Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1. Introduction
In the fluid mechanics theory, the Blasius equation
1
f 000 + f f 00 = 0
2
(1.1)
appears in some boundary layer problems by looking for solutions having a similarity form.
By studying the motion of an incompressible viscous fluid near a semi-infinite
flat plate, we can drop some terms in the Navier-Stokes equations and derive the
Prandtl boundary layer equations. If we assume, moreover, that the tangential
velocity at the outer limit of the boundary layer is constant, similarity solutions can
be obtained by solving the equation (1.1) on [0, ), with the boundary conditions
(1.2)
H. Blasius [3] was the first to show that this problem provided a special solution to
the Prandtl boundary layer equations. In fact, the Blasius equation is a particular
case of that of Falkner-Skan [7]
f 000 +
m + 1 00
f f + m(1 f 02 ) = 0
2
describing the same phenomena, when the velocity at infinity has some dependance
on m. See [10], [11] and [14].
Received July 27, 2000.
1980 Mathematics Subject Classification (1991 Revision). Primary 34B15, 34C11, 76D10.
Key words and phrases. Blasius equation, concave solution, boundary value problem.
200
The problem of steady free convection about a vertical flat plate embedded
in a saturated porous medium leads to a similar boundary value problem. If we
assume that convection takes place in a thin layer around the wall, a method
similar to those proposed by Prandtl can be used to simplify the equations of
Darcy describing the convective flow, and similarity solutions can be obtained. If
moreover the temperature on the wall is constant, the problem to be solved is the
equation (1.1) with the boundary conditions
(1.3)
If the prescribed wall temperature is some power function, the same approach
leads to the equation
+ 1 00
f 000 +
f f f 02 = 0
2
and (1.1) corresponds to the case = 0. See [1], [2], [4] and [6].
The boundary value problem (1.1)(1.2) dates back about one century and has
been abundantly studied. One of the most important paper on this subject is
the one of H. Weyl [15], where existence and uniqueness are proved using integral operators. Elementary proofs using differential inequalities are given by
W. A. Coppel [5], and P. Hartmann [8]. See also K. K. Tam [13]. This problem
was first solved numerically (and undoubtedly by hand) by H. Blasius [3].
The problem (1.1)(1.3), considered more recently by physicians, has been essentially investigated from numerical point of view (see [4]) and, to our knowledge,
cerbina [12]
the only papers about the question of existence are the ones of G. V. S
and W. A. Coppel [5].
From the boundary conditions, it follows that the solution has to be convex in
the first problem and concave in the second one. This difference is essential as we
will see in the following.
Let us now consider the following initial value problem
000 1 00
f + 2 f f = 0 on [0, T ),
f (0) = a,
(Pa,b,c )
f (0) = b,
00
f (0) = c,
where a, b, c R and [0, T ) is the right maximal interval of existence of the solution.
If f is a solution of (Pa,b,c ) then either f 00 (t) 0 or f 00 (t) > 0 or f 00 (t) < 0 for all
t [0, T ). Therefore, if c = 0, we have T = and f (t) = a + bt, if c > 0 then
f is strictly convex, and if c < 0 then f is strictly concave. The situation is quite
different for the concave solutions and the convex solutions. Indeed, we have
(1.4)
t [0, T ), f 00 (t) = ce 2
Rt
0
f (s) ds
201
and if c > 0, we deduce from the convexity of f that we have f (t) a + bt and
thus we can write
2
1
1
t [0, T ), 0 < f 00 (t) ce 2 at 4 bt .
It follows that T = . For c < 0, the relation (1.4) does not allow to obtain
anything about T . In fact, for c < 0, we can have T < ; for example, for > 0,
the function
(1.5)
g : t 7
6
t
(1.6)
000 1 00
f + 2 f f = 0 on [0, ),
f (0) = a, f 0 (0) = b,
f 0 () = .
202
In the part devoted to the Blasius equation, the author proves that for any given
constants > 0 and , the equation (1.1) has one and only one solution defined
on [0, ) such that
f (t) , f 00 (t) et as t .
cerbina
The problem (1.6) with a = 0, b 0 and 0 is considered by G. V. S
[12, Theorem 3]. But the proof given in this paper, for the concave case (i.e.
