
Citation: Aftab Ahmed, Javed I. Siddique. The effect of magnetic field on flow induced-deformation in absorbing porous tissues[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(2): 603-618. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019029
[1] | Maurizio Verri, Giovanna Guidoboni, Lorena Bociu, Riccardo Sacco . The role of structural viscoelasticity in deformable porous media with incompressible constituents: Applications in biomechanics. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(4): 933-959. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018042 |
[2] | Ziad Khan, Hari Mohan Srivastava, Pshtiwan Othman Mohammed, Muhammad Jawad, Rashid Jan, Kamsing Nonlaopon . Thermal boundary layer analysis of MHD nanofluids across a thin needle using non-linear thermal radiation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(12): 14116-14141. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022658 |
[3] | K. Maqbool, S. Shaheen, A. M. Siddiqui . Effect of nano-particles on MHD flow of tangent hyperbolic fluid in a ciliated tube: an application to fallopian tube. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(4): 2927-2941. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019144 |
[4] | Wei-wei Jiang, Xin-xin Zhong, Guang-quan Zhou, Qiu Guan, Yong-ping Zheng, Sheng-yong Chen . An automatic measurement method of spinal curvature on ultrasound coronal images in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(1): 776-788. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020040 |
[5] | Bei Liu, Wenbin Tan, Xian Zhang, Ziqi Peng, Jing Cao . Recognition study of denatured biological tissues based on multi-scale rescaled range permutation entropy. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(1): 102-114. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022005 |
[6] | Wei Lin, Fengshuang Yang . Computational analysis of cutting parameters based on gradient Voronoi model of cancellous bone. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(11): 11657-11674. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022542 |
[7] | Cornel M. Murea, H. G. E. Hentschel . A finite element method for growth in biological development. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2007, 4(2): 339-353. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2007.4.339 |
[8] | Jianhua Song, Lei Yuan . Brain tissue segmentation via non-local fuzzy c-means clustering combined with Markov random field. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(2): 1891-1908. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022089 |
[9] | Ewa Majchrzak, Mikołaj Stryczyński . Dual-phase lag model of heat transfer between blood vessel and biological tissue. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(2): 1573-1589. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021081 |
[10] | Xu Guo, Yuanming Jing, Haizhou Lou, Qiaonv Lou . Effect and mechanism of long non-coding RNA ZEB2-AS1 in the occurrence and development of colon cancer. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(6): 8109-8120. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019408 |
Singularly perturbed boundary value problems (SPBVPs), also known as stiff, are not easily treated analytically or numerically [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20] and so that having a simple program to obtain analytical and numerical solutions of these problems would be interesting and helpful. The most common analytical method to study SPBVPs is the method of matched asymptotic expansions which involves finding outer and inner solutions of the problem and their matching [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Recently, Wang [9] present a Maple program and its corresponding algorithm to obtain a rational approximate solution for a class of nonlinear SPBVPs. Such an algorithm is based on the boundary value method presented by Wang [8] and using Taylor series and Pade expansion to approximate the boundary condition at infinity. In fact, the accuracy of the obtained boundary layer solution in [8,9] depends upon how far the Pade expansion approximates the solution, which consequently depends upon the radius of convergence and how many terms considered in the expansion [21]. Therefore, to get accurate results over the boundary layer region, more higher-order terms may be needed [10]. Moreover, the technique of using Taylor series and Pade expansion for solving boundary layer problems with a boundary condition at infinity often results in nonlinear algebraic equations and hence multiple solutions appear which leads to unsatisfied results. To overcome these drawbacks, we have established a new and simple Maple program spivp, based on a new initial value method [11], to obtain approximate analytical and numerical solutions of SPBVPs. The algorithm is designed for practicing engineers or applied mathematicians who need a practical tool for solving these problems. Some examples are solved to illustrate the implementation of the program and the accuracy of the algorithm. Analytical and numerical results are compared with results in literature. The results confirm that the present method is accurate and offers a simple and easy practical tool for obtaining approximate analytical and numerical solutions of SPBVPs.
Let us first recall the basic principles of the boundary value method presented in [8].
Consider the nonlinear SPBVP of the form
εd2ydx2+p(x,y)dydx+q(x,y)=0,x∈[0,1], | (2.1) |
with conditions
y(0)=α,y(1)=β, | (2.2) |
where 0<ε≪1, α and β are given constants, p(x,y) and q(x,y) are assumed to be sufficiently continuously differentiable functions on [0,1], and p(x,y)≥M>0 for every x∈[0,1], where M is a positive constant. Under these assumptions, the SPBVP (2.1-2.2) has a unique solution y(x) which in general displays a boundary layer at x=0 for small values of ε.
