Nonlinear Dyn
DOI 10.1007/s11071-006-9140-y
O R I G I NA L A RT I C L E
Comparison between the HAM and HPM solutions of thin
film flows of non-Newtonian fluids on a moving belt
M. Sajid · T. Hayat · S. Asghar
Received: 10 July 2006 / Accepted: 28 September 2006

C Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006
Abstract In this paper, we prove in general that the
homotopy perturbation method (HPM) proposed in
1998 is only a special case of the homotopy analysis
method (HAM) profound in 1992 when  = −1. Be-
sides, by using the thin film flows of Sisko and Oldroyd
6-constant fluids on a moving belt as examples, we
show that the solutions given by HPM (Siddiqui, A.M.,
Ahmed, M., Ghori, Q.K.: Chaos Solitons and Fractals
(2006) in press) are divergent, and thus useless. How-
ever, by choosing a proper value of the auxiliary param-
eter , we give convergent series solution by means of
the HAM. These two examples also show that, differ-
ent from the HPM and other traditional analytic tech-
niques, the HAM indeed provides us with a simple way
to ensure the convergence of the solution.
Keywords Sisko fluid . Oldroyd 6-constant fluid .
Thin film flow . HAM solution
M. Sajid ( ) · T. Hayat
Department of Mathematics, Quaid-I-Azam University
45320, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
e-mail: sajidqau2002@yahoo.com
M. Sajid
Physics Research Division, PINSTECH, P.O. Nilore,
Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
S. Asghar
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology,
H-8, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
1 Introduction
Recent interest in the investigation of flows of non-
Newtonian fluids has been mainly motivated by its
importance in many natural and industrial problems.
Various workers in the field cite a wide variety of ap-
plications in rheological problems in biological sci-
ences, geophysics, chemical and petroleum industries
[1]. Several others [2–9] investigated the analytic so-
lutions for flow of non-Newtonian fluids under var-
ious assumptions. Most recently Siddiqui et al. [10]
discussed the thin film flows of Sisko and Oldroyd 6-
constant fluids on a moving belt. They obtained the
solution using homotopy perturbation method which
coupled the homotopy theory and perturbation tech-
nique. The perturbation techniques have been used for
those non-linear problems which contain small param-
eters and therefore valid only for weakly non-linear
problems. The so-called small parameter assumption
greatly restricts applications of perturbation technique,
while some non-linear problems have no such small
parameter. Thus it seems necessary to use such a tech-
nique which does not require small parameter at all.
Due to this fact in mind, Liao [11, 12] has recently
developed a technique namely the homotopy analy-
sis method which does not require small parameters
and thus can be used to solve non-linear problems in
science and engineering which have no small or large
parameters. Besides, it logically contains other non-
perturbation technique such as Lyapunov’s small pa-
rameter method [13], the δ-expansion method [14] and
Springer
 Nonlinear Dyn

Adomian’s decomposition method [15], as proved by The convergence of the series (3) depends upon the
Liao in his book [12]. The HAM has already been suc- auxiliary parameter . If it is convergent at p = 1, one
cessfully applied to several non-linear problems [16– has
25].
The aim of the present paper is to revisit the two flow 
∞
u(r ) = u 0 (r ) + u m (r ). (5)
problems discussed in reference [10] for the HAM so- m=1
lutions. This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2
the comparison between HAM and HPM is presented. Differentiating the zeroth order deformation Equation
Section 3 contains the statements of the two problems, (2) m-times with respect to p and then dividing them
HAM solutions and their convergence is included. Re- by m! and finally setting p = 0 we obtain the following
sults and discussion are given in Section 4. Section 5 mth-order deformation problem
summarizes the concluding remarks.
L [u m (r ) − χm u m−1 (r )] = Rm (r ), (6)

2 Comparison between the HAM and HPM in which

It is easy to prove that the so-called “homotopy pertur- 

0, m ≤ 1,
bation method” [26] proposed by He in 1998 is only a χm = (7)
1, m > 1.
special case of the “homotopy analysis method” pro-
pounded by Liao [11, 12] in 1992.
1
2.1 The basic ideas of HAM Rm (r ) =
(m − 1)!
  
