Engineering with Computers

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00914-x

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Boundary‑layer flow of the power‑law fluid over a moving wedge:

a linear stability analysis
Ramesh B. Kudenatti1   · Noor‑E‑Misbah1 · M. C. Bharathi1

Received: 18 August 2019 / Accepted: 17 December 2019

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
We study the stability of the two-dimensional boundary-layer flow of a power-law (Ostwald de Waele) non-Newtonian fluid
over a moving wedge. The mainstream velocity is assumed to have a power of distance from the leading boundary layer,
such that the system admits to the self-similar solutions. We discuss the problem in question for both shear-thickening and
shear-thinning fluids which lead to a non-uniqueness (double solutions) in the base flow solutions. We then address an issue
of the stability of the non-unique solutions. A linear eigenvalue analysis of the double solution reveals that the basic flow
represented by the first solution is always stable, and this flow is practically encountered. The system becomes unstable
to the second solutions which have the mode-two perturbations with larger boundary-layer thickness. The first and second
solutions form a tongue-like structure in the solution space. Furthermore, the modification of the viscosity for the power-
law fluids reveals that the system predicts an infinite viscosity in the confinement of the boundary-layer region. Extensive
comparisons of the solutions with the existing models with Newtonian fluid are made, and a physical explanation behind
these solutions is proposed.

Keywords  Boundary layers · Power-law fluids · Stability · Double solutions · Numerics and asymptotics

1 Introduction fixed domain in the quiescent fluid, a sheet gets stretched or

The study of boundary-layer flow of the Newtonian and
non-Newtonian fluids over an impermeable wedge provides
important applications in industrial and technological pro-
cesses. The results of Newtonian fluids (such as air or water)
serve as a benchmark for most of the fluid flow behavior
and these results are markedly different from those of non-
Newtonian fluids. Particulate slurries, sewage sludge, inks,
oil–water emulsion, foams, gas-liquid dispersion, synovial
fluid, jam, etc. are treated as non-Newtonian fluids and have
the property of variable viscosity. Usually, the variable vis-
cosity depends on the rate of shearing on the total flow rate.
There are numerous applications such as extrusion of plastic
sheets, coating of the paint layer on the surface, wire draw-
ing, paper production, aircraft and space vehicles, etc. where
the flow of non-Newtonian fluid is directly involved. In one
such application, when a polymer sheet is drawn from a
* Ramesh B. Kudenatti
ramesh@bub.ernet.in
1
Department of Mathematics, Bengaluru Central University,
Central College Campus, Bengaluru 560 001, India
altered. The various properties of a sheet are usually depend-
ent on the surrounding fluid. Thus, the delicate nature of
the drawn sheet apparently dictates that the stretching rate
has to be controlled, so that the sheet should not break or
altered and also to ensure the sheet has to be perfectly flat
throughout. This is achieved by drawing the sheet in a non-
Newtonian fluid with uniform velocity, so that sheet would
have the desired characteristics in the end. This is modeled
by the boundary-layer flow of the non-Newtonian fluid due
to stretching of the sheet in a still fluid (Schowalter [1],
Bird et al. [2], Chhabra [3], Andersson and Irgens [4], and
Andersson and Dandapat [5]).
The most commonly used non-Newtonian fluid models
for the variable viscosity are Ostwald de Waele, Carreau
rheological fluid, Ellis, Carreau-Yasuda, etc, which essen-
tially form a strong relationship between shear stress and
shear ratio. Amongst these fluids, the power law or Ostwald
de Waele has been studied in the literature, because it has
a strong theoretical base and proven capable of modeling
complex viscosity. Schowalter [1] demonstrated that the
boundary-layer flow of the power-law fluid admits self-sim-
ilar solutions when the mainstream flow is approximated by