Theorem 1. The solution y(x) of the nonlinear SPBVP (2.1-2.2) can be expressed as:
y(x)=u(x)+v(t)+O(ε),t=xε, |
where u(x) and v(t) are the solutions of the following IVP and BVP given respectively by:
{p(x,u)dudx+q(x,u)=0,u(1)=β, | (2.3) |
and
{d2vdt2+p(0,u(0)+v(t))dvdt=0,v(0)=α−u(0),limt→+∞v(t)=0. | (2.4) |
Proof. See Ref. [8].
In fact, v(t) cannot be always solved from Eq. (2.4) and so that one can assume that v′(0)=δ and use Taylor series and Pade expansion to determine the value of δ using the condition at infinity and obtain an approximate rational solution for Eq. (2.4) [8,9].
In this section, an initial value method is established from the boundary value method in Theorem1 for solving SPBVP (2.1-2.2).
Theorem 2. The solution y(x) of the nonlinear SPBVP (2.1-2.2) can be expressed as:
y(x)=u(x)+v(t)+O(ε),t=xε, | (3.1) |
where u(x) and v(t) are the solutions of the following IVPs:
{p(x,u)dudx+q(x,u)=0,u(1)=β, | (3.2) |
and
{dvdt+f(0,u(0)+v(t))=f(0,u(0))v(0)=α−u(0). | (3.3) |
where
f(0,u(0)+v(t))=∫p(0,u(0)+v(t))dv |
Proof. Integrating Eq. (2.4) results in
∫∞td2vds2ds+∫∞t(p(0,u(0)+v(s))dvds)ds=0, | (3.4) |
[dvds+f(0,u(0)+v(s))]s→+∞s=t=0, | (3.5) |
where f(0,u(0)+v(s))=∫p(0,u(0)+v(s))dv.
Thus we have
dvdt+f(0,u(0)+v(t))=lims→+∞dvds+f(0,u(0)+lims→+∞v(s)), | (3.6) |
which results in a first order initial value problem given by
dvdt+f(0,u(0)+v(t))=f(0,u(0)), | (3.7) |
with the initial condition
v(0)=α−u(0). |
Thus, we have replaced the second order BVP (2.4) by the approximate first order IVP (3.7). Obviously Theorem 2 agrees with the theoretical results in [11].
Remark. The value of δ used in the boundary value method [8,9] is easily obtained from Eq. (3.3) as δ=f(0,u(0))−f(0,α)
Using the initial value method presented in Theorem 2 for linear problems results in some useful theoretical results.
Let's consider the linear SPBVP
εd2ydx2+p(x)dydx+q(x)y=0,x∈[0,1], | (3.8) |
with conditions
y(0)=α,y(1)=β, | (3.9) |
where 0<ε≪1, α and β are given constants, p(x) and q(x) are assumed to be sufficiently continuously differentiable functions on [0,1], and p(x)≥M>0 for every x∈[0,1], where M is a positive constant. The assumption merely implies that the boundary layer will be in the neighborhood of x=0.
Theorem 3. The solution of the linear SPBVP (3.8-3.9) can be approximated by:
y(x)=βe∫x1−q(x)p(x)ds+((α−u(0))e−p(0)xε)+O(ε) | (3.10) |
Proof. According to the initial value method presented in Theorem 2, we have
y(x)=u(x)+v(t)+O(ε),t=xε, | (3.11) |
where u(x) and v(t) are the solutions of the following IVPs:
{p(x)dudx+q(x)u=0,u(1)=β, | (3.12) |
and
{dvdt+p(0)v(t)=0v(0)=α−u(0). | (3.13) |
The reduced problem (3.12) and the boundary layer corrected problem (3.13) are easily solvable since they are separable and thus (3.11) results in the asymptotic analytical solution given by
y(x)=βe∫x1−q(x)p(x)ds+((α−u(0))e−p(0)xε)+O(ε), |
which is the well known asymptotic solution given in [2,11].
Obviously, the value of δ used in the boundary value method in Theorem 1 can be obtained directly from (3.13) as δ=v′(0)=−p(0)(α−u(0)) which agrees with the theoretical results in [8,9].
Mathematical mechanization is one of the important methods of mathematical studies [9,12,13,22,23,24,25,26]. In Maple, obtaining analytical solution of the nonlinear SPBVP (2.1-2.2) through solving the IVPs (3.2) and (3.3) can be well established a very simple symbolic program that can easily calculate the approximate analytical and numerical solutions. Now if we want to solve SPBVP (2.1-2.2) using the initial value method in Theorem 2, everything we have to do is just to input information about the SPBVP, and the program will give out the solution. The program spivp is as follows:
spivp : = proc (p, q, alpha, beta)
local p0, q0, pu, qu, f, us, k, vs, sol, vx, iniu, iniv;
p0 : = unapply(p, x, y);
q0 : = unapply(q, x, y);
pu : = p0(x, u(x));
qu : = q0(x, u(x));
f : = unapply(int(p, y), x, y);
iniu : = u(1) = beta;
us : = rhs(dsolve(pu*(diff(u(x), x))+qu = 0, iniu, u(x))); k : = eval(us, x = 0);
iniv : = v(0) = alpha-k;
vs : = rhs(dsolve(diff(v(t), t)+f(0, v(t)+k) = f(0, k), iniv, v(t)));
vx : = subs(t = x/ϵ, vs);
sol : = simplify(us+vx, size)
end proc
For convenience, in the program spivp, we always let x represents the independent variable, and set the parameters as following:
p: the coefficient, p(x,y), in the equation which to be solved.
q: the coefficient, q(x,y), in the equation which to be solved.