Consider a nonlinear equation governed by d k−1 ∞ 

× A u 0 (r ) + u m (r ) p m
 .
d p k−1 m=1

p=0
A(u) + f (r ) = 0, (1)
(8)
where A is a nonlinear operator, f (r ) is a known func-
tion and u is a unknown function. By means of homo- There are many different ways to get the higher order
topy analysis method, one first construct a family of deformation equations. However, according to the fun-
equations damental theorems in calculus [27], the term u m (r ) in
the series (3) is unique. Note that the HAM contains an
(1− p)L [v̂(r, p)−u 0 (r )] = p {A [v̂(r, p)] − f (r )} , auxiliary parameter , which provides us with a simple
way to control and adjust the convergence of the series
(2) solution (5).

where L is an auxiliary linear operator, u 0 (r ) is an ini-

2.2 The basic ideas of HPM
tial guess,  is an auxiliary parameter, p ∈ [0, 1] is an
embedding parameter, v̂(r, p) is an unknown function
In the HPM Dr. He constructs the following equation
of r and p. Liao [12] expanded v̂(r, p) in Taylor series
about the embedding parameter
(1 − p)L [v̂(r, p) − u 0 (r )]

∞
+ p {A [v̂(r, p)] − f (r )} = 0, (9)
v̂(r, p) = u 0 (r ) + u m (r ) p m , (3)
m=1
which is however only a special case of Equation (2)
where when  = −1. Similarly Dr. He also expanded v̂(r, p)
 in the same series as in Equation (3) and thus obtained
1 ∂ m v̂(r, p)  the same expression as given in Equation (5) by setting
u m (r ) = . (4)
m! ∂ p m  p=0 p = 1. So, here Dr. He just uses Liao’s ideas exactly.

Springer
Nonlinear Dyn

Different from Liao [12] Dr. He regarded the em- Thus substituting Equation (3) into Dr. He’s Equation
bedding parameter p as a small parameter, and sub- (9) and using Equations (11) and (12), one has
stituted the series (3) into (9) to get governing equa- 
∞
tion for u m by means of equating the like powers of p. L [u 1 (r )] p + L [u m (r ) − u m−1 (r )] p m
This is the only difference between two methods. Dr. m=2
He never gives a general expression for the governing  

∞
equations for u m . Let us first follow Dr. He’s idea to + p A[u 0 (r )] − f (r ) + Rm+1 (r ) p m

get it. Using Equation (3) and the linear operator L one m=1
has = p {L [u 1 (r )] + A[u 0 (r )] − f (r )}

∞
(1 − p)L [v̂(r, p) − u 0 (r )] + {L [u m (r ) − u m−1 (r )] + Rm (r )} p m = 0
m=2
  (13)

∞
= (1 − p)L u m (r ) p m

m=1 Equating the coefficients of like powers of p, one has


∞ L [u m (r ) − χm u m−1 (r )] + Rm (r ) = 0, (14)
= (1 − p) L [u m (r )] p m
m=1 which is exactly special case of Equation (6) when
 = −1. Therefore it is not important whether one re-

∞
gards the embedding parameter p as a small pertur-
= L [u 1 (r )] p + L [u m (r ) − u m−1 (r )] p m .
m=2
bation quantity or not. The important is that Dr. He
(10)
uses the same expression (5), and besides the govern-
ing equations (14) of u m (r ) in the so-called homotopy
By writing perturbation method are only special cases of Equation
  (7) when  = −1. Hence the HPM is a special case of

∞ HAM. It must be emphasized that HPM does not con-
A u 0 (r ) + u m (r ) p m
− f (r ) tain the auxiliary parameter . Thus like the traditional
m=1
analytic technique, the HPM can not provide a simple

∞ way of convergence of the solution. The two examples
= S0 (r ) + Sm (r ) p m . (11) here indicate that the HPM results in references [10]
m=1 are not convergent and solutions up to second order
approximation are not sufficient.
If A(u) is a continuous operator, according to the
fundamental theorem in calculus, the term Sm (r ) is
unique. Setting p = 0 in Equation (11), one has S0 (r ) = 3 Solutions given by the HAM
A[u 0 (r )] − f (r ). For m ≥ 1, differentiating Equation
(11) m-times with respect to p and then setting p = 0, From Siddiqui et al. [10] we have
one has
n−1 2
d 2v dv d v
   + nb − k1 = 0, (15)
dm ∞  dx2 dx dx2

