Journal of Applied Mechanics and Technical Physics, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 59–67, 2013.

Original Russian Text 

c S. Sadri and M. Babaelahi.

ANALYSIS OF A LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER FLOW

OVER A FLAT PLATE WITH INJECTION OR SUCTION

S. Sadri and M. Babaelahi UDC 532.517.2,532.526

Abstract: An analysis is performed to study a laminar boundary layer flow over a porous flat plate
with injection or suction imposed at the wall. The basic equations of this problem are reduced to a
system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations by means of appropriate transformations. These
equations are solved analytically by the optimal homotopy asymptotic method (OHAM), and the
solutions are compared with the numerical solution (NS). The effect of uniform suction/injection
on the heat transfer and velocity profile is discussed. A constant surface temperature in thermal
boundary conditions is used for the horizontal flat plate.
Keywords: laminar boundary layer, porous flat plate, optimal homotopy asymptotic method
(OHAM), suction, injection, heat transfer.
DOI: 10.1134/S0021894413010070

INTRODUCTION

Porous media form a very interesting research area for many investigators; in recent years, it has been
considered as a useful problem for studies in biomechanics and other sciences. Applications of porous media have
been discussed in many papers reviewed by Rudraiah and Ng [1]. The analysis of a laminar two-dimensional flow
past heated or cooled bodies with porous walls is of interest in various engineering branches. Examples include the
boundary layer control on airfoils, transpiration cooling of turbine blades, lubrication of ceramic machine parts,
food processing, electronics cooling, extraction of geothermal energy, nuclear reactor cooling, filtration processes,
etc.
Watanabe [2–4] carried out theoretical studies on the investigation of forced, free, or mixed convection flows
past heated and cooled bodies, such as plates, edges, and cones, with suction or injection. Chandran et al. [5]
studied the effect of the magnetic field on the flow and heat transfer past a continuously moving porous plate
in a stationary fluid. Murthy and Singh [6] studied the effect of the surface mass flux on the non-Darcy natural
convection over a horizontal flat plate in a saturated porous medium.
Hsu et al. [7] studied the combined effects of the shape factor, suction/injection rates, and viscoelasticity
on the flow and temperature fields of the flow past a wedge. Chamkha [8] obtained similarity solutions for the
laminar boundary-layer equations describing a steady hydromagnetic two-dimensional flow and heat transfer in an
electrically conducting and heat-generating fluid driven by a continuously moving porous surface immersed in a
fluid-saturated porous medium.

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran; Mbabae-

lahi@Gmail.com; S.Sadri595@gmail.com. Translated from Prikladnaya Mekhanika i Tekhnicheskaya Fizika, Vol. 54,
No. 1, pp. 69–78, January–February, 2013. Original article submitted August 24, 2011; revision submitted November
8, 2011.
0021-8944/13/5401-0059 
c 2013 by Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 59
 y, v
U1 , T1

vw

x, u

Fig. 1. Sketch of the problem under consideration.

Rao et al. [9] analyzed the momentum and heat transfer in the laminar boundary layer of a non-Newtonian
power-law fluid flowing over a flat plate, which is moving in the direction opposite to the uniform main stream, and
with arbitrary fluid injection/suction along the plate surface.
Magyari and Keller [10] obtained exact solutions for two-dimensional self-similar boundary-layer flows in-
duced by permeable stretching surfaces. In a recent study, Magyari et al. [11] studied a mixed convection boundary
layer flow past a horizontal permeable flat plate. Elbashbeshy [12] studied the heat transfer characteristics of a
laminar mixed convective boundary layer over a semi-infinite horizontal flat plate embedded in a porous medium.
Except for a limited number of engineering problems, most of them do not have analytical solutions. There-
fore, these nonlinear equations should be solved by other methods (numerical techniques or analytical method of
perturbations). In the numerical method, stability and convergence should be considered. In the analytical pertur-
bation method, the small parameter should be chosen. The necessity of finding the small parameter and exerting
it into the equation is the deficiency of this method.
Many different methods have recently introduced some ways to eliminate the small parameter, such as the
homotopy perturbation method (HPM) developed by He [13, 14], variational iteration method (VIM) developed
by He [15], and differential transformation method (DTM) developed by Zhou [16]. Many authors have used these
analytical techniques to solve engineering problems [17–20].
The optimal homotopy asymptotic method (OHAM) is a more rigorous method for solving nonlinear prob-
lems without depending on the small parameter. It was developed and examined by some authors [21–24].
In this study, OHAM is applied to find approximate solutions of nonlinear differential equations governing
the laminar boundary layer flow over a porous flat plate with injection or suction. This solution is compared with
the numerical solution (NS) obtained by the Runge–Kutta method.

