This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 4981–4986

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhmt

Numerical investigation of dual solutions for double diffusive convection

from a permeable horizontal flat plate
S.V. Subhashini a, Nancy Samuel a, I. Pop b,⇑
a
Department of Mathematics, Anna University, Chennai 600 025, India
b
Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cluj, R-3400 CLUJ, CP 253, Romania

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Numerical simulations are carried out to study the simultaneous effects of thermal and concentration
Received 21 December 2011 diffusions on a mixed convection boundary layer flow over a permeable horizontal flat plate with
Received in revised form 18 March 2012 suction/injection in a viscous incompressible fluid. The non-linear coupled partial differential equations
Accepted 19 April 2012
governing the flow, thermal and concentration fields are first transformed into a set of non-linear coupled
Available online 2 June 2012
ordinary differential equations by a set of suitable similarity transformations. The resulting system of
coupled non-linear differential equations is solved using shooting method by converting into initial value
Keywords:
problem. In this method, system of equations is converted into a set of first order system which is
Double diffusive convection
Dual solution
solved by fourth order Runge–Kutta method. Flows with both assisting and opposing buoyancy forces
Permeable horizontal plate are considered in the present investigation. The study reveals that dual solutions of velocity, temperature
and concentration profiles exist for certain values of suction/injection and buoyancy parameters.
Suction/injection parameter, Prandtl and Schmidt numbers strongly affect thermal and concentration
boundary layers, respectively.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The combination of free and forced convection is known as
mixed convection. Mixed convection flows have great importance
as they are observed in natural phenomena as well as in engineer-
ing devices. Free convection is caused by the temperature differ-
ence of fluid at different locations and forced convection is the
flow of heat due to the cause of some external applied forces. In
the mixed convection on a horizontal plate, the tangential compo-
nent of buoyancy gives rise to a hydrostatic pressure distribution
across the boundary layer which modifies the forced convection
boundary layer. As the boundary layer develops, the hydrostatic
pressure at the plate surface also increases with increasing distance
from the leading edge. The buoyancy force can either aid or oppose
the development of the forced convection boundary layer depend-
ing on whether the induced pressure gradient within the boundary
layer is favourable or adverse. The characteristics of a mixed con-
vection boundary layer depend on the velocity of the forced stream,
the thermal and concentration conditions at the wall.
The problem of mixed convection boundary layer flow past a
horizontal flat plate is a major subject in heat transfer because of
its importance in both basic and practical viewpoints. Self similar
solutions for the coupled momentum and thermal boundary layer
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +40 264405300; fax: +40 264591906.
E-mail address: popm.ioan@yahoo.co.uk (I. Pop).
over flat surfaces are presented in convective heat transfer books,
namely, Bejan [1] and Incropera et al. [2]. Risbeck et al. [3] studied
mixed convection flow over a horizontal flat plate using a single
mixed convection parameter that covers the entire regime
of mixed convection. Datta et al. [4] obtained non-similar solution
of a steady mixed convection flow over horizontal flat plate with
surface mass transfer. Ishak et al. [5] have studied the mixed con-
vection boundary layer flow past an isothermal horizontal plate.
The existence of non-unique (dual) similarity solutions in mixed
convection boundary layer flow for opposing case was reported
by several researchers, namely, Wilks and Bramley [6], Merkin
and Ingham [7], Afzal and Hussain [8], and Merkin and Mahmood
[9]. It may be remarked that Ridha [10] probably is the first to
show that dual solutions exist in the opposing flow regime and
they continue into assisting flow regime. In recent studies, Deswita
et al. [11,12] have obtained dual similarity solutions of mixed
convection flow by introducing the effects of suction and injection
on the horizontal surface.
It may be noted that, on a different approach, Merrill et al. [13]
have performed a stability analysis for different steady state solu-
tions of mixed convection flow on a vertical surface near the
stagnation point. They have reported the existence of dual solutions
where, the upper branch are linearly stable while those of lower
branch are linearly unstable. It is worthy to mention that Ridha
[10], Ishak et al. [14–16], Ishak [17] and Subhashini et al. [18,19]
have reported in their respective studies that the upper branch

0017-9310/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2012.04.036
 Author's personal copy