A u 0 (r ) + u m (r ) p m
 = m!Sm (r ),
dp m m=1

p=0

2 2
4 2
d 2v dv d v dv d v
which gives using the definition (8), that 2
+ (3α1 − α2 ) 2
+ α1 α2
dx dx dx dx dx2
   
2 2
dm ∞  dv
1  − k 2 1 + α2 = 0, (16)
Sm (r ) = A u 0 (r ) + u m (r ) p m
 dx
m! dp m m=1

p=0
dv
= Rm+1 (r ), m ≥ 1 (12) v(0) = 1, = 0 at x = 1, (17)
dx

Springer
 Nonlinear Dyn

in which v is the velocity, α1 and α2 are dimensionless vm (0) = vm (1) = 0, (26)
material constants of an Oldroyd 6-constant fluid, k1
and k2 are dimensionless parameters corresponds to 
R1m (x) = vm−1 (x) − k1 (1 − χm ) + θ (x) (27)
gravity. The values of these dimensionless parameters
are given in [10]. Equations (15) and (16) describes
the thin film flows of Sisko and Oldroyd 6-constant 
m−1

θ (x) = 2b vm−1−k (x)vk (x), for n = 2,
fluids on a moving belt respectively. The derivation of k=0
Equations (15) and (16) is given in reference [10]. For
the HAM solution it is straight forward to choose 
m−1 
k
 
= 3b vm−1−k (x) vk−l (x)vl (x), for n = 3,
ki 2 k=0 l=0
v0 (x) = (x − 2x) + 1, (18)
2

m−1 
k 
l
   
= 4b vm−1−k (x) vk−l (x) vl− j (x)v j (x),
as the initial approximations of v. Here i = 1 is for
k=0 l=0 j=0
the Sisko fluid and i = 2 for Oldroyd 6-constant fluid.
Besides, we choose for n = 4, (28)

L( f ) = f  (19) Symbolic computation software MATHEMATICA is

used to solve the set of linear differential equations
as the auxiliary linear operator, which has the following (25) with conditions (26) up to first few order of ap-
property proximations. It is found that vm (x) is expressed by

L [C1 x + C2 ] = 0, (20) 
(n−1)m+2
vm (x) = am,q x q , m ≥ 0. (29)
q=0
where C1 and C2 are constants.
Substituting above expression into Equation (25) one
3.1 HAM solution for Sisko fluid obtains the following recurrence formulae for the co-
efficients am,q of vm (x) as follows for m ≥ 1, 0 ≤ q ≤
Zeroth-order deformation problem (n − 1)m + 2

(1 − p)L [v̂(x, p) − v0 (x)] = pN1 [v̂(x, p)] , (21) am,1 = χm χ(n−1)m−n+4 am−1,1 + k1 (1 − χm )

(n−1)m+2
m,q
− , (30)
 (q + 1)
v̂(0, p) = 1, v̂ (1, p) = 0, (22) q=0

m,0 k1 (1 − χm )
am,2 = χm χ(n−1)m−n+3 am−1,2 + − ,
2 2
∂ 2 v̂(x, p) (31)
N1 [v̂(x, p)] = − k1
∂x2 m,q−2

am,q = χm χ(n−1)m−n−q+5 am−1,q + ,
∂ v̂(x, p) n−1 ∂ 2 v̂(x, p) q(q − 1)
+nb , (23) (32)
∂x ∂x2
3 ≤ q ≤ (n − 1)m + 2,
where 1 is auxiliary parameter. Obviously m,q = [χ(n−1)m−q−n+5 cm−1,q + nbδm,q ], (33)

v̂(x, 0) = v0 (x), v̂(x, 1) = v(x), (24) where δm,q for m ≥ 1, 0 ≤ q ≤ (n − 1)m + 2 is


m−1 
min{q,k+2}

mth-order deformation problem δm,q = ck,i bm−1−k,q−i , for n=2,

k=0 i=max{0,q−m+k−1}

L [vm (x) − χm vm−1 (x)] = R1m (x), (25) (34)