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

Let us consider a steady incompressible laminar two-dimensional boundary layer flow over a permeable plate.
Far above the plate, the velocity and the temperature of the uniform main stream are U∞ and T∞ , respectively
(Fig. 1). The x coordinate is measured from the leading edge of the plate, and the y coordinate is measured normal
to the plate. The corresponding velocity components in the x and y directions are u and v, respectively. The surface
mass flux vw is normalized to the uniform free-stream velocity U∞ and is assumed to be constant with vw > 0 for
injection and vw < 0 for suction. The entire surface of the plate is maintained at a uniform temperature Tw .
All the thermophysical properties are assumed to be constant. It is also assumed that the magnitude of
the injection velocity is not large enough to significantly alter the inviscid flow field outside the boundary layer.
Assuming that the Reynolds number is large enough for the boundary layer assumptions to be applicable, we write
the governing boundary layer equations of the problem, which are based on the balance laws of mass, momentum,
and energy:
∂u ∂v
+ = 0,
∂x ∂y

∂u ∂u ∂2u
u +v = ν 2, (1)
∂x ∂y ∂y

∂T ∂T ν ∂2T
u +v = .
∂x ∂y Pr ∂y 2
60
 The appropriate boundary conditions for the velocity and temperature of this problem are
y = 0: u = 0, v = ±vw , T = Tw = const,
(2)
y → ∞: u → U∞ , T → T∞ .
In the similarity solution, the governing partial differential equations are reduced to a system of ordinary
differential equations by means of a suitable transformation. The following similarity variables are used:
u y Tw − T
= f  (η), η= Rex , θ= . (3)
U∞ x Tw − T∞
Substituting Eqs. (3) into Eqs. (1) and (2), we obtain
Pr 
2f  + f f  = 0, θ + θ f = 0. (4)
2
For a symmetric geometry, the boundary conditions are
f (0) = fw , f  (0) = 0, f  (∞) = 1, θ(0) = 1, θ(∞) = 0,
√
where fw = −(2vw /U∞ ) Rex .

2. FUNDAMENTALS OF THE OPTIMAL HOMOTOPY ASYMPTOTIC METHOD

We apply OHAM to solve the differential problem

L(u(τ )) + N (u(τ )) + g(τ ) = 0, B(u) = 0, (5)
where L is the linear operator, τ is the independent variable, u(τ ) is the unknown function, g(τ ) is the known
function, N (u(τ )) is the nonlinear operator, and B is the boundary operator.
By means of OHAM, we first construct a family of equations
(1 − p)[L(ϕ(τ, p)) + g(τ )] − H(p)[L(ϕ(τ, p)) + g(τ ) + N (ϕ(τ, p))] = 0,
(6)
B(ϕ(τ, p)) = 0,
where p ∈ [0, 1] is the embedding parameter, H(p) is the nonzero auxiliary function for p = 0 and H(0) = 0, and
ϕ(τ, p) is the unknown function. Obviously, at p = 0 and p = 1, the following equalities are satisfied:
ϕ(τ, 0) = u0 (τ ), ϕ(τ, 1) = u(τ ).
Thus, as p increases from 0 to 1, the solution ϕ(τ, p) varies from u0 (τ ) to u(τ ), where u0 (τ ) is obtained from Eq. (6)
at p = 0:
L(u0 (τ )) + g(τ ) = 0, B(u0 ) = 0.
We choose an auxiliary function H(p) in the form
H(p) = pC1 + p2 C2 + . . . ,
where C1 , C2 , . . . are constants to be determined later.
Expanding the function ϕ(τ, p) into a series with respect to p, we obtain

ϕ(τ, p, Ci ) = u0 (τ ) + uk (τ, Ci )pk , i = 1, 2, . . . . (7)
k1

Substituting Eq. (7) into Eqs. (6), collecting the same powers of p, and equating them to zero, we obtain a
system of ordinary differential equations with boundary conditions. Generally speaking, the approximate solution
of Eqs. (5) can be presented in the form
m