α,β : the boundary values.
For example, if we consider the SPBVP:
εd2ydx2+eydydx−π2sin(πx2)e2y=0,y(0)=0,y(1)=0. |
One just input the following command
spivp(exp(y),−pi/2.sin(pi.x/2).exp(2.y),0,0);
In this section, four examples are solved to illustrate the implementation and the accuracy of the method.
Example 1. Consider the nonlinear SPBVP from Bender and Orszag [6]
εd2ydx2+2dydx+ey=0,y(0)=y(1)=0. | (5.1) |
To solve this problem, we input the following command:
spivp(2,exp(y),0,0)
The output is:
y(x)−ln(12x+12)−ln(2)e−2xε |
which is the uniform valid approximate solution given by Bender and Orszag [6]. The solution of Example 1 at different values of ε is presented in Figure 1.
Example 2. Consider the nonlinear SPBVP from O'Malley [2]
εd2ydx2+eydydx−π2sin(πx2)e2y=0,y(0)=y(1)=0. | (5.2) |
Input the following command in Maple
spivp(exp(y),−Pi/2.sin(Pi.x/2).exp(2.y),0,0);
The output is
y(x)=−ln(cos(12πx)+1)+ln(−2e−12xε−2), |
which is the uniform valid approximate solution given by O'Malley [2]. The solution of Example 2 at different values of ε is presented in Figure 2.
As shown from the previous two examples, the present algorithm offers a simple and easy tool for obtaining asymptotic analytical and approximate numerical solutions for SPBVPs.
Example 3. Consider the nonlinear SPBVP from Kevorkian and Cole [7]
εd2ydx2+ydydx−y=0,y(0)=−1,y(1)=3.9995 | (5.3) |
For comparison purpose, we write the uniform approximation provided by Kevorkian and Cole [7] as
y(x)=x+c1tanh[c1(x/ε+c2)/2], | (5.4) |
where c1=2.9995 and c2=1/c1ln[(c1−1)/(c1+1)].
For this problem, Wang [9] has obtained a solution given by:
y(x)=x+2.9995+L(t)Q(t), | (5.5) |
where t=x/ε, and
L(t)=−3.9995+(1.99975+δ)t−0.39995(1+2δ)t2+[0.0333292(1+2δ)−0.25δ+0.1δ(1+2δ)+0.166667(δ−δ2)]t3,Q(t)=1−0.5δ+0.1(1+2δ)t2−0.0083333(1+2δ)t3,}, | (5.6) |
where δ=−1.999791999.
Here we apply the present method by inputting the following command in Maple
spivp(y,−y,−1,3.9995);
The output is
y(x)=x+59992000−479860011000(7999+3999e59992000xε). | (5.7) |
In Figure 3, the present solution (5.7) and the obtained solutions by Wang [9], Eqs. (5.5-5.6) are compared with the uniform approximate solution in [7] at ε=0.001. As shown from Figure 3 the solution (5.5-5.6), solid red line, deviates much from our solution (5.7), dashed blue line, and the uniform approximate solution, dotted blue line, in [7]. In fact, applying the conditionlimt→+∞v(t)=0 to (5.6) results in two different values for δ (δ=−1.999791999, δ=−0.5) and each one of them leads to unsatisfied results. The numerical results of Example 3 are compared with the results in literature in Table 1. Moreover, the results for different values of ε are presented in Table 2.