Springer
Nonlinear Dyn


m−1 k 
min{q,2k+4} min{
p,2l+2} ∂ 2 v̂(x, p) ∂ v̂(x, p) 2
δm,q = N2 [v̂(x, p)] = − k 2 − 2α k
2 2
∂x2 ∂x
k=0 l=0 p=max{0,q−2m+2k} i=max{0, p−2k+2l−2}
2 2
∂ v̂(x, p) ∂ v̂(x, p)
× cl,i bk−l, p−i bm−1−k,q− p , for n = 3, (35) + (3α1 − α2 )
∂x ∂x2

m−1 k 
l 
min{q,3k+6} 
min{r,3l+4}

4
δm,q = ∂ v̂(x, p)
− α22 k2
k=0 l=0 j=0 r =max{0,q−3m+3k+1} p=max{0,r −3k+3l−2} ∂x
min{
p,3 j+2}

∂v (x, p) 4 ∂ 2 v̂(x, p)

× c j,i bl− j, p−i bk−l,r − p + α1 α2 , (44)
i=max{0, p−3l+3 j−2} ∂x ∂x2
× bm−1−k,q−r , for n = 4. (36) mth order deformation problem

The related coefficients bm,n and cm,n are given as fol-

L [vm (x) − χm vm−1 (x)] = R2m (x), (45)
lows

bm,q = (q + 1)am,q+1 , (37)

vm (0) = vm (1) = 0, (46)
cm,q = (q + 1)bm,q+1 . (38)

For the detailed procedure of deriving the above re- 

R2m (x) = vm−1 (x) − k2 (1 − χm )
lations the reader is referred to [15]. Using the above
recurrence formulae, we can calculate all coefficients 
m−1

− 2α2 k2 vm−1−k (x)vk (x)
am,n by using
k=0

k1 
m−1 
k
 
a0,0 = 1, a0,1 = −k1 , a0,2 = , (39) + (3α1 − α2 ) vm−1−k (x) vk−l (x)vl (x)
2 k=0 l=0

given by the initial guess approximation in Equation 

m−1 
k
 
(18). The corresponding Mth-order approximation of − α22 k2 vm−1−k (x) vk−l (x)
k=0 l=0
Equations (15) and (17) is
 
l
M M 
(n−1)m+2
× 
vl− 
j (x)v j (x)
vm (x) = am,q x q
(40) j=0
m=0 m=0 q=0

m−1 
k
 
and therefore the explicit, totally analytic solution is + α1 α2 vm−1−k (x) vk−l (x)
k=0 l=0
 

∞ 
M 
(n−1)m+2

l 
j
v(x) = vm (x) = lim am,q x q . × 
vl− v j−i (x)vi (x).
M→∞ j (x) (47)
m=0 m=0 q=0 j=0 i=0
(41)
Again using symbolic computation software MATHE-
MATICA, it is easy to get approximations up to first
3.2 HAM solution for Oldroyd 6-constant fluid few order. It is found that vm (x) here is expressed by

Zeroth-order deformation problem 

4m+2
vm (x) = Am,n x n , m ≥ 0, (48)
(1 − p)L [v̂(x, p) − v0 (x)] = pN2 [v̂(x, p)] , (42) n=0

Substituting Equation (48) into Equation (45) one

v̂(0, p) = 1, v̂  (1, p) = 0, (43) obtains the following recurrence formulae for the

Springer
 Nonlinear Dyn

coefficients Am,n of vm (x) as follows for m ≥ 1, 0 ≤ All coefficients Am,n can be calculated by using
n ≤ 4m + 2
k2
Am,1 = χm χ4m−1 Am−1,1 + k2 (1 − χm ) A0,0 = 1, A0,1 = −k2 , A0,2 = , (59)
2