4982 S.V. Subhashini et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 4981–4986

Nomenclature

C fluid concentration in the boundary layer u, v velocity components in the x- and y- directions, respec-
DC scale concentration tively
Cf skin friction coefficient x, y Cartesian coordinates measured along the plate and
D mass diffusivity normal to it, respectively
f dimensionless stream function
F dimensionless velocity Greek symbols
g acceleration due to gravity a thermal diffusivity
Gr, Gr⁄ local Grashof numbers b volumetric coefficient of thermal expansion
k thermal conductivity of the fluid b⁄ volumetric coefficient of expansion for concentration
l characteristic length g similarity variable
m constant exponent t kinematic viscosity
N ratio of buoyancy parameters l dynamic viscosity
Nux local Nusselt number q fluid density
p pressure k buoyancy parameters
Pr Prandtl number sw wall shear stress
qw surface heat flux h dimensionless temperature
Re Reynolds number / dimensionless concentration
Rex local Reynolds number w streamfunction
sw surface mass flux
Shx local Sherwood number Subscripts
T fluid temperature in the boundary layer 1 condition in the free stream
DT scale temperature w condition at the plate
ue(x) free stream velocity
Vw(x) transpiration velocity

solution are most physically relevant solutions whereas the lower The buoyancy forces arise due to the variations in temperature and
branch solution seem to deprive physical significance or may have concentration of fluid. The Boussinesq approximation is invoked for
realistic meaning in different situations. According to the studies by the fluid properties to relate the density changes to temperature
Merkin [20], Weidman et al. [21], Paullet and Weidman [22], Harris and concentration, and to couple in this way the temperature and
et al. [23], and Postelnicu and Pop [24], the first solutions are concentration fields to the flow field. Under these assumptions,
physically realizable, while the second solutions are not physically the governing boundary layer equations can be expressed as [25,26]
realizable.
@u @ v
It may be remarked that earlier studies did not include the effect þ ¼ 0; ð1Þ
@x @y
of mass diffusion. However, if the body surface and the free stream
fluid temperature differ, not only energy will be transferred to the
flow but also density difference exists. When heat and mass diffu- @u @u 1 @p @2u
u þv ¼ þt 2; ð2Þ
sion occurs simultaneously, it leads to a complex fluid motion @x @y q1 @x @y
called double diffusive convection. In practice, double diffusive
convection may appear in wide range of scientific fields such as 1 @p
¼ gbðT  T 1 Þ þ gb ðC  C 1 Þ; ð3Þ
oceanography, astrophysics, geology, biology, chemical processes, q1 @y
etc. This fact motivates the authors to investigate the combined
effects of thermal and mass diffusion on mixed convection bound- @T @T @2T
ary layer flow. u þv ¼a 2; ð4Þ
@x @y @y
The aim of the present paper is to study the simultaneous influ-
ence of double diffusive mixed convection flow over a horizontal
@C @C @2C
plate with suction or injection. The self similar solution of coupled u þv ¼D 2; ð5Þ
@x @y @y
non-linear partial differential equations governing the mixed con-
vective flow has been studied numerically by using Shooting tech- along with the relevant boundary conditions
nique and fourth order Runge–Kutta method. The results for some
particular cases are compared with those of Ishak et al. [5] and
Deswita et al. [11].
y, v g
u e ( x), T∞ , C∞
2. Analysis

A steady mixed convection boundary layer flow over a perme-

able horizontal plate in a viscous incompressible fluid, aligned
parallel to a uniform free stream velocity ue(x), temperature T1,
x, u
density q1 and concentration C1 (see Fig. 1) is considered. The
plate is maintained at a temperature Tw(x), where Tw(x) > T1 corre- u = 0 , v = V w ( x ), T = T w ( x ), C = C w ( x )
sponds to a heated plate (assisting flow) and Tw(x) < T1for a cooled
plate (opposing flow). Also, the concentration near the wall is Cw(x). Fig. 1. Physical model and coordinate system.
 Author's personal copy