x | Present | Results in[16] | Results in[17] | Results in[7] |
0.00 | -1.000000 | -1.000000 | -1.000000 | -1.0000000 |
0.5ε | 1.1484593 | 2.1363630 | 1.1484592 | 1.1484592 |
1.0ε | 2.4569397 | 2.8140590 | 2.4569396 | 2.4569396 |
0.1 | 3.0994999 | 3.0995020 | 3.0962686 | 3.0994999 |
0.2 | 3.1995000 | 3.1995020 | 3.1963699 | 3.1995000 |
0.3 | 3.2995000 | 3.2995020 | 3.2964650 | 3.2995000 |
0.4 | 3.3995000 | 3.3995010 | 3.3965544 | 3.3995000 |
0.5 | 3.4995000 | 3.4995010 | 3.4466386 | 3.4995000 |
0.6 | 3.5995000 | 3.5995000 | 3.5967184 | 3.5995000 |
0.7 | 3.6995000 | 3.6995000 | 3.6967939 | 3.6995000 |
0.8 | 3.7995000 | 3.7995000 | 3.7968656 | 3.7995000 |
0.9 | 3.8995000 | 3.8995000 | 3.8969335 | 3.8995000 |
1.0 | 3.9995000 | 3.9995000 | 3.9969980 | 3.9995000 |
x | ε=10−2 | ε=10−4 | ε=10−5 | ε=10−6 |
0.00 | -1.0000000 | -1.0000000 | -1.0000000 | -1.0000000 |
0.5ε | 1.1529593 | 1.1480093 | 1.1479643 | 1.1479598 |
1.0ε | 2.4659397 | 2.4560397 | 2.4559497 | 2.4559407 |
0.1 | 3.0995000 | 3.0995000 | 3.0995000 | 3.0995000 |
0.2 | 3.1995000 | 3.1995000 | 3.1995000 | 3.1995000 |
0.3 | 3.2995000 | 3.2995000 | 3.2995000 | 3.2995000 |
0.4 | 3.3995000 | 3.3995000 | 3.3995000 | 3.3995000 |
0.5 | 3.4995000 | 3.4995000 | 3.4995000 | 3.4995000 |
0.6 | 3.5995000 | 3.5995000 | 3.5995000 | 3.5995000 |
0.7 | 3.6995000 | 3.6995000 | 3.6995000 | 3.6995000 |
0.8 | 3.7995000 | 3.7995000 | 3.7995000 | 3.7995000 |
0.9 | 3.8995000 | 3.8995000 | 3.8995000 | 3.8995000 |
1.0 | 3.9995000 | 3.9995000 | 3.9995000 | 3.9995000 |
Example 4. Finally, we consider the following linear SPBVP from Bender and Orszag [6]
εd2ydx2+dydx−y=0,y(0)=y(1)=1. | (5.8) |
For this problem, Wang [9] has obtained the following rational solution:
y(x)=exe+L(x)Q(x), | (5.9) |
where
L(x)=ε(−19115.326ε4+200691.9566x4−19115.32x3ε+8427734.7x2ε2−1070458.24xε3), |
and
Q(x)=−30240ε5+196560xε4+102480x2ε3+22260x3ε2+2490x4ε+125x5. |
Using the following command :
spivp(1,−y,1,1),
the obtained solution is
y(x)=ex−1+(e−1)e−x/ε−1. | (5.10) |
The numerical results of Example 4 are shown in Tables 3, 4 and Figure 4.
x | Present | Results in[6] | Results in[9] | Results in[17] | Exact solution |
0.00 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 |
0.01 | 0.3716054 | 0.3716050 | 39.621608 | 0.3712379 | 0.3719724 |
0.02 | 0.3753111 | 0.3753109 | 34.943933 | 0.3749439 | 0.3756784 |
0.03 | 0.3790831 | 0.3790832 | 29.856212 | 0.3787160 | 0.3794502 |
0.04 | 0.3828929 | 0.3828929 | 25.706355 | 0.3825260 | 0.3832599 |
0.05 | 0.3867410 | 0.3867409 | 22.458425 | 0.3863742 | 0.3871079 |
0.10 | 0.4065697 | 0.4065696 | 13.632736 | 0.4062043 | 0.4069350 |
0.30 | 0.4965853 | 0.4965853 | 5.5064473 | 0.4962382 | 0.4969324 |
0.50 | 0.6065307 | 0.6065305 | 3.6923714 | 0.6062278 | 0.6068334 |
0.70 | 0.7408182 | 0.7408182 | 2.9700713 | 0.7405963 | 0.7410401 |
0.90 | 0.9048374 | 0.9048373 | 2.6496651 | 0.9047471 | 0.9049277 |
1.00 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 | 2.5738182 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 |
x | ε=10−2 | ε=10−4 | ε=10−5 | ε=10−6 |
0.00 | 1.00000000 | 1.000000000 | 1.00000000 | 1.00000000 |
0.01 | 0.60412084 | 0.37157669 | 0.37157669 | 0.37157669 |
0.02 | 0.46085931 | 0.37531109 | 0.37531109 | 0.37531109 |
0.03 | 0.41055446 | 0.37908303 | 0.37908303 | 0.37908303 |
0.04 | 0.39447057 | 0.38289288 | 0.38289288 | 0.38289288 |
0.05 | 0.39100021 | 0.38674102 | 0.38674102 | 0.38674102 |
0.10 | 0.40659835 | 0.40656965 | 0.40656965 | 0.40656965 |
0.30 | 0.49658530 | 0.49658530 | 0.49658530 | 0.49658530 |
0.50 | 0.60653065 | 0.60653065 | 0.60653065 | 0.60653065 |
0.70 | 0.74081822 | 0.74081822 | 0.74081822 | 0.74081822 |
0.90 | 0.90483741 | 0.90483741 | 0.90483741 | 0.90483741 |
1.00 | 1.00000000 | 1.00000000 | 1.00000000 | 1.00000000 |
Obviously, the solution in (5.9) needs more higher-order terms in Pade's expansion to match the boundary layer behavior [10].