4m+2
m,n
− , (49) given by the initial guess approximation in Equation
n=0
(n + 1) (18). The corresponding Mth-order approximation of
m,0 k2 (1 − χm ) Equations (16) and (17) is
Am,2 = χm χ4m−2 Am−1,2 + − ,
2 2
(50) 
m,n−2 
M 
M 
4m+2
Am,n = χm χ4m−n Am−1,q + , vm (x) = Am,n x n
(60)
n(n − 1)
m=0 m=0 n=0
3 ≤ n ≤ 4m + 2, (51)
⎡ ⎤ and the explicit, totally analytic solution is given by
χ4m−n Cm−1,n − 2α2 k2 χ4m−n+2 m,n
m,q =  ⎣ + (3α1 − α2 )
m,n ⎦,  
− k2 α22 m,n + α1 α2 m,n 
∞ 
M 
4m+2

(52) v(x) = vm (x) = lim Am,n x n

. (61)
M→∞
m=0 m=0 n=0

where m,n ,
m,n , m,n and m,n for m ≥ 1, 0 ≤ n ≤
4m + 2 are
3.3 Convergence of the analytic solutions

m−1 
min{n,4k+2}
m,n = Bk, p Bm−1−k,n− p , (53)
As pointed by Liao [12] the explicit, analytic expres-
k=0 p=max{0,n−4m+4k+2}
sions given in Equations (41) and (61) contains the

m−1 k 
min{n,4k+4}
auxiliary parameter . This parameter determine the

m,q =
k=0 l=0 q=max{0,n−4m+4k+2}
convergence region and rate of approximation for the
homotopy analysis method. For this purpose -curves

min{q,4l+2}
are displayed in Figs. 1 and 2 for 20th and 15th or-
× Cl, p Bk−l,q− p Bm−1−k,n−q ,
p=max{0,q−4k+4l−2}
der of approximations respectively. It is clear from
(54) Fig. 1 that the range for the admissible values for 

m−1 k 
l 
min{n,4k+6}
m,n = in the case of a Sisko fluid is −0.6 ≤ 1 < −0.1 and
k=0 l=0 j=0 r =max{0,n−4m+4k+2} −0.8 ≤  < −0.1 for Oldroyd 6-constant fluid. Our
calculations shows that the HAM results converges in

min{r,4l+4} j+2}
min{q,4
×
q=max{0,r −4k+4l−2} p=max{0,q−4l+4 j−2}

× B j, p Bl− j,q− p Bk−l,r −q Bm−1−k,n−r , (55)


m−1 k 
l 
j 
min{n,4k+8}
m,n =
k=0 l=0 j=0 i=0 s=max{0,n−4m+4k+2}


min{s,4l+6} j+4}
min{r,4
×
r =max{0,s−4k+4l−2} q=max{0,r −4l+4 j−2}


min{q,4i+2}
× Ci, p B j−i,q− p Bl− j,r −q
p=max{0,q−4 j+4i−2}

× Bk−l,s−r Bm−1−k,n−s , (56)

Bm,n = (n + 1)Am,n+1 , (57)
Fig. 1 -curve for the 20th order of approximation for the Sisko
Cm,n = (n + 1)Bm,n+1 . (58) fluid

Springer
Nonlinear Dyn

Table 1 Comparison of the HPM and HAM re-

sults of v  (0) in case of a Sisko fluid when n = 3,
b = 0.5 and k1 = 1

Order of HAM results HPM

approximation for  = −0.3 solution

2 0.64000 1.66667
4 0.60970 4.66667
6 0.60262 17.7737
8 0.60047 76.7023
10 0.59973 347.402
12 0.59945 1610.13
14 0.59935 7567.3
16 0.59930 35914.3
18 0.59928 171718.0
19 0.59928 −376338.0 Fig. 2 -curve for the 15th order of approximation for the
20 0.59928 825872.0 Oldroyd 6-constant fluid

Table 2 Comparison of the HPM and HAM results

of v  (0) in case of an Oldroyd 6-constant fluid when
α1 = 0.3, α2 = 0.1 and k2 = 1