ũ(m) = u0 (τ ) + uk (τ, Ci ). (8)
k=1

Note that the coefficient Cm can be a function of the variable τ . Substituting Eq. (8) into Eqs. (5), we obtain the
residual
61
 R(τ, Ci ) = L(ũ(m) (τ, Ci )) + g(τ ) + N (ũ(m) (τ, Ci )). (9)
If R(τ, Ci ) = 0 then ũ(m) (τ, Ci ) happens to be the exact solution. Generally, such a case does not arise for nonlinear
problems, i.e., ũ(m) (τ, C) is not the exact solution for nonlinear problems. To obtain the solution, however, we can
minimize the functional
b
J(C1 , C2 , . . . , Cn ) = R2 (τ, C1 , C2 , . . . , Cm ) dτ,
a

where the values of the constants a and b depend on a particular problem.

The unknown constants Ci (i = 1, 2, . . . , m) can be identified from the conditions
∂J ∂J
= = . . . = 0. (10)
∂C1 ∂C2
With these constants known, the approximate solution (of order m) of Eq. (8) is well determined.

3. SOLUTION WITH THE OPTIMAL HOMOTOPY ASYMPTOTIC METHOD

In this section, OHAM is applied to solve the nonlinear ordinary differential equations (4). Taking into
account Eqs. (6) and (4), we obtain
(1 − p)(f  + f  ) − H1 (p)[2f  + f f  − (f  + f  )] = 0,
(11)
(1 − p)(θ + θ) − H2 (p)[θ + (Pr /2)θ f − (θ + θ)] = 0,
where the primes denote differentiation with respect to η.
We consider the functions f , θ, H1 (p), and H2 (p) in the following form:
f = f0 + pf1 + p2 f2 , θ = θ0 + pθ1 + p2 θ2 ,
(12)
H1 (p) = pC11 + p2 C12 , H2 (p) = pC21 + p2 C22 .
Substituting presentations (12) into Eqs. (11), applying some simplifications, and rearranging terms with identical
powers of p, we obtain the following systems of equations with boundary conditions:
p0 : f0 + f0 = 0, θ0 + θ0 = 0,
f0 (0) = fw , f0 (0) = 1, θ0 (0) = 1,
p1 : −2C11 f0 + f1 − f0 + C11 f0 − f0 + f1 − C11 f0 f0 + C11 f0 = 0,
−θ0 − c21 f0 f0 − 2c21 f0 − θ0 + θ1 + c21 θ0 + θ1 + c21 θ0 = 0,
f1 (0) = 0, f1 (0) = 0, θ1 (0) = 0,
(13)
p2 : f2 − f1 − C11 f1 f0 + C11 f1 − 2C11 f1 − C11 f0 f1 − 2C12 f0 + C12 f0 −
− C12 f0 f0 + f2 + C12 f0 + C11 f1 − f1 = 0,
θ1 − 2C21 f1 − C21 f1 f0 + C22 θ0 − C21 f0 f1 + C22 θ0 + C21 θ1 + C21 θ1 −
− 2C22 f0 − C22 f0 f0 + θ2 + θ2 − θ1 = 0,
f2 (0) = 0, f2 (0) = 0, θ2 (0) = 0.
Solving Eqs. (13) with boundary conditions, we obtain
f0 (η) = fw + 1 − e−η , θ0 (η) = e−η ,

f1 (η) = −C11 fw (− e−η η − e−η ) + C11 (− e−η η − e−η ) + 0.5C11 e−2η − C11 e−η − C11 fw + 1.5C11 ,

θ1 (η) = (−C21 (fw η − η + e−η ) + C21 ) e−η .

62
 f0 (a) f 00 (b)
1.0 0

0.8 _0.1

0.6 _0.2

0.4 _0.3

0.2 _0.4

0 _0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 n
o (c)
1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 n
 
Fig. 2. Dependences f (η) (a), f (η) (b), and θ(η) (c) obtained by different methods for Pr = 0.7
and fw = 0.2: the points and solid curves show the solutions obtained by OHAM and the numerical
solution, respectively.