In this paper, we have presented approximate analytical and numerical solution of SPBVPs using a new and simple Maple program spivp. The method is based on an initial value method that replaces the original SPBVP by two asymptotically approximate IVPs. These IVPs are solved analytically and their solutions are combined to approximate the analytical solution of the original SPBVP. The method is very easy to implement on any computer with a minimum problem preparation. We have implemented it in Maple and applied it to four examples and compared the obtained results with the results in literature. The results indicate that the method is accurate and offers a simple and easy practical tool for the practicing engineers or applied mathematicians who need a practical tool for obtaining approximate analytical and numerical solution of SPBVPs.
The author would like to thank the referees for their valuable comments and suggestions which helped to improve the manuscript. Moreover, the author acknowledges that this publication was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia.
The author declares no conflict of interest.
[1] | H. Darcy, Les fontaines publiques de la ville de Dijon, Paris: Dalmont, 1856. |
[2] | D. D. Joseph, D. A. Nield and G. Papanicolaou, Nonlinear equation governing flow in a saturated porous medium, Water Res., 18 (1982), 1049–1052. |
[3] | K. Terzaghi, Erdbaumechanik auf bodenphysikalischen Grundlagen, Wien: Deuticke, 1925. |
[4] | M. A. Biot, General theory of three dimensional consolidation, J. Appl. Phys., 12 (1941), 155–164. |
[5] | M. A. Biot, Theory of elasticity and consolidation for a porous anisotropic solid, J. Appl. Phys., 26 (1955), 182–185. |
[6] | A. Fick, Ueber diffusion, Annalen der Physik, 170 (1855), 59–86. |
[7] | C. Truesdell, Sulle basi della thermomeccanica, Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rendiconti della Classe di Scienze Fisiche, 22 (1957), 33–38. |
[8] | R. J. Atkin and R. E. Craine, Continuum theories of mixtures: Basic theory and historical development, Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math., 29 (1976), 209–244. |
[9] | R. J. Atkin and R. E. Craine, Continuum theories of mixtures: Applications, J. I. Math. Appl., 17 (1976), 153–207. |
[10] | K. R. Rajagopal and L. Tao, Mechanics of mixtures, World Scientific, Singapore, 1995. |
[11] | J. I. Siddique, A. Ahmed, A. Aziz and C. M. Khalique, A review of mixture theory for deformable porous media and applications, Appl. Sci., 7 (2017), 1–15. |
[12] | D. E. Kenyon, The theory of an incompressible solid-fluid mixture, Arch. Ration. Mech., 62 (1976), 131–147. |
[13] | D. E. Kenyon, A mathematical model of water flux through aortic tissue, B. Math. Biol., 41 (1979), 79–90. |
[14] | G. Jayaraman, Water transport in the arterial wall: a theoretical study, J. Biomech., 16 (1983), 833–840. |
[15] | R. Jain and G. Jayaraman, A theoretical model for water flux through the arterial wall, J. Biomech. Eng., 109 (1987), 311–317. |
[16] | M. Klanchar and J. M. Tarbell, Modeling water flow through arterial tissue, B. Math. Biol., 49 (1987), 651–669. |
[17] | V. C. Mow and W. M. Lai, Mechanics of animal joints, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 11 (1979), 247–288. |
[18] | W. M. Lai and V. C. Mow, Drag induced compression of articular cartilage during a permeation experiment, Biorheology, 17 (1980), 111–123. |
[19] | M. H. Holmes, Finite deformation of soft tissue: analysis of a mixture model in uni-axial compression, J. Biomech. Eng., 108 (1986), 372–381. |
