate JM, Rodrigues-Puerta J (2004) A study of industry evolution in the face of major environmental disturbances; Group and firm strategic behavior of Spanish banks, 1983–1997. Br J Manag 15: 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2004.00416.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2004.00416.x

QFE-07-01-002-s001.pdf

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

1.
沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院沈阳 110142

Quantitative Finance and Economics

3.2 0.3

Metrics

Article views(1862) PDF downloads(292) Cited by(1)

Preview PDF

Download XML

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(2) / Tables(6)

Quantitative Finance and Economics

The effects of different modes of foreign bank entry in the Turkish banking sector during the 2007–2009 Global financial crisis

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Mathematical formulation

3. Numerical technique

4. Validation of the numerical results

4.1. Solvability of the iterative difference equation

4.2. Grid independence verification

4.3. Numerical test with source terms

5. Results and discussion

6. Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Use of AI tools declaration

Conflict of interest

References

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Figures and Tables

Other Articles By Authors

Catalog

Quantitative Finance and Economics

The effects of different modes of foreign bank entry in the Turkish banking sector during the 2007–2009 Global financial crisis

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Mathematical formulation

3. Numerical technique

4. Validation of the numerical results

4.1. Solvability of the iterative difference equation

4.2. Grid independence verification

4.3. Numerical test with source terms

5. Results and discussion

6. Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Use of AI tools declaration

Conflict of interest

References

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Figures and Tables

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

Export File

Citation

Format

Content

Catalog