S.V. Subhashini et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 4981–4986 4983

u ¼ 0; v ¼ V w ðxÞ; T ¼ T w ðxÞ; C ¼ C w ðxÞ at y ¼ 0; k > 0 for assisting flow, k < 0 for opposing flow and k = 0 for forced
ð6Þ convection flow.
u ! ue ðxÞ; T ! T1; C ! C1 ; p ! p1 as y ! 1;
The physical quantities of interest are the skin friction coeffi-
where Vw(x) < 0 corresponds to velocity suction and Vw(x) > 0 corre- cient Cf, the local Nusselt number Nux and the local Sherwood num-
sponds to velocity blowing or injection, respectively. ber Shx, which are defined as
In order to obtain similarity solutions, ue(x), Tw(x) and Cw(x) are      
assigned in the following form [11] l @u
@y
xk @T
@y
xD @C
@y
y¼0 y¼0 y¼0
xm Cf ¼ ; Nux ¼ ; Shx ¼ ð17Þ
ue ðxÞ ¼ U 1 ;
qu2e kðT w  T 1 Þ DðC w  C 1 Þ
l
xð5m1Þ=2 Using the similarity variables (8), the expressions in Eq. (17) can be
T w ðxÞ ¼ T 1 þ DT ; ð7Þ written as
l
xð5m1Þ=2
ðRe1=2 00
x ÞC f ¼ f ð0Þ; ðRe1=2
x ÞNux ¼ h0 ð0Þ; ðRe1=2
x ÞShx ¼ /0 ð0Þ ð18Þ
C w ðxÞ ¼ C 1 þ DC ;
l
where Rex = ue(x)x/t is the local Reynolds number.
where U1 and m are constants, l is a characteristic length, DC and
DT denotes scale concentration and scale temperature, respectively, 3. Method of solution
with DT > 0 for assisting flow and DT < 0 for opposing flow.
The following similarity transformations [11] The non-linear self similar Eqs. (11)–(14) along with the bound-
xðmþ1Þ=2 xð5m1Þ=2 ary conditions (15) form a two point boundary value problem and
w ¼ ðU 1 tlÞ1=2 f ðgÞ; T  T 1 ¼ DT hðgÞ; are solved using shooting method, by converting into an initial
l l
xð5m1Þ=2 x2m value problem. In this procedure, the system of Eqs. (11)–(14) is
C  C 1 ¼ DC uðgÞ; p  p1 ¼ q1 U 21 hðgÞ; converted into the set of following first order system
l l
 1=2  ðm1Þ=2
U x @w @w mþ1 m1
g¼ 1 y; u ¼ ; v¼ f 0 ¼ p; p0 ¼ q; q0 ¼  fq þ mp2 þ 2mh þ gkðh þ N/Þ; ð19Þ
tl l @y @x 2 2
ð8Þ mþ1 1  5m
are used in Eqs. (1)–(5) so that Eq. (1) is identically satisfied and the h0 ¼ r; r 0 ¼ Pr fr  Pr ph; ð20Þ
2 2
velocity components u and v are obtained as
xm mþ1 1  5m
u ¼ U1 f 0 ðgÞ; /0 ¼ s; s0 ¼ Sc fs  Sc p/; ð21Þ
l 2 2
 1=2  ðm1Þ=2
1 U1 t x with the initial conditions
v ¼ ½ðm þ 1Þf ðgÞ þ ðm  1Þgf 0 ðgÞ; ð9Þ
2 l l f ðgÞ ¼ f0 ; pðgÞ ¼ 0; hðgÞ ¼ 1; /ðgÞ ¼ 1 at g ¼ 0: ð22Þ
where primes denote differentiation with respect to g. Therefore, in To solve the system of Eqs. (19)–(22) as an initial value problem, the
order that similarity solutions of Eqs. (1)–(6) exist, Vw(x) is taken as values for q(0), r(0), s(0), i.e., f 00 ð0Þ; h0 ð0Þ; /0 ð0Þ are required but those
[11] values are not given in the problem. The initial guess values of
 1=2  ðm1Þ=2 f 00 ð0Þ; h0 ð0Þ and /0 ð0Þ are chosen and the fourth order Runge–Kutta
m þ 1 U1 t x
V w ðxÞ ¼  f0 ; ð10Þ method is applied to obtain the solution. Finally, the computed values
2 l l
of f0 (g), h(g) and /ðgÞ at a suitably chosen finitely large value of g, say,
where the dimensionless constant f0 determines the transpiration g = g1 are compared with the given boundary conditions f0 (g1) = 1,
rate, with f0 > 0 for suction, f0 < 0 for injection and f0 = 0 for an h(g1) = 0 and /ðg1 Þ ¼ 0. The initial guess values of f 00 ð0Þ; h0 ð0Þ and
impermeable surface. /0 ð0Þ are improved iteratively using Secant method to get better
On substituting the new variables (8), Eqs. (2)–(5) are reduced approximation for the solution. The step size is taken as 0.01. A
to the following set of ordinary differential equations convergence criteria based on the relative difference between the
m þ 1 00 02 m1 0 current and previous iteration is employed. When the difference
f 000 þ ff  mf  2mh  gh ¼ 0; ð11Þ reaches 104, the solution is assumed to be converged and the itera-
2 2
tive process is terminated.
0
h ¼ kðh þ N/Þ; ð12Þ
4. Results and discussion
1 00 m þ 1 0 1  5m
h þ fh þ Fh ¼ 0; ð13Þ
Pr 2 2 Computations have been carried out for various values of
Pr(0.7 6 Pr 6 2.0), kð0:1  k  0:1Þ; N(0.5 6 N 6 0.5), Sc(0.22
1 00 m þ 1 0 1  5m 6 Sc 6 0.94), f0(0.2 6 f0 6 0.2) and m(0 6 m 6 0.01). The edge of
/ þ f/ þ F/ ¼ 0; ð14Þ
Sc 2 2 the boundary layer (g1) has been taken between 8 and 20 depend-
subject to the transformed boundary conditions
f ðgÞ ¼ f0 ; f 0 ðgÞ ¼ 0; hðgÞ ¼ 1; /ðgÞ ¼ 1 at g ¼ 0 Table 1
0
ð15Þ Comparison of values of kc for different values of m and Pr when f0 = 0 with those of
f ðgÞ ¼ 1; hðgÞ ¼ 0; /ðgÞ ¼ 0; hðgÞ ¼ 0 at g ¼ g1 Ishak et al. [5] and Deswita et al. [11].