[0, b)) is quite hard to follows, and not complete, since it is assumed, a priori,
that the solution of the initial value problem is always nonnegative, say exists
on the whole interval [0, ). This is not true for every c, as we will see in the
following. The fact that there exist some c < 0 such that the solution is global has
to be proved. On the other hand, the question of uniqueness is not investigated,
and the author even seems to consider that nonuniqueness could arise.
2. Comparison Principle and Blow-Up Results
Among the concave solutions of the Blasius equation, we will distinguish two
kind of behaviour; if f is a solution on [0, T ) of the problem (Pa,b,c ) with c 0,
we will say
f is of type (I) f is non decreasing
f is of type (II) f is decreasing from some t1 [0, T ).
For a type (I) solution, we have f a and (1.4) implies that
1
fi (t0 ) = ai ,
.
fi (t0 ) = bi ,
00
fi (t0 ) = ci ,
where ai , bi R and ci 0. If a1 a2 , b1 b2 , c1 c2 , then T1 T2 and if one
of these inequalities is strict, we have
f1 > f2 , f10 > f20 and f100 > f200 on (0, T2 )
except for c1 = c2 = 0, where only the two first inequalities hold.
203
(2.1)
If c1 > c2 , then h00 (t0 ) > 0 and it is clear. If c1 = c2 and a1 > a2 then we have
h00 (t0 ) = 0 and
1
1
1
h000 (t0 ) = f1 (t0 )f100 (t0 ) + f2 (t0 )f200 (t0 ) = c1 (a1 a2 ) > 0,
2
2
2
therefore (2.1) holds. If c1 = c2 , a1 = a2 and b1 > b2 then h00 (t0 ) = h000 (t0 ) = 0
and
1
1
1
1
h(4) (t0 ) = f10 (t0 )f100 (t0 ) + f20 (t0 )f200 (t0 ) f1 (t0 )f1000 (t0 ) + f2 (t0 )f2000 (t0 )
2
2
2
2
1
= c1 (b1 b2 ) > 0,
2
and thus we get (2.1) in this case again.
Suppose now h00 vanishes on (t0 , T1 )(t0 , T2 ) and let t1 > t0 such that h00 (t1 ) = 0
and h00 > 0 on (t0 , t1 ). Necessarily, we have
h000 (t1 ) 0.
(2.2)
On the other hand,
1
1
1
h000 (t1 ) = f1 (t1 )f100 (t1 ) + f2 (t1 )f200 (t1 ) = f100 (t1 )h(t1 ),
2
2
2
and, since t (t0 , t1 ),
h0 (t) = b1 b2 +
t0
t1
h0 (s) ds > 0,
t0
we get h000 (t1 ) > 0 and a contradiction to (2.2). Finally, h00 > 0 on (t0 , T1 )(t0 , T2 )
and also h0 > 0, h > 0. The inequality T1 T2 follows from the concavity of f1
and the fact that f1 (t) f2 (t) for all t for which f1 (t) and f2 (t) exist.
Remark 2.1. The previous Comparison Principle could be deduced, at least
partially, from a theorem due to E. Kamke [9], but the simplicity of the proof in
the particular case of the Blasius equation incited us to give it. See also [5], and
quasi-monotonicity concept widely developed by W. Walter [14].
204
6
,
1
6
,
1
r
3
12
1
f (t) =
X
ak
k=0
3k
t3k+2
with
1
11
5
, a2 =
, a3 =
,...
20
2240
9856
and constructing super- and subfunctions from finite segments of this power series
expansion for small t and functions as those defined in (1.5). By this way, the
following estimate is obtained:
a0 = 1, a1 =
205
Proposition 3.1. The function : (t, c) 7 (fc (t), fc0 (t), fc00 (t)) defined on the
set
U = {(t, c) [0, ) (, 0]; t < Tc },
is continuous, and the function c 7 Tc , taking its values in (0, ], is lower
semicontinuous on (, 0].