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

the power of the distance along the surface, i.e., U(x) ∼ xm ,
(x is a measure of distance from leading edge and m is some
constant). The special cases m = 0 (flow over a moving flat
plate) and m = 1 (stagnation point) have been considered
by Acrivos et al. [6] and Shah [7] respectively. The two-
dimensional flow of non-Newtonian fluid is superposed to
three-dimensional stagnation-point flow by Gorla et al. [8]
to show that even three-dimensional boundary-layer flow
admits self-similar solutions. For shear-thinning power-law
fluids, Wu and Thompson [9] compared an experimental
data such as drag and lift of a flat plate with those obtained
by the numerical solution. They show that for the moderate
value of the Reynolds number boundary-layer equations pro-
vide an accurate solution. However, it is common practice
that boundary layer forms when the Reynolds number of
the fluid flow is asymptotically large. Denier and Dabrowski
[10] considered the boundary-layer flow of power-law fluid
over a constant wedge, and have shown that shear-thinning
fluid predicts an infinite viscosity in the confinement of
the boundary layer. They also showed that the self-similar
solutions obtained for the power-law fluid are not unique,
and the stability of the solutions has not been discussed.
The non-uniqueness or a double solution for the power-law
boundary-layer flow over a moving wedge was discussed
by Ishak et al. [11] in some detail, and has not provided as
to which of these solutions are practically realizable. For
the three-dimensional boundary-layer flow due to rotating
disk, Griffiths et al. [12] have shown that the shear-thinning
fluids have the effects of the delaying the onset of convective
instability. More recently, Griffiths [13] has demonstrated
the boundary-layer flow of the Ostwald de Waele fluid over
a constant wedge of an included angle 45◦ and has shown
that the boundary-layer flows for shear-thinning agents act
as a passive controller for the flows. Longo et al. [14] have
experimentally validated the theoretical results on the shear-
thinning power-law fluid in a homogeneous porous medium.
The authors considered a mixture of water, glycerol, and
Xanthan gum as a power-law fluid in the porous medium,
to show that the self-similar solutions would qualitatively
match with those of experimental data.
Stability of a non-Newtonian fluid in a plane channel flow
has been extensively investigated previously from a variety
of points of view (Nouar et al. [15], Nouar and Frigaard [16],
Ali benyahia et al. [17], etc). Most of their investigations have
shown that shear-thinning non-Newtonian fluid can stabilize
basic states such as Poiseuille, Couette–Poiseuille, and Tay-
lor–Couette flows which are unidirectional, but too difficult to
analyze for shear-thickening non-Newtonian fluids for the flow
over a wedge under large Reynolds number limit. The basic
steady flow considered in these studies is obtained in closed
form for small Reynolds number. However, for high Reyn-
olds number flow, the basic steady flow needs to be obtained
numerically which produces a double-solution structure for
13
Engineering with Computers
the same parameters. We termed them as the first (upper
branch) and second (lower branch) solutions which would be
then investigated as to which of these solutions are practically
realizable. In other words, a linear stability analysis needs to
be performed on these double solutions when the large-time
asymptotics is sought.
In this paper, an analysis of unsteady flow is used to identify
the stable and unstable solutions of the system. The stabil-
ity of the solutions is studied systematically for Newtonian
and non-Newtonian fluids. Two approaches are employed: the
Chebyshev collocation method to solve the first basic state,
and the shooting algorithm for the second basic state. The lat-
ter approach is also used to solve the perturbed linear eigen-
value problem. The former approach has not been used in the
context of boundary-layer flow problems in general and the
novel features of the method for the power-law fluids are fully
utilized (for example: rate of convergence, accuracy, etc). The
Chebyshev collocation method enables us to look for the sec-
ond solution structure, while the shooting method allows us
to identify precisely the second set of solutions. Using these
methods, we find an intriguing tongue-like structure from both
first and second solutions in the basic flows. This structure
means that for the given system of parameters when the ratio
of the wedge to mainstream velocity is lowered to a critical
value, the system shows the stable solutions. However, the
velocity ratio parameter is increased from a critical value, the
system shows the unstable solution.
The paper is organized as follows. A detailed mathematical
formulation of the problem is revisited and is given in Sect. 2
along with the suitable similarity transformations. Section 3
devotes the solution procedures by the Chebyshev collocation
and shooting techniques applicable to the present problem. To
complement the numerical results, an asymptotic analysis for
far-field behavior is performed in Sect. 4. Interesting results
for both Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids are discussed
in Sect. 5.
2 Formulation
The motion of an incompressible non-Newtonian fluid over a
moving wedge surface is considered. The flow is driven under
the large Reynolds number along the longitudinal direction and
the density 𝜌 is taken to be constant. The fundamental hydro-
dynamic equations for the non-Newtonian fluid are:
∇⋅u=0 (1)
( )
𝜌
𝜕u
+ u ⋅ ∇u = −∇p + ∇ ⋅ 𝜏, (2)
𝜕t
where u is the velocity vector, p is the pressure, and 𝜏 is the
deviatoric stress tensor. The constitutive relation for non-
Newtonian fluid is:
Engineering with Computers