where g1 is the edge of the boundary layer. Further, the mixed con- m Pr Ishak et al. [5] Deswita et al. [11] Present
vection parameter k and the ratio of buoyancy forces N are given by 0 0.5 0.0594 0.0594 0.0592
Gr Gr 1 0.0813 0.0813 0.0812
k¼ ; N¼ ð16Þ 2 0.1139 0.1139 0.1137
Re5=2 Gr 0.7 0.0690 0.0691
0.01 0.7 0.0685 0.0683
with Gr = gbDTl3/t2 and Gr = gb⁄DCl3/t2 being the Grashof numbers
0.02 0.7 0.0675 0.0674
and Re = U1l/t is the Reynolds number. It should be noticed that
 Author's personal copy

4984 S.V. Subhashini et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 4981–4986

ing on the value of the parameters. In order to verify the correct- 0.08
ness of the present numerical approach, the computed results are λ c = -0.08587 f0 = 0.1
compared with those of Ishak et al. [5] and Deswita et al. [11].
The results are found to be in excellent agreement and some of
0.06
the comparisons are shown in Table 1.
The effects of buoyancy parameter k on the reduced skin friction
coefficient f 00 ð0Þ for various values of f0 are displayed in Fig. 2. The
results indicate that it is possible to get dual solutions for the sim- 0.04 λ c = -0.06845 f0 = 0

-θ '(0)
ilarity Eqs. (11)–(14) subject to (15), for the opposing flow (k < 0).
The upper branch solution has a higher value of f 00 ð0Þ for a given
value of k than the lower branch solution. Dual solutions exist only
0.02
in the range kc < k < 0, no solution exists for k < kc and a unique
upper branch
solution for k = kc. It is important to point out that the computa-
lower branch f0 = -0.1
tions have been performed until the point where the solution does
not converge, and the computations were terminated at that point. 0
On the other hand for k > 0 (buoyancy assisting flow), the unique λ c = -0.05375
solution is obtained. Favourable pressure gradient exists for assist-
-0.12 -0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08
ing flow which results in acceleration of the flow and consequently
λ
there is a larger skin friction coefficient than in non buoyant (k = 0)
case. Physically, a positive value of f 00 ð0Þmeans that the fluid exerts Fig. 3. Variations of h0 (0) with k for various values of f0 when Pr = 0.7, Sc = 0.94,
a shearing force on the surface and a negative value of f 00 ð0Þimplies m = 0.01, and N = 0.2.
the opposite. Further, the result displayed in Fig. 2 indicates that
suction (f0 > 0) increases skin friction coefficient f 00 ð0Þand the
reverse occur for injection (f0 < 0). This is because blowing gives 0.1
rise to thicker momentum boundary layer thereby decreasing λ c = -0.08587
velocity gradient at the surface. It is interesting to observe that suc- 0.08
f0 = 0.1
tion increases the range of k (k < 0) for which dual solution exists
while injection reduces such range of k (k < 0). In particular, for 0.06
Pr = 0.7, Sc = 0.94, N = 0.2 and m = 0.01 (see Fig. 2), dual solution ex-
ists in the range 0:086  k  0 when f0 = 0.1 but for f0 = 0.1, dual λ c = -0.06845
0.04
-φ '(0)