[20] | A. Ahmed, J. I. Siddique and A. Mahmood, Non-Newtonian flow-induced deformation from pressurized cavities in absorbing porous tissues, Comput. Method. Biomec., 20 (2017), 1464–1473. |
[21] | C. W. J. Oomens, D. H. V. Campen and H. J. Grootenboer, A mixture approach to the mechanics of skin, J. Biomech., 20 (1987), 877–885. |
[22] | T. R. Ford, J. S. Sachs, J. B. Grotberg and M. R. Glucksberg, Mechanics of the perialveolar interstitium of the lung, First World Congress of Biomechanics, La Jolla, 1 (1990), 31. |
[23] | M. H. Friedman, General theory of tissue swelling with application to the corneal stroma, J. Theor. Biol., 30 (1971), 93–109. |
[24] | C. Nicholson, Diffusion from an injected volume of a substance in brain tissue with arbitrary volume fraction and tortuosity, Brain Res., 333 (1985), 325–329. |
[25] | N. T. M. Eldabe, G. Saddeek and K. A. S. Elagamy, Magnetohydrodynamic flow of a biviscosity fluid through porous medium in a layer of deformable material, J. Porous Media, 14 (2011), 273–283. |
[26] | J. I. Siddique and A. Kara, Capillary rise of magnetohydrodynamics liquid into deformable porous material, J. Appl. Fluid Mech., 9 (2016), 2837–2843. |
[27] | A. Naseem, A. Mahmood, J. I. Siddique and L. Zhao, Infiltration of MHD liquid into a deformable porous material, Results Phys., 8 (2018), 71–75. |
[28] | S. Sreenadh, K. V. Prasad, H. Vaidya, E. Sudhakara, G. Krishna and M. Krishnamurthy, MHD Couette Flow of a Jeffrey Fluid over a Deformable Porous Layer, Int. J. Appl. Comput. Math., 3 (2017), 2125–2138. |
[29] | J. Bagwell, J. Klawitter, B. Sauer and A. Weinstein, A study of bone growth into porous polyethylene, Presented at the Sixth Annual Biomaterials Symposium, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA, (1974), 20–24. |
[30] | R. M. Pilliar, H. V. Cameron and I. MacNab, Porous surface layered prosthetic devises, Biomed. Eng., 4 (1975), 12–16. |
[31] | M. L. Bansal, Magneto Therapy, Jain Publishers, New Delhi, 1976. |
[32] | P. N. Tandon, A. Chaurasia and T. Gupta, Comput. Math. Appl., 22 (1991), 33–45. |
[33] | S. I. Barry and G. K. Aldis, Flow-induced deformation from Pressurized cavities in absorbing porous tissues, B. Math. Biol., 54 (1992), 977–997. |
[34] | M. H. Holmes, A theoretical analysis for determining the nonlinear hydraulic permeability of a soft tissue from a permeation experiment, B. Math. Biol., 47 (1985), 669–683. |
[35] | S. I. Barry and G. K. Aldis, Radial flow through deformable porous shells, J. Aust. Math. Soc. B, 34 (1993), 333–354. |
[36] | J. S. Hou, M. H. Holmes,W. M. Lai and V. C. Mow, Boundary conditions at the cartilage-synovial fluid interface for joint lubrication and theoretical verifications, J. Biomech. Eng., 111 (1989), 78–87. |
[37] | M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of mathematical functions, New York, Dover, 1972. |
[38] | W. E. Schiesser, The numerical method of lines: Integration of partial differential equations, Academic Press, San Diego, 1991. |
[39] | A. Farina, P. Cocito and G. Boretto, Flow in deformable porous media: Modelling an simulations of compression moulding processes, Math. Comput. Model., 26 (1997), 1–15. |
[40] | S. I. Barry and G. K. Aldis, Fluid flow over a thin deformable porous layer, J. Appl. Math. Phys. (ZAMP), 42 (1991), 633–648. |
1. | R. A. Samy, Pearlson P. A. Suthanthiraraj, D. George, R. Iqbal, A. K. Sen, Elastocapillarity-based transport of liquids in flexible confinements and over soft substrates, 2019, 23, 1613-4982, 10.1007/s10404-019-2266-2 | |
2. | Usman Ali, Javed I. Siddique, Visco-elastic behavior of articular cartilage under applied magnetic field and strain-dependent permeability, 2020, 23, 1025-5842, 524, 10.1080/10255842.2020.1744134 | |