wall of the wedge, i.e., U(x) = U∞ xm (where U∞ > 0 and

𝜏 = −𝜇(𝛾) ̇
̇ 𝜸, (3)
m are constants). Accordingly, the boundary-layer thick-
where 𝜇 is the non-Newtonian viscosity and 𝜸̇ is the second ness 𝛿 is expected to grow downstream from the leading
invariant of the deformation tensor and defined as: boundary layer. Furthermore, the motion of wedge is also
approximated in a similar manner, Uw (x) = U0 xm , where U0
𝜸̇ = ∇u + ∇uT , (4) is a constant, if U0 > 0 , the wedge moves in the direction
since the first and third invariants vanish identically. of the freestream, and if U0 < 0 , it moves opposite to the
Although the model equations derived below are certainly mainstream.
valid for a purely viscous fluid, a rheological law must be Introducing non-dimensional variables:
identified to determine the fluid behavior. Among available ( ) ( )
x y u v
fluids such as Ellis, Carreau fluid, Carreau-Yasuda, Power (x� , y� ) = , , (u� , v� ) = , ,
L 𝛿L U 𝛿U
law, Jeffrey fluid [2, 18], etc, we have chosen the Power L p (6)
t = t� , p� = ,
law or Ostwald-de Waele model, since it has a qualitative U 𝜌U 2
theoretical basis, and is capable of modeling complex vis-
cosity. Also, it is adopted frequently by many investigators where L, 𝛿 , and U are some characteristic quantities, in (1)
to describe the rheological behavior of the fluid. Thus, it is and (2) to get:
given by: 𝜕u� 𝜕v�
+ =0 (7)
̇ n−1 𝛾,
𝜏 = −K|𝛾| ̇ (5) 𝜕x� 𝜕y�

where K is the consistency of the fluid and n is the fluid ( )

𝜕u� � 𝜕u
�
� 𝜕u
� 𝜕p� 1 𝜕𝜏x� x� 𝜕𝜏y� x�
index. This power law index n represents the degree of shear- + u + v = − + +
𝜕t� 𝜕x� 𝜕y� 𝜕x� 𝜌U 2 𝜕x� 𝜕y�
thinning/pseudoplastic if n < 1 and of shear-thickening/dila-
(8a)
tant if n > 1 . Note that for n = 1 and K = 𝜇 , the power-law ( ) ( )
fluid describes the behavior of the Newtonian fluid. 𝜕𝜏x� y� 𝜕𝜏y� y�
�
𝜕v� � 𝜕v
�
� 𝜕v
�
1 𝜕p 1
𝛿 +u � +v � =− + + .
Consider the two-dimensional boundary-layer flow of 𝜕t� 𝜕x 𝜕y 𝛿 𝜕y� 𝜌U 2 𝜕x� 𝜕y�
the power-law fluid over a moving wedge. The positive (8b)
x-coordinate is measured along the surface of the wedge We now refer the non-Newtonian viscosity 𝜇 as an apparent
with the apex as the origin, and the positive y coordinate viscosity 𝜇app , in which case we have:
is measured normal to the x-axis in an outward direction ( )
towards the mainstream flow. The geometry of the above 𝜕ui 𝜕uj
𝜏ij = 𝜇app + , (9)
model under consideration is represented as in Fig. 1. The 𝜕xj 𝜕xi
mainstream velocity U(x) outside the boundary-layer region
is approximated by the power of the distance along the where

Fig. 1  Boundary-layer forma-
tion in Ostwald de Waele fluid
over a moving wedge

13
 Engineering with Computers

( )n−1 | ( � )2 ( � )2 The above form clearly exhibits the self-similar solutions in

U | 𝜕u 𝜕v
𝜇app =K |2 + 2 the boundary-layer flow. Introducing the following similarity
L | 𝜕x� 𝜕y�
| transformations:
( )2 n−1
𝜕v� ||
2