The expressions for the functions f (η) and θ(η) are too large and are not given here. The final expressions
for f (η) and θ(η) have the forms

f (η) = f0 (η) + f1 (η) + f2 (η), θ(η) = θ0 (η) + θ1 (η) + θ2 (η). (14)

Substituting the functions f (η) and θ(η) into Eqs. (4) and determining R1 (η, C11 , C12 ) and R2 (η, C21 , C22 )
from Eq. (9), we obtain the following expressions for the functionals J1 and J2 :
∞ ∞
J1 (C11 , C12 ) = R12 (η, C11 , C12 ) dη, J2 (C21 , C22 ) = R22 (η, C21 , C22 ) dη.
0 0

The constants C11 , C12 , C21 , and C22 are determined from Eq. (10). In the particular case with Pr = 0.7
and fw = 0.5, these constants have the following values: C11 = −0.222 597 741 3, C12 = 0.997 702 869 2, C21 =
−0.466 350 462 9, and C22 = 1.974 886 578. By substituting these values into Eqs. (14), we obtain expressions for
the functions θ(η) and f (η).
63
 f0
1.0

0.8

0.6

1
0.4 2
3

0.2 4
5
6
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n

Fig. 3. Flow velocity distributions obtained by

OHAM for fw = −0.7 (1), −0.5 (2), −0.2 (3),
0.2 (4) 0.5 (5), and 0.7 (6).

o (a) o (b)
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
1 1
2 2
3 3
0.2 4 0.2 4

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 n 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 n

Fig. 4. Flow temperature distributions obtained by OHAM for Pr = 0.7 (a) and 1 (b) and different
values of the parameter fw : fw = −0.7 (1), −0.2 (2), 0.2 (3), and 0.7 (4).

64
 o (a) o (b)
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 1 0.4
2 1
3 2
4 3
5 4
0.2 0.2 5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 n 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 n

Fig. 5. Flow temperature distributions obtained by OHAM for fw = 0.2 (a) and 0.7 (b) and
different values of the Prandtl number: Pr = 0.5 (1), 1.0 (2), 1.5 (3), 1.8 (4), and 2.1 (5).

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the present study are shown in Figs. 2–7. It follows from Figs. 2 and 3 that the results of
the analytical solution and the numerical solution obtained by the MAPLE11 software package and by the Runge–
Kutta method agree well. These results testify that OHAM can be applied to solve the problem considered in this
paper. This investigation is completed by evaluating the effects of some important parameters, such as the Reynolds
number, the Prandtl number, and the uniform suction/injection parameter.
Figure 3 displays the effects of the suction/injection parameter on the velocity profile of the fluid. The results
show that the fluid velocity decreases with increasing suction/injection parameter. In fact, the velocity increases
as the parameter fw > 0 changes from the values corresponding to suction (vw < 0) to the values corresponding to
injection (vw > 0 and fw < 0).
Figure 4 shows the effect of the suction/injection parameter fw on the temperature and velocity profiles of
the fluid for two Prandtl numbers Pr = 0.7 and 1.0. An increment of the Prandtl number leads to a temperature
decrement (Fig. 5). Figures 6 and 7 show the flow temperature and velocity distributions for some particular cases.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, OHAM was applied successfully to find the analytical solution of the steady laminar boundary
layer flow over a porous flat plate with injection or suction. The present method reduces the computational
difficulties, and all the calculations can be made by means of simple manipulations. From the results reported in
the paper, we can find that the flow velocity and temperature decrease with increasing Reynolds number, and the
temperature decreases with increasing Prandtl number.

65
 y (a) y (b)
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 x 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 x

Fig. 6. Velocity vector field for fw = 0.7 and Pr = 0.5 (a) and 0.7 (b).

(a) (b)

u u
1.00 1.00

0.75 0.75

0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25
x x
1.00 1.00
y 01.00 0.75
0.50 y 01.00 0.75
0.75 0.50 0.25 0.75 0.50
0.25 0 0.50 0.25
0 0.25 0
0

y (c) y (d)
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 x 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 x

Fig. 7. Velocity distributions (a and b) and temperature distributions (c and d) over the x and y
coordinates: (a, c) Pr = 0.5 and fw = 0.5; (b, d) Pr = 0.7 and fw = 0.7.