3. | Liangang Hou, Yang Liu, Sa Fan, Jun Li, Magnetic field enhanced denitrification efficiency of immobilized bacterial particles, 2020, 81, 0273-1223, 622, 10.2166/wst.2020.156 | |
4. | Aftab Ahmed, Umair Farooq, Javed Iqbal Siddique, Usman Ali Raja, A computational study on dynamic behavior of articular cartilage under cyclic compressive loading and magnetic field, 2025, 185, 00104825, 109595, 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.109595 | |
5. | J. I. Siddique, Umair Farooq, Aftab Ahmed, Usman Ali, Compressive stress relaxation behavior of articular cartilage with MHD effects, 2025, 1747-6933, 1, 10.1080/17476933.2025.2461562 | |
6. | Javed I. Siddique, Aftab Ahmed, Asif Mahmood, A MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF NON-NEWTONIAN FLUID FLOW THROUGH A POROELASTIC CYLINDER WITH MOVING BOUNDARIES , 2025, 28, 1091-028X, 89, 10.1615/JPorMedia.2024054528 |
x | Present | Results in[16] | Results in[17] | Results in[7] |
0.00 | -1.000000 | -1.000000 | -1.000000 | -1.0000000 |
0.5ε | 1.1484593 | 2.1363630 | 1.1484592 | 1.1484592 |
1.0ε | 2.4569397 | 2.8140590 | 2.4569396 | 2.4569396 |
0.1 | 3.0994999 | 3.0995020 | 3.0962686 | 3.0994999 |
0.2 | 3.1995000 | 3.1995020 | 3.1963699 | 3.1995000 |
0.3 | 3.2995000 | 3.2995020 | 3.2964650 | 3.2995000 |
0.4 | 3.3995000 | 3.3995010 | 3.3965544 | 3.3995000 |
0.5 | 3.4995000 | 3.4995010 | 3.4466386 | 3.4995000 |
0.6 | 3.5995000 | 3.5995000 | 3.5967184 | 3.5995000 |
0.7 | 3.6995000 | 3.6995000 | 3.6967939 | 3.6995000 |
0.8 | 3.7995000 | 3.7995000 | 3.7968656 | 3.7995000 |
0.9 | 3.8995000 | 3.8995000 | 3.8969335 | 3.8995000 |
1.0 | 3.9995000 | 3.9995000 | 3.9969980 | 3.9995000 |
x | ε=10−2 | ε=10−4 | ε=10−5 | ε=10−6 |
0.00 | -1.0000000 | -1.0000000 | -1.0000000 | -1.0000000 |
0.5ε | 1.1529593 | 1.1480093 | 1.1479643 | 1.1479598 |
1.0ε | 2.4659397 | 2.4560397 | 2.4559497 | 2.4559407 |
0.1 | 3.0995000 | 3.0995000 | 3.0995000 | 3.0995000 |
0.2 | 3.1995000 | 3.1995000 | 3.1995000 | 3.1995000 |
0.3 | 3.2995000 | 3.2995000 | 3.2995000 | 3.2995000 |
0.4 | 3.3995000 | 3.3995000 | 3.3995000 | 3.3995000 |
0.5 | 3.4995000 | 3.4995000 | 3.4995000 | 3.4995000 |
0.6 | 3.5995000 | 3.5995000 | 3.5995000 | 3.5995000 |
0.7 | 3.6995000 | 3.6995000 | 3.6995000 | 3.6995000 |
0.8 | 3.7995000 | 3.7995000 | 3.7995000 | 3.7995000 |
0.9 | 3.8995000 | 3.8995000 | 3.8995000 | 3.8995000 |
1.0 | 3.9995000 | 3.9995000 | 3.9995000 | 3.9995000 |
x | Present | Results in[6] | Results in[9] | Results in[17] | Exact solution |
0.00 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 |
0.01 | 0.3716054 | 0.3716050 | 39.621608 | 0.3712379 | 0.3719724 |
0.02 | 0.3753111 | 0.3753109 | 34.943933 | 0.3749439 | 0.3756784 |
0.03 | 0.3790831 | 0.3790832 | 29.856212 | 0.3787160 | 0.3794502 |
0.04 | 0.3828929 | 0.3828929 | 25.706355 | 0.3825260 | 0.3832599 |
0.05 | 0.3867410 | 0.3867409 | 22.458425 | 0.3863742 | 0.3871079 |
0.10 | 0.4065697 | 0.4065696 | 13.632736 | 0.4062043 | 0.4069350 |
0.30 | 0.4965853 | 0.4965853 | 5.5064473 | 0.4962382 | 0.4969324 |
0.50 | 0.6065307 | 0.6065305 | 3.6923714 | 0.6062278 | 0.6068334 |
0.70 | 0.7408182 | 0.7408182 | 2.9700713 | 0.7405963 | 0.7410401 |
0.90 | 0.9048374 | 0.9048373 | 2.6496651 | 0.9047471 | 0.9049277 |
1.00 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 | 2.5738182 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 |
x | ε=10−2 | ε=10−4 | ε=10−5 | ε=10−6 |
0.00 | 1.00000000 | 1.000000000 | 1.00000000 | 1.00000000 |
0.01 | 0.60412084 | 0.37157669 | 0.37157669 | 0.37157669 |
0.02 | 0.46085931 | 0.37531109 | 0.37531109 | 0.37531109 |
0.03 | 0.41055446 | 0.37908303 | 0.37908303 | 0.37908303 |