+
1 𝜕u�
+𝛿 � | . (𝜌 ) 1

𝛿 𝜕y� 𝜕x | 𝜁= U(x)2−n n+1

y,
| m∗ Kx
( ) 1
From (9) in terms of (6), we have: K n+1
(16)
𝜓 = m∗ xU(x)2n−1 𝜙(𝜁),
( ) ( � ) 𝜌
U 𝜕u 𝜕v� 2
(𝜏x� x� , 𝜏y� y� ) =2 𝜇app , , m∗ = ,
L 𝜕x� 𝜕y�
( ) ( ) (10) 1 + (2n − 1)m
U 1 𝜕u� 𝜕v�
(𝜏y� x� , 𝜏x� y� ) = 𝜇 +𝛿 � . where 𝜓(x, y) is the streamfunction which satisfies the con-
L app 𝛿 𝜕y� 𝜕x
tinuity equation identically when u = 𝜕𝜓
𝜕y
and v = − 𝜕𝜓𝜕x
are
The dimensionless apparent Reynolds number for non-New- assumed. Inserting (15) and (16) in (12)–(14), we get:
tonian fluid takes the form:
2
n|𝜙�� |n−1 𝜙��� + 𝜙𝜙��
𝜌U 2−n Ln n+1
Re = , (11) (17)
K 2m 2
+ (1 − 𝜙� ) = 0,
1 + (2n − 1)m
in which it (is considered
) to be sufficiently large, then we
1
have 𝛿 ∼ O Re− n+1 which is consistent with Newtonian and the physical boundary conditions are:
fluid n = 1 . Substituting (10) in (8) making use of the fact 𝜙(0) = 0, 𝜙� (0) = 𝜆, 𝜙� (∞) = 1, (18)
that Re is large and using the other boundary-layer approxi-
mations, we get: where 𝜙 = 𝜙(𝜁) , 𝜆 = is the ratio of the velocity of wedge
U0
U∞

𝜕u 𝜕v to the mainstream. When 𝜆 > 0 and 𝜆 < 0 , the wedge and
+ =0 (12) mainstream move in the same and opposite direction, respec-
𝜕x 𝜕y
tively. We defer further discussion of significant results on
𝜆 to a later section after having the solutions of (17)–(18) for
1 dp K || 𝜕u || 𝜕 2 u
n−1
𝜕u 𝜕u
+u +v
𝜕u
=− + | | , (13) various designated values. The parameter m denotes the
𝜕t 𝜕x 𝜕y 𝜌 dx 𝜌 | 𝜕y | 𝜕y2 pressure gradient with m > 0 and m < 0 represents acceler-
ated and decelerated flows in the boundary layer. When
where ′ have been dropped for convenience. To close the
m = 0 , the flow over a flat plate in the Ostwald-de Waele
above system, we impose the physical boundary conditions:
fluid. We note that all the above mathematical derivation are
when t<0∶ u = 0, v = 0 for all x and y justifiable when the Reynolds number is taken large; never-
(14a) theless, we obtain the Reynolds number independent solu-
when t≥0∶ u = Uw (x), v = 0 on y = 0 (14b) tions. Also, at any stage of the calculations, we can recover
the Newtonian fluid with the fluid index n = 1 . Furthermore,
Griffiths [13] has derived the non-Newtonian system
u → U(x) as y → ∞. (14c)
(17)–(18) only for m = 31 and 𝜆 = 0 , and Denier & Dab-
The conditions (14) dictates that the streamwise velocity rowski [10] have attempted the same problem (17)–(18) for
on the wedge within the boundary layer must decay onto the 𝜆 = 0 . With this in hand and also to ensure the consistency
mainstream far away from the wedge surface. of the self-similar solutions, we solve the non-Newtonian
To investigate the stability of the system (12)–(14), we Falkner–Skan equation for all possible parameters.
consider a basic flow of the non-Newtonian fluid in the two- The system (17)–(18) is a third-order highly non-linear
dimensional boundary layer. Since we are interested in the ordinary differential equation that is defined over a semi-
stability of the steady unidirectional base flow, it is obtained infinite domain. The complexity of non-linearity further
simply by setting 𝜕u = 0 in (13). Now, to solve the basic flow increases with power-law index n. We utilize the Che-
𝜕t
of the power-law fluid inside the boundary layer, we first take byshev collocation method to determine an approximate
from the Bernoulli’s equation with u(x, y) = U(x) that: solution of the Falkner–Skan equation. We briefly give
about the shifted Chebyshev collocation method applica-
1 dp dU ble to the present problem (17)–(18) to make the paper
(15)
2 2m−1
− =U = mU∞ x .
𝜌 dx dx self-contained.