Order of HAM results HPM

approximation for  = −0.4 solution

2 0.72732 1.15572
4 0.71382 1.66945
6 0.71152 2.99332
8 0.71101 6.4094
10 0.71088 15.337
12 0.71085 38.9368
14 0.71084 101.899
15 0.71084 −148.371 Fig. 3 Variation of velocity for the Sisko fluid with increasing
parameter b at  = −0.3

the whole region of x for  = −0.3 for Sisko fluid and

2 = −0.4 for an Oldroyd 6-constant fluid.
As proved in Section 2, the HPM solution is only
a special case of the HAM when  = −1 in general.
For the considered two examples, it is found that the
solutions given by the HPM in [10] are indeed exactly
the same as our HAM solution when  = −1. How-
ever, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the series solutions are
divergent when  = −1. Therefore, the HPM solutions
given in [10] are divergent. For example, our solutions
of v  (0) are convergent by using  = −0.3 for the Sisko
fluid and  = −0.4 for the Oldroyd 6-constant fluid,
respectively, however the corresponding HPM results
are divergent, as shown in Table 1 and 2. These two
examples clearly show the importance of the auxiliary
parameter  in the frame of HAM, which indeed pro-
vides us with a simple way to ensure the convergence
of the solution series. As a special case of HAM when
 = −1, the HPM can not ensure convergence of the
solution, as shown in these two examples.
4 Results and discussion
To see the effect of different parameters of interest on
the velocity field we have plotted the Figs. 3–8.
Figures 3–5 are showing the variation of the velocity
field for large values of the non-Newtonian parameter
b for different values of the parameter n in the case
of Sisko fluid. It is clear from these Figures that ve-
locity increases for n = 2, 4 and decreases for n = 3.
Figure 6 shows the effect of n on velocity field for fixed
b. It is concluded that the increase in velocity behaves

Springer
 Nonlinear Dyn

Fig. 4 Variation of velocity for the Sisko fluid with increasing Fig. 7 Variation of velocity for the Oldroyd 6-constant fluid with
parameter b at  = −0.3 increasing parameter α1 at  = −0.4

Fig. 8 Variation of velocity for the Oldroyd 6-constant fluid by

Fig. 5 Variation of velocity for the Sisko fluid with increasing increasing parameter α2 at  = −0.4
parameter b at  = −0.3

in an alternative fashion for even and odd n. Figures 7

and 8 elucidate the effects of the non-Newtonian pa-
rameters α1 and α2 on the velocity field. It is observed
that the velocity increases by increasing α1 . But the ef-
fect is quite reverse when we increase α2 and keep α1
fixed. It is worthmentioning to note that the results ob-
tained in this paper are different from those presented
in reference [10].

5 Concluding remarks

In this paper we have proved in general the HPM is a

special case of HAM when  = −1. HAM is used to
Fig. 6 Variation of velocity for the Sisko fluid with increasing propose a new analytic approximate approach for thin
parameter n
film flows on a moving belt. Its validity is illustrated