Proof. Of course, this can be obtained from general continuity results (see, for
example, [8], Ch. V, p. 94, Theorem 2.1), but we would like to give an elementary
proof using the Comparison Principle and Gronwalls inequality.
Let (t, c) U . There exist 1 < 2 0 and > 0 such that
(t, c) [0, t + ] [1 , 2 ] U.
Let us now consider a sequence (cn ) in [1 , 2 ]. It follows from Proposition 2.1
that
f1 fcn f2 .
(3.1)
By setting hn = |fcn fc | and using again Proposition 2.1, we see that hn is equal
either to fcn fc or to fc fcn . Moreover, hn , h0n and h00n are positive on (0, t + ].
Therefore, for all s [0, t + ], we have
1
00
h000
n (s) = fcn (s)hn (s)
2
1
1 00
f (s)hn (s)
2 !c
|fcn ()|
sup
h00n (s)
[0,t+]
1
+
2
!
sup
|fc00 ()|
hn (s)
[0,t+]
1
1
|cn c|eC(t+) and 0 hn (s) 2 |cn c|eC(t+) .
C
C
206
1
(c cn )eCT .
C
Since fc0n (t) tends to as t Tcn , there exists a point tn (0, Tcn ) satisfying
fc0n (tn ) = fc0 (T ) 1. Then,
h0n (tn ) = fc0 (tn ) fc0n (tn ) = fc0 (tn ) fc0 (T ) + 1 1,
and we get a contradiction with (3.2).
1
1
1
f 00 (t) c + f (t)f 0 (t) ab =
2
2
2
Z
0
f 0 (s)2 ds,
207
2
1
1 2
2
c + ab b
a + b < 0,
2
4
1
1 p
c ab b a2 + 4b = f is of type (II),
2
2
(3.5)
208
p
a2 + 4b.
1
1
1
1
tf 00 (t) f 0 (t) + b + tf (t)f 0 (t) = f (t)2 a2 +
2
4
4
2
sf 0 (s)2 ds.
Now, if f is of type (II) and if we denote by t1 the point in (0, T ) such that
f 0 (t1 ) = 0, we deduce from (3.7) that
1
1
1
f (t1 )2 < b + a2 + t1 f 00 (t1 ) < b + a2 ,
4
4
4
from which
|f (t1 )| <
p
a2 + 4b.
This completes the proof, since f achieves its maximum at the point t1 .
p
a2 + 4b > 1.
Thanks to Lemma 3.4, we see that there exists an integer N such that Tn > T for
n N . Then, from Lemma 3.3 we get
p
t [0, T ], fn (t) a2 + 4b.
Therefore, it follows from the choice of T that
(3.8)
f0 (T ) fn (T ) a + bT
p
a2 + 4b > 1.
209
Remark 3.1. Since f is of type (I), then (3.4) gives a strict lower bound for
c . To improve this bound, we follow an idea given in [5] and use the fact that
f0 () = f00 () = 0 (see Lemma 4.2 and Remark 4.1 in the next section). First,
let us note that the function = f02 2f f00 has as its derivative f2 f00 and
consequently is decreasing. So, if we set g = f0 , we have
t > 0, 4g 00 (t) = (t) g(t)2 < (0) g(t)2 .
Multiplying by g 0 (t) < 0 and integrating between 0 and , we get
b3
<0
3
c2 + abc
4b
+
3
a2
a+
!
.
To get an upper bound seems to be not very clear in the general case. In fact,
the proof of the previous lemma does not give any estimate for c . However, for
a 0, it is possible to obtain an upper bound. To this end, we remark that, if f is
a type (II) solution of (Pa,b,c ), and if we denote by t0 the point where f vanishes,
then f 0 is convex on [0, t0 ]. Therefore, considering t1 (0, t0 ) such that f 0 (t1 ) = 0,
we deduce from (3.3) that
ab 1
c >
+
2
2
Z
0
t1
ab 1
f (s) ds >
+
2
2
0
cb
(cs + b)2 ds =
ab b3
2
6c
r
a+
a2
8b
+
3
!
.
So, we have
b
c
4
r
a+
8b
a2 +
3
!
= f is of type (I).