solution exists in the range 0:054  k  0 signifying the fact that

f0 = 0
the suction increases the range of existence of dual solutions. Fur-
ther, it is noticed in Fig. 2 that all curves of f 00 ð0Þ pertaining to dual 0.02
upper branch
solution regime intersect at a point where k = 0, i.e., when the
lower branch
buoyancy force is absent. In contrast, curves of f 00 ð0Þ pertaining 0
to upper branch solutions do not intersect and display positive skin f0 = -0.1
friction coefficient values signifying more physically realizable -0.02
solutions.
λ c = -0.05375
The variations of thermal and concentration gradients
-0.04
(h0 ð0Þ; /0 ð0Þ) with the buoyancy parameter k for different values of -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1
mass transfer parameter f0(0.1 6 f0 6 0.1) when Pr = 0.7, Sc = η
0.94, N = 0.2 and m = 0.01 are presented in Figs. 3 and 4. The results
indicate that heat and mass transfer coefficients increase with suc- Fig. 4. Variations of /0 ð0Þ with k for various values of f0 when Pr = 0.7, Sc = 0.94,
m = 0.01, and N = 0.2.
tion irrespective of value of k but injection reduces the magnitude

0.6 of both thermal and concentration gradients for any value of k. This
is because the injection tends to broaden the thermal and concen-
tration boundary layers accordingly reducing the heat and mass
f 0 = -0.1, 0, 0.1 transfer coefficients while the effect is reverse in case of suction.
It is interesting to observe that the thermal and concentration
0.4
gradients start decreasing from their values at k ¼ kc < 0 up to
λ c = -0.06845 certain value of kð0 > k > kc Þ and there is a sharp increase in both
f ''(0)

λ c = -0.08587 thermal and concentration gradients near k ¼ 0. For the dual solu-
tion regime, this abrupt sharp increase in thermal gradients near
0.2 k ¼ 0 also reveal the fact that the heat transfer rate at the surface
ðh0 ð0ÞÞ becomes unrealistic. It may be remarked that the upper
upper branch branch solutions are the most physically relevant solutions
lower branch whereas the lower branch solutions seem to deprive physical sig-
nificance or may have more realistic meaning in different situations
0 [14–19]. Although dual solution is mathematically feasible for this
λ c = -0.05375 problem with respect to buoyancy opposed flow scenario, the sec-
ond solution branch is unstable and pertains to comparatively less
-0.1 -0.06 -0.02 0.02 0.06 0.1
realistic meaning.
λ
The profiles for both upper and lower branch solutions are pre-
Fig. 2. Variations of f 00 ð0Þ with k for various values of f0 when and N = 0.2. sented in Figs. 5–8. The velocity and temperature profiles (f0 (g),
 Author's personal copy

S.V. Subhashini et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 4981–4986 4985

f0 = -0.2, 0, 0.2 N = -0.5, Pr = 0.7

1
1
f '(η ) f ' (η )
0.8
0.8

N = 0.5, Pr = 0.7
f '( η ), θ ( η )

0.6

f ' (η ), θ (η )
-0.2 upper branch 0.6
lower branch upper branch
0.4
0 lower branch
0.4
0.2
-0.2, 0, 0.2 Pr = 0.7, N = 0.2
0.2 0.2

θ (η )
0 0
θ( η)
Pr = 2.0, N = 0.2
0.2, 0, -0.2
-0.2 -0.2
0 5 10 15 0 4 8 12 16 20
η η

Fig. 5. Effect of f0 on velocity and temperature profiles (f0 (g), h(g)) when Fig. 8. Effects of N and Pr on velocity and temperature profiles (f0 (g),h(g)) when
Pr ¼ 0:7; m ¼ 0:01; k ¼ 0:03; Sc ¼ 0:94 and N = 0.2. Sc = 0.94, f0 = 0.1, m = 0.01 and k = 0.03.