Springer
Nonlinear Dyn
by two examples. Unlike the homotopy perturbation
solutions [10] up to second order, we have presented
the HAM solutions from which one can obtain the so-
lutions up to any order. The graphical results in the
present analysis are valid for 20th order of approxima-
tions for Sisko fluid and 15th order of approximations
for an Oldroyd 6-constant fluid. Moreover the conver-
gence of the obtained series solutions is explicitly ana-
lyzed which was absent in [10]. Our convergence anal-
ysis shows that the HPM results are divergent, because
the HPM solutions are special case of the HAM when
 = −1, but  = −1 gives divergent series, as shown
in Tables 1 and 2. So, the HPM results given in [10]
are useless. These two examples verify that the HAM
indeed provides us with a simple way to ensure the
convergence of solution series.
References
1. Zhaosheng, Y., Jianzhong, L.: Numerical research on the
coherent structure in the viscoelastic second order mixing
layers. Appl. Math. Mech. 19, 671–677 (1998)
2. Fetecau, C., Fetecau, C.: The Raleigh-Stokes problem for
a fluid of Maxwellian type. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 38,
603–607 (2003)
3. Fetecau, C., Fetecau, C.: Decay of a potential vortex in a
Maxwell fluid. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 38, 985–990 (2003)
4. Fetecau, C., Fetecau, C.: Starting solutions for some un-
steady unidirectional flows of a second grade fluid. Int. J.
Eng. Sci. 43, 781–789 (2005)
5. Ayub, M., Rasheed, A., Hayat, T.: Exact flow of a third grade
fluid past a porous plate using homotopy analysis method.
Int. J. Eng. Sci. 41, 2091–2103 (2003)
6. Hayat, T., Khan, M., Ayub, M.: On the explicit analytic so-
lutions of an Oldroyd 6-constant fluid. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 42,
123–135 (2004)
7. Hayat, T., Khan, M., Ayub, M.: Couette and Poiseuille flows
of an Oldroyd 6-constant fluid with magnetic field. J. Math.
Anal. Appl. 298, 225–244 (2004)
8. Fetecau, C., Fetecau, C.: A new exact solution for the flow of
Maxwell fluid past an infinite plate. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech.
38, 423–427 (2003)
9. Tan, W.C., Masuoka, T.: Stokes first problem for second
grade fluid in a porous half space. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech.
40, 515–522 (2005)
10. Siddiqui, A.M., Ahmed, M., Ghori, Q.K.: Thin film flow
of non-Newtonian fluids on a moving belt. Chaos Solitons
Fractals (2006) in press
11. Liao, S.J.: On the proposed homotopy analysis technique for
nonlinear problems and its applications, Ph.D. dissertation,
Shanghai Jio Tong University, Shanghai, China (1992)
12. Liao, S.J.: Beyond Perturbation: Introduction to Homotopy
Analysis Method. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL (2003)
13. Lyapunov, A.M.: General Problem on Stability of Motion.
Taylors & Francis, London (1992) (English translation)
14. Karmishin, A.V., Zhukov, A.T., Kolosov, V.G.: Methods of
Dynamics Calculation and Testing for Thin-Walled Struc-
tures. Mashinostroyenie, Moscow (1990) (In Russian)
15. Adomian, G.: Nonlinear stochastic differential equations. J.
Math. Anal. Appl. 55, 441–452 (1976)
16. Liao, S.J.: A uniformly valid analytic solution of 2D viscous
flow past a semi-infinite flat plate. J. Fluid Mech. 385, 101–
128 (1999)
17. Liao, S.J., Campo, A.: Analytic solutions of the temperature
distribution in Blasius viscous flow problems. J. Fluid Mech.
453, 411–425 (2002)
18. Liao, S.J.: On the analytic solution of magnetohydrodynamic
flows of non-Newtonian fluids over a stretching sheet. J.
Fluid Mech. 488, 189–212 (2003)
19. Liao, S.J., Cheung, K.F.: Homotopy analysis of nonlinear
progressive waves in deep water. J. Eng. Math. 45, 105–116
(2003)
20. Hayat, T., Khan, M., Asghar, S.: Homotopy analysis of MHD
flows of an Oldroyd 8-constant fluid. Acta Mech. 168, 213–
232 (2004)
21. Liao, S.J.: A new branch of solutions of boundary-layer flows
over an impermeable stretched plate. Int. J. Heat Mass Trans.
48, 2529–2539 (2005)
22. Liao, SJ.: An analytic solution of unsteady boundary-layer
flows caused by an impulsively stretching plate. Comm. Non-
Linear Sci. Num. Simm. 11, 326–339 (2006)
23. Wu, W., Liao, S.J.: Solving solitary waves with discontinuity
by means of the homotopy analysis method. Chaos Solitons
Fractals 26, 177–185 (2005)
24. Wu, Y.Y., Wang, C., Liao, S.J.: Solving the one loop solution
of the Vakhnenko equation by means of the homotopy anal-
ysis method. Chaos Solitons Fractals 23, 1733–1740 (2005)
25. Sajid, M., Hayat, T., Asghar, S.: On the analytic solution of
steady flow of a fourth grade fluid. Phys. Lett. A 355, 18–24
(2006)
26. He, J.H.: An approximation sol. technique depending upon
an artificial parameter. Comm. Nonlinear Sci. Num. Simul.
3, 92–97 (1998)
27. Fitzpatrick, P.M.: Advanced Calculus. PWS Publishing
Company, Boston, MA (1996)
Springer