0.04 | 0.39447057 | 0.38289288 | 0.38289288 | 0.38289288 |
0.05 | 0.39100021 | 0.38674102 | 0.38674102 | 0.38674102 |
0.10 | 0.40659835 | 0.40656965 | 0.40656965 | 0.40656965 |
0.30 | 0.49658530 | 0.49658530 | 0.49658530 | 0.49658530 |
0.50 | 0.60653065 | 0.60653065 | 0.60653065 | 0.60653065 |
0.70 | 0.74081822 | 0.74081822 | 0.74081822 | 0.74081822 |
0.90 | 0.90483741 | 0.90483741 | 0.90483741 | 0.90483741 |
1.00 | 1.00000000 | 1.00000000 | 1.00000000 | 1.00000000 |
x | Present | Results in[16] | Results in[17] | Results in[7] |
0.00 | -1.000000 | -1.000000 | -1.000000 | -1.0000000 |
0.5ε | 1.1484593 | 2.1363630 | 1.1484592 | 1.1484592 |
1.0ε | 2.4569397 | 2.8140590 | 2.4569396 | 2.4569396 |
0.1 | 3.0994999 | 3.0995020 | 3.0962686 | 3.0994999 |
0.2 | 3.1995000 | 3.1995020 | 3.1963699 | 3.1995000 |
0.3 | 3.2995000 | 3.2995020 | 3.2964650 | 3.2995000 |
0.4 | 3.3995000 | 3.3995010 | 3.3965544 | 3.3995000 |
0.5 | 3.4995000 | 3.4995010 | 3.4466386 | 3.4995000 |
0.6 | 3.5995000 | 3.5995000 | 3.5967184 | 3.5995000 |
0.7 | 3.6995000 | 3.6995000 | 3.6967939 | 3.6995000 |
0.8 | 3.7995000 | 3.7995000 | 3.7968656 | 3.7995000 |
0.9 | 3.8995000 | 3.8995000 | 3.8969335 | 3.8995000 |
1.0 | 3.9995000 | 3.9995000 | 3.9969980 | 3.9995000 |
x | ε=10−2 | ε=10−4 | ε=10−5 | ε=10−6 |
0.00 | -1.0000000 | -1.0000000 | -1.0000000 | -1.0000000 |
0.5ε | 1.1529593 | 1.1480093 | 1.1479643 | 1.1479598 |
1.0ε | 2.4659397 | 2.4560397 | 2.4559497 | 2.4559407 |
0.1 | 3.0995000 | 3.0995000 | 3.0995000 | 3.0995000 |
0.2 | 3.1995000 | 3.1995000 | 3.1995000 | 3.1995000 |
0.3 | 3.2995000 | 3.2995000 | 3.2995000 | 3.2995000 |
0.4 | 3.3995000 | 3.3995000 | 3.3995000 | 3.3995000 |
0.5 | 3.4995000 | 3.4995000 | 3.4995000 | 3.4995000 |
0.6 | 3.5995000 | 3.5995000 | 3.5995000 | 3.5995000 |
0.7 | 3.6995000 | 3.6995000 | 3.6995000 | 3.6995000 |
0.8 | 3.7995000 | 3.7995000 | 3.7995000 | 3.7995000 |
0.9 | 3.8995000 | 3.8995000 | 3.8995000 | 3.8995000 |
1.0 | 3.9995000 | 3.9995000 | 3.9995000 | 3.9995000 |
x | Present | Results in[6] | Results in[9] | Results in[17] | Exact solution |
0.00 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 |
0.01 | 0.3716054 | 0.3716050 | 39.621608 | 0.3712379 | 0.3719724 |
0.02 | 0.3753111 | 0.3753109 | 34.943933 | 0.3749439 | 0.3756784 |
0.03 | 0.3790831 | 0.3790832 | 29.856212 | 0.3787160 | 0.3794502 |
0.04 | 0.3828929 | 0.3828929 | 25.706355 | 0.3825260 | 0.3832599 |
0.05 | 0.3867410 | 0.3867409 | 22.458425 | 0.3863742 | 0.3871079 |
0.10 | 0.4065697 | 0.4065696 | 13.632736 | 0.4062043 | 0.4069350 |
0.30 | 0.4965853 | 0.4965853 | 5.5064473 | 0.4962382 | 0.4969324 |
0.50 | 0.6065307 | 0.6065305 | 3.6923714 | 0.6062278 | 0.6068334 |
0.70 | 0.7408182 | 0.7408182 | 2.9700713 | 0.7405963 | 0.7410401 |
0.90 | 0.9048374 | 0.9048373 | 2.6496651 | 0.9047471 | 0.9049277 |
1.00 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 | 2.5738182 | 1.0000000 | 1.0000000 |
x | ε=10−2 | ε=10−4 | ε=10−5 | ε=10−6 |
0.00 | 1.00000000 | 1.000000000 | 1.00000000 | 1.00000000 |
0.01 | 0.60412084 | 0.37157669 | 0.37157669 | 0.37157669 |
0.02 | 0.46085931 | 0.37531109 | 0.37531109 | 0.37531109 |
0.03 | 0.41055446 | 0.37908303 | 0.37908303 | 0.37908303 |
0.04 | 0.39447057 | 0.38289288 | 0.38289288 | 0.38289288 |
0.05 | 0.39100021 | 0.38674102 | 0.38674102 | 0.38674102 |
0.10 | 0.40659835 | 0.40656965 | 0.40656965 | 0.40656965 |
0.30 | 0.49658530 | 0.49658530 | 0.49658530 | 0.49658530 |
0.50 | 0.60653065 | 0.60653065 | 0.60653065 | 0.60653065 |
0.70 | 0.74081822 | 0.74081822 | 0.74081822 | 0.74081822 |
0.90 | 0.90483741 | 0.90483741 | 0.90483741 | 0.90483741 |
1.00 | 1.00000000 | 1.00000000 | 1.00000000 | 1.00000000 |