Sc = 0.94, f0 = -0.2
h(g)) for various values of f0 when Pr = 0.7, Sc ¼ 0:94; k ¼
1
0:03; m ¼ 0:01 and N = 0.2 are presented in Fig. 5. It is seen that
upper branch the velocity profiles for upper branch solution have positive velocity
lower branch
0.8 gradients at the wall, with the opposite being the case for the lower
branch solution. In case of injection, the fluid is carried away from
the surface causing reduction in the velocity gradient as it tries to
0.6 Sc = 0.22, f0 = -0.2 maintain the same velocity over a small region near the surface,
φ (η )

and the effect is reversed in case of suction. In a way, injection causes

a decrease in steepness of the velocity profile at the wall but the
0.4 Sc = 0.22, f0 = 0.2 steepness increases with the suction. Also, the temperature profile
displays much lower thermal gradients at the wall leading to S
Sc = 0.94, shaped profiles for injection. With the increase in suction parameter
f0 = 0.2
0.2 the thermal boundary layer thickness decreases due to increase in
temperature gradient. The reason is that the fluid is brought closer
to the surface and hence thermal boundary layer thickness is
0 reduced by suction. It is interesting to observe in Fig. 5 that a partic-
0 4 8 12 16
ular value of kðk < 0Þ indicates the possibilities of two values of
η
g1 which displays two different velocity and temperature profiles
Fig. 6. Effects of f0 and Sc on concentration profile ð/ðgÞÞ when Pr ¼ 0:7; in this figure. These two different velocity and temperature profiles
m ¼ 0:01; k ¼ 0:03 and N = 0.2. satisfy the far field boundary conditions (15) asymptotically and
thus supporting the computed results of this investigation. In lower
branch solution, the velocity profile f0 (g) initially decreases from
f0 (0) = 0 to some negative values and then increases satisfying the
m=0 far end boundary condition f0 (g) = 1 in an asymptotic nature as it
1
0.01 can be seen in Fig. 5. Thus, the velocity profile of lower branch solu-
f '(η )
tions clearly exhibits the reverse flow region. Moreover, both the
0.8
0 velocity and thermal boundary layer thicknesses for the first solu-
0.01
0.01 upper branch tion (upper branch solution) are smaller than that of second solution
0 lower branch (lower branch solution). For example, for k ¼ 0:03, m = 0.01,
f ' (η ), θ (η )