66
REFERENCES

1. N. Rudraiah and Chiu-On Ng, “Dispersion in Porous Media with and without Reaction,” Rev. J. Porous Media
10 (3), 219–248 (2007).
2. T. Watanabe, “Free Convection Boundary Layer Flow with Uniform Suction or Injection over a Cone,” Acta
Mech. 87, 1–9 (1991).
3. T. Watanabe, “Forced and Free Mixed Convection Boundary Layer Flow with Uniform Suction or Injection on
a Vertical Plate,” Acta Mech. 89, 123–132 (1991).
4. T. Watanabe, K. Funazaki, and H. Taniguchi, “Theoretical Analysis on Mixed Convection Boundary,” Acta
Mech. 105, 133–141 (1994).
5. P. Chandran, N. C. Sachetti, and A. K. Singh, “Hydromagnetic Flow and Heat Transfer past a Continuously
Moving Porous Boundary,” Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transfer 23 (6), 889–898 (1996).
6. P. S. V. N. Murthy and P. Singh, “Thermal Dispersion Effects on Non-Darcy Natural Convection over Horizontal
Plate with Surface Mass Flux,” Arch. Appl. Mech. 67, 487–495 (1997).
7. C.-H. Hsu, C.-H. Chen, and J.-T. Teng, “Temperature and Flow Fields for the Flow of a Second Grade Fluid
past a Wedge,” Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 32 (5), 933–946 (1997).
8. A. J. Chamkha, “Hydromagnetic Flow and Heat Transfer of a Heat-Generating Fluid over a Surface Embedded
in a Porous Medium,” Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transfer 24 (6), 815–825 (1997).
9. J. H. Rao, D. R. Jeng, and K. J. De Witt, “Momentum and Heat Transfer in a Power-Law Fluid with Arbitrary
Injection/Suction at a Moving Wall,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 42, 2837–2847 (1999).
10. E. Magyari and B. Keller, “Exact Solutions for Self-Similar Boundary-Layer Flows Induced by Permeable
Stretching Walls,” Eur. J. Mech. B. Fluids 19, 109–122 (2000).
11. E. Magyari, I. Pop, and B. Keller, “Mixed Convection Boundary-Layer Flow past a Horizontal Permeable Flat
Plate,” Fluid Dynamics Res. 31, 215–225 (2002).
12. E. M. S. Elbashbeshy, “Laminar Mixed Convection over Horizontal Flat Plate Embedded in a Non-Darcian
Porous Medium with Suction and Injection,” Appl. Math. Comput. 121, 123–128 (2001).
13. J. H. He, “Homotopy Perturbation Method for Bifurcation on Nonlinear Problems,” Int. J. Non-Linear Sci.
Numer. Simul. 6, 207–208 (2005).
14. J. H. He, “Homotopy Perturbation Technique,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engng. 178, 257–262 (1999).
15. J. H. He, “Variational Iteration Method—Some Recent Results and New Interpretations,” J. Comput. Appl.
Math. 207 (1), 3–17 (2007).
16. J. K. Zhou, Differential Transformation and Its Applications for Electrical Circuits (Huarjung Univ. Press,
Wuuhahn, China, 1986) [in Chinese].
17. Z. Z. Ganji and D. D. Ganji, “Approximate Solutions of Thermal Boundary-Layer Problems in a Semi-Infinite
Flat Plate by Using He’s Homotopy Perturbation Method,” Int. J. Non-Linear Sci. Numer. Simul. 9 (4), 415–422
(2008).
18. D. D. Ganji and A. Rajabi, “Assessment of Homotopy-Perturbation and Perturbation Methods in Heat Radi-
ation Equations,” Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transfer 33, 391–400 (2006).
19. A. A. Joneidi, D. D. Ganji, and M. Babaelahi, “Differential Transformation Method to Determine Fin Efficiency
of Convective Straight Fins with Temperature Dependent Thermal Conductivity,” Int. Comm. Heat Mass
Transfer 36, 757–762 (2009).
20. M. Babaelahi, D. D. Ganji, and A. A. Joneidi, “Analysis of Velocity Equation of Steady Flow of a Viscous
Incompressible Fluid in Channel with Porous Walls,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 63 (9), 1048–1059 (2010).
21. V. Marinca and N. Herisanu, “Application of Optimal Homotopy Asymptotic Method for Solving Nonlinear
Equations Arising in Heat Transfer,” Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transfer 35, 710–715 (2008).
22. V. Marinca, N. Herisanu, C. Bota, and B. Marinca, “An Optimal Homotopy Asymptotic Method Applied to
the Steady Flow of a Fourth-Grade Fluid past a Porous Plate,” Appl. Math. Lett. 22, 245–251 (2009).
23. V. Marinca and N. Herisanu, “Optimal Homotopy Asymptotic Method with Application to Thin Film Flow,”
Centr. Eur. J. Phys. 6, 1608–1644 (2008).
24. A. A. Joneidi, D. D. Ganji, and M. Babaelahi, “Micropolar Flow in a Porous Channel with High Mass Transfer,”
Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transfer 36, 1082–1088 (2009).

67