210
Finally, when a 0,
b
r
a+
4b
a2 +
3
b
< c
4
a+
8b
a2 +
3
!
.
lim (f (t) t) = .
a2 + 4b 4.
211
f 000 (t)
1
1
= f (t) (f (t) t)
f 00 (t)
2
2
implying that
f 000 (t)
= .
t f 00 (t)
lim
Therefore, there exists t0 > 0 such that, for all t t0 , one has f 000 (t) f 00 (t),
which gives, by integrating between s t0 and ,
s t0 , f 00 (s) + f 0 (s).
Next, integrating between t0 and t > t0 , we get
t t0 , f 0 (t) + f 0 (t0 ) f (t) t f (t0 ) + t0
which is a contradiction, since the left side is bounded, whereas the right side tends
to infinity. Therefore, < and we have
t > 0, t + a < f (t) < t + .
To get (4.2), let us introduce the auxiliary nonnegative function
1
u(t) = f 0 (t) + (f (t) t)2 .
4
From (4.1), we see that u is bounded. Moreover, we have
1
1
u00 (t) = tf 00 (t) + (f 0 (t) )2 > 0
2
2
and u is convex. Therefore u is decreasing and thus
a2
1
+ b = u(0) > u() = + 2 .
4
4
This completes the proof.
212
a + T
a2 + 4b > 1.
Then, there exists an integer N such that for n N , we have Tn > T and
(4.4)
lim fn (T ) = f (T )
in accordance with Proposition 3.1. But, it follows from (4.2), Lemma 3.3 and
(4.3) that
p
f (T ) fn (T ) > T + a a2 + 4b > 1,
which contradicts (4.4). Consequently = 0.
213
+
< .
2
n N = (n) <
(4.5)
Choose now T such that
(4.6)
T + a a2 + 4b > 1.
2
lim hn (T ) = 0.
a2 + 4b 4(n)
+
T a2 + 4b
2
p
=
T + a a2 + 4b > 1,
2
> T + a
too. Consequently, = .
Corollary 4.1. Let a R, b R and (, b]. The boundary value
problem
000 1 00
f + 2 f f = 0 on [0, ),
(4.8)
f (0) = a
f 0 (0) = b,
f 0 () = ,
has one and only one solution when b 0 and [0, b], and no solution if < 0.
Proof. The first assertion follows from Theorem 4.1, and the second one from
Proposition 2.2.
Remark 4.2. As we saw in the introduction, the boundary value problem (4.8),
with > b, involves necessarily convex solutions. See [8], for the case b [0, 1)
and = 1.
Acknowledgement. The second author wish to dedicate this paper to Denis
Jacquemot.
214
References
1. Belhachmi Z., Brighi B. and Taous K., Solutions similaires pour un probl`
emes de couches
limites en milieux poreux, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, t. 328 S
erie II(b) (2000), 407410.
, On a family of differential equations for boundary layer approximations in porous
2.
media, to appear in EJAM.
3. Blasius H., Grenzschichten in Fl
ussigkeiten mit kleiner Reibung, Z. Math. Phys. 56 (1908),
137.
4. Cheng P. and Minkowycz W. J., Free Convection About a Vertical Flat Plate Embedded in a
Porous Medium With Application to Heat Transfer From a Dike, J. Geophys. Res. 82 (14)
(1977), 20402044.
5. Coppel W. A., On a differential equation of boundary layer theory, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc.
London Ser. A 253 (1960), 101136.
6. Ene H. I. and Polisevski D., Thermal Flow in Porous Media, D. Reidel Publishing Company,
Dordrecht, 1987.
7. Falkner V. M. and Skan S. W., Solutions of the boundary layer equations, Phil. Mag. 7/12
(1931), 865896.
8. Hartman P., Ordinary Differential Equations, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, London,
Sidney, 1964.
9. Kamke E., Zur Theorie der Systeme gew
ohnlicher Differentialgleichungen II, Acta Math. 58
(1932), 5785.
10. Kays W. M. and Crawford M. E., Convective Heat and Mass Transfer, Mc Graw Hill, Inc.,
1993.