0.6 Sc = 0.94, N = 0.2 and Pr = 0.7, upper branch solution of velocity pro-
file displays g1 = 9.08 whereas lower branch solution of velocity
0.4
profile depicts g1 = 13.52 when f0 = 0.2.
The effects of f0 and Schmidt number (Sc) on the concentration
profile for both upper and lower branch solutions are displayed in
0.2 Fig. 6. The results indicate that the concentration boundary layer
thickness for the first solution (upper branch) is smaller than that
0.01 of second solution (lower branch). In particular, for k ¼ 0:03;
0 θ (η )
0 N ¼ 0:2; Pr ¼ 0:7 and m = 0.01 , upper branch solution of concen-
-0.1 tration profile shows g1  7.89 whereas lower branch solution of
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
the profile displays g1  14.87 when Sc = 0.94 and f0 = 0.2. As ex-
η
pected the concentration profiles presented in Fig. 6 show that
Fig. 7. Effect of m on velocity and temperature profiles (f0 (g),h(g)) when the suction reduces the concentration boundary layer thickness
Pr ¼ 0:7; f 0 ¼ 0:1; k ¼ 0:03; Sc ¼ 0:94 and N = 0.2. while injection does the reverse. Further from Fig. 6, it is interesting
 Author's personal copy
4986 S.V. Subhashini et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 4981–4986
to observe that the magnitude of concentration decreases with
increasing value of Sc. Physically, the increase of Sc means a
decrease of molecular diffusivity (D) and the concentration profiles
show significant variation for different values of Sc. It is also noted
that the effect of Sc is to reduce the thickness of the concentration
boundary layer largely. For example, for k ¼ 0:03, N = 0.2,
Pr = 0.7, f0 = 0.2 and m = 0.01, the concentration boundary layer
thickness in the upper branch solution reduces from g1  12.76
to g1  7.89 when Sc increases form Sc = 0.22 to Sc = 0.94.
The variations of velocity and temperature profiles for different
values of m are shown in Fig. 7. For a particular value of kðk < 0Þ,
two different velocity and temperature profiles are shown in this
figure, which also satisfy the far field boundary conditions (15)
asymptotically. In lower branch solution, f0 (g) initially decreases
from f0 (0) = 0 to some negative values and then increases asymptot-
ically to reach the far end boundary condition f0 (g1) = 1. It may be
noted that m = 0 corresponds to a constant free stream velocity
with the prescribed non-linear temperature distribution at the wall
whereas m = 0.01 represents the non-linear variations in free
stream velocity as well as in wall temperature distribution. Results
presented in Fig. 7 show that velocity and thermal fields are very
sensitive to the minute variation in the exponent m from m = 0 to
m = 0.01. In fact, the magnitudes of velocity and temperature distri-
butions decrease within the boundary layer as m increases from 0 to
0.01. The effect of buoyancy ratio parameter non velocity profiles
and the effect of Pr on temperature profiles are presented in
Fig. 8. It should be noted that the positive values of N imply that
both thermal and concentration buoyancy forces act in the same
direction. On the contrary, the negative values of N appears when
thermal and concentration buoyancy forces act in the opposite
direction. The effects of N on the temperature and concentration
profiles are relatively less significant than the velocity profile be-
cause the physical parameter N appears only in the momentum
equation. Hence, the effects of N on temperature and concentration
profiles are not displayed to brief the manuscript. In Fig. 8, buoy-
ancy parameter k is considered as k = 0.03 whereas N is taken as
0.5 and 0.5. It may be noted that for N = 0.5 and k = 0.03, both
thermal and concentration buoyancy forces act in opposing the
flow whereas for N = 0.5 and k = 0.03, thermal buoyancy force
acts in opposing the flow but the concentration buoyancy force as-
sists the flow. Therefore, the momentum boundary layer thickness
for N = 0.5 (g1 = 8.21) is larger than that of N = 0.5 (g1 = 6.94). In
fact, lower branch solution for velocity profile (see Fig. 8) also
shows undershoot near the surface. Furthermore, the effect of
Prandtl number on the temperature profile is such that the thermal
boundary layer thickness decreases sharply with an increase in Pr
and hence induces an increase in the surface temperature gradient.
It may be noted that the temperature profile decreases with
increasing value of Pr in first solution as well as for the second solu-
tion. As a general trend, the profiles (f 0 ; h; /) presented in Figs. 5–8
show that momentum, thermal and concentration boundary layer
thicknesses are less for the upper branch solutions compared to
the lower branch solutions.
5. Conclusions
Steady mixed convection flow over a horizontal permeable flat
plate under the combined effects of thermal and mass diffusion has
been studied numerically. Conclusions of the study are as follows
 Heat and mass transfer rates at the surface increases for suction
and decreases for injection. It was also found that the suction
parameter (f0 > 0) increases both the ranges of k for which the
primary solution as well as dual solutions exists while injection
reduces such range of k.
 Momentum, thermal and concentration boundary layer thick-
nesses for the first solution are thinner than that of second solu-
tion. Overall, it has been found that for any set of parameter
values, there is at least an increase of 20% in the thickness of
boundary layer profiles ðf g ; hðgÞ; /ðgÞÞ for the second solution
as compared to the first solution.
 Higher Schmidt number causes significant reduction in concen-
tration boundary layer thickness. In fact, thickness decreases
approximately 55% with increase of Sc = 0.22 to Sc = 0.94.
Further, the buoyancy ratio parameter (N) increases the momen-
tum boundary layer thickness approximately by 15% when N var-
ies from N = 0.5 to N = 0.5.
 In the assisting flow case, solutions could be obtained for all
positive values of k, while in the opposing flow case the solution
terminated with a saddle-node bifurcation at k ¼ kc ð< 0Þ.
References
[1] A. Bejan, Convective Heat Transfer, third ed., John Wiley & Son, New York, 2004.
[2] F.P. Incropera, D.P. Dewitt, T.L. Bergman, A.S. Lavine, Fundamentals of Heat and
Mass Transfer, sixth ed., John Wiley, New York, 2007.
[3] W.R. Risbeck, T.S. Chen, B.F. Armaly, Laminar mixed convection over horizontal
flat plates with power law variation in surface temperature, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 36 (1993) 1859–1866.
[4] Prabal Datta, S.V. Subhashini, R. Ravindran, Influence of surface mass transfer
on mixed convection flows over non isothermal horizontal flat plates, Appl.
Math. Model. 33 (2009) 1285–1294.
[5] A. Ishak, R. Nazar, I. Pop, The Schneider problem for a micropolar fluid, Fluid.
Dyn. Res. 38 (2006) 489–502.
[6] G. Wilks, J.S. Bramley, Dual solution in mixed convection, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb.
87A (1981) 349–358.
[7] J.H. Merkin, D.B. Ingham, Mixed convection similarity solution on horizontal
surface, J. Appl. Math. Phys. (ZAMP) 38 (1987) 102–116.
[8] N. Afzal, T. Hussain, Mixed convection over a horizontal plate, Trans. ASME:
J. Heat Transfer 106 (1986) 240–241.
[9] J.H. Merkin, T. Mahmood, Mixed convection boundary layer similarity solutions:
prescribed wall heat flux, J. Appl. Math. Phys. (ZAMP) 40 (1989) 51–68.
[10] A. Ridha, Aiding flows non-unique similarity solution of mixed convection
boundary-layer equation, J. Appl. Math. Phys. (ZAMP) 47 (1996) 341–352.
[11] L. Deswita, R. Nazar, A. Ishak, R. Ahmad, I. Pop, Mixed convection boundary
layer flow past a wedge with permeable walls, Heat Mass Transfer 46 (2010)
1013–1018.
[12] L. Deswita, R. Nazar, A. Ishak, R. Ahmad, I. Pop, Similarity solutions for mixed
convection boundary layer flow over a permeable horizontal flat plate, Appl.
Math. Comput. 217 (2010) 2619–2630.
[13] K. Merrill, M. Beauchesne, J. Previte, P. Weidman, Final steady flow near a
stagnation point on a vertical surface in a porous medium, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 49 (2006) 4681–4686.
[14] A. Ishak, R. Nazar, N.M. Arifin, I. Pop, Dual solutions in mixed convection flow
near a stagnation point on a vertical porous plate, Int. J. Thermal Sci. 47 (2008)
417–422.
[15] A. Ishak, R. Nazar, I. Pop, Dual solutions in mixed convection flow near a
stagnation point on a vertical surface in a porous medium, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 51 (2008) 1150–1155.
[16] A. Ishak, R. Nazar, I. Pop, Dual solutions in mixed convection boundary later
flow of micropolar fluids, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simulat. 14 (2009)
1324–1333.
[17] A. Ishak, Similarity solutions for flow and heat transfer over a permeable surface
with convective boundary condition, Appl. Math. Comput. 217 (2010) 837–842.
[18] S.V. Subhashini, Nancy Samuel, I. Pop, Effects of buoyancy assisting and
opposing flows on mixed convection boundary layer flow over a permeable
vertical surface, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 38 (2011) 499–503.
[19] S.V. Subhashini, Nancy Samuel, I. Pop, Double-diffusive convection from a
permeable vertical surface under convective boundary condition, Int.
Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 38 (2011) 1183–1188.
[20] J.H. Merkin, On dual solutions occurring in mixed convection in a porous
medium, J. Engg. Math. 20 (1985) 171–179.
[21] P.D. Weidman, D.G. Kubitschek, A.M.J. Davis, The effect of transpiration on self-
similar boundary layer flow over moving surface, Int. J. Engng. Sci. 44 (2006)
730–737.
[22] J. Paullet, P.D. Weidman, Analysis of stagnation point flow toward a stretching
sheet, Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 42 (2007) 1084–1091.
[23] S.D. Harris, D.B. Ingham, I. Pop, Mixed convection boundary-layer flow near the
stagnation point on a vertical surface in a porous medium: Brinkman model
with slip, Transp. Porous Media 77 (2009) 267–285.
[24] A. Postelnicu, I. Pop, Falkner–Skan boundary layer flow of a power-law fluid
past a stretching wedge, Appl. Math. Comput. 217 (2011) 4359–4368.
[25] H. Schlitching, K. Gersten, Boundary Layer Theory, Springer, New York, 2000.
[26] Y. Jaluria, Natural Convection Heat and Mass Transfer, Pergamon Press, Oxford,
U.K., 1980.