13
Engineering with Computers

3 Solution procedure f (k) (𝜂) =T(𝜂)X (k)

(24)
with f (0) (𝜂) = T(𝜂)X (0) = T(𝜂)X.
Let us consider a standard ordinary differential equation of
the form: Any derivative for f (k) (𝜂) can be written using Chebyshev
coefficient matrix X as:
∑ ∑
K L
∑ ∑
K L
Ak,l f l (𝜂)f (k) (𝜂) + Bk,l f (k) (𝜂)f (l) (𝜂) f (k) (𝜂) = 4k T(𝜂)M k X. (25)
k=0 l=0 k=1 l=1
(19)
∑ ∑
K L
where the matrix M of order (N + 1) × (N + 1) (Daşçıoğlu
+ Ck,l (f (k) (𝜂))p (f (l) (𝜂))r = R(𝜂), & Yaslan [20]) is given by:
k=1 l=1
1 3 5
where A, B, C, and R are known functions of 𝜂 in [a, b] and ⎡0 2
0 2
0 2
⋯ m1 ⎤
⎢0 m2 ⎥
are supplied with boundary conditions. Problems defined ⎢
0 2 0 4 0 ⋯
⎥
on a finite range can be transformed into the interval [0, 1] , M=⎢
0 0 0 3 0 5 ⋯ m3 ⎥
which is the domain of shifted Chebyshev polynomials Ts (𝜂) ⎢⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮⎥
⎢0 N ⎥
by a suitable linear transformation (Boyd [19]). We seek the ⎢
0 0 0 0 0 0
⎥
solution of (19) in terms of shifted Chebyshev functions: ⎣0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎦

∑
N with
f (𝜂) = as Ts (𝜂) (20)
s=0 N
m1 = , m2 = 0, m3 = N for odd N
2
and m1 = 0, m2 = N, m3 = 0 for even N.
∑
N
Similarly
f (k) (𝜂) = a(k)
s Ts (𝜂), (21)
s=0
[f (𝜂)]l = [f̂ (𝜂)]l−1 f (𝜂), (26)
where as and a(k) are unknown Chebyshev coefficients of f (𝜂)
s
where
and its derivatives, and are to be determined. Let 𝜂j denotes
Chebyshev collocation points defined as: f̂ = T̂ X,
̂ ̂ =T
diag(T) and ̂ = X,
diag(X)
[ ( )]
1 j𝜋 which are evaluated at Chebyshev collocation points. With
𝜂j = 1 − cos j = 0, 1, 2, … , N,
2 N little algebra, we have that:
where N is any positive integer that corresponds edge of the ̂ M)
(f̂ (𝜂))(l) f (𝜂)(k) = 4l+k T( ̂ l XTM
̂ k
X, (27)
boundary layer at which the mainstream condition is met.
The function f (𝜂) defined in (20) can be represented in a where diag(M)̂ = M. Accordingly, using Eqs. (25), (26), and
matrix form: (27), Eq. (19) can be written in the matrix form:

f (𝜂) = T(𝜂)X (22) ∑ ∑

K L
4k Ak,l (T̂ X)
̂ l TM (k) X
with k=0 l=0

[ ]T ∑ ∑
K L
f (𝜂) = f (𝜂0 ), f (𝜂1 ), … , f (𝜂N ) (23a) + Bk,l 4(l+k) T̂ M
̂ l XTM
̂ k
X (28)
k=1 l=1

∑ ∑
K L
⎡ T0 (𝜂0 ) T1 (𝜂0 ) … TN (𝜂0 ) ⎤ + Ck,l 4(kp+lr) ((T̂ M) ̂ p (TM l X)r = R(𝜂),
̂ k X)
⎢ T (𝜂 ) T (𝜂 ) … TN (𝜂1 ) ⎥
T(𝜂) =⎢ 0 1 1 1
⋮ ⎥⎥ (23b) k=0 l=1

⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱
w h e r e
⎣ T0 (𝜂N ) T1 (𝜂N ) ⋯ TN (𝜂N ) ⎦ diag(Ak,l ) = Ak,l (𝜂)
,   diag(Bk,l ) = Bk,l (𝜂)   and    diag(Ck,l ) = Ck,l (𝜂).
and Or more briefly, (28) takes the form
[ ]T
X = a0 , a1 , … , aN . (23c) WX = R, (29)
which corresponds to a system of (N + 1) non-linear alge-
In a similar manner, the matrix representation of (21) takes
braic equations with unknown Chebyshev coefficients X.
the form:

13
 Engineering with Computers

Before applying the Chebyshev collocation method two ways: first, the first and second rows of W are replaced,
mentioned above onto the system (17)–(18), let us trans- respectively, by:
s≥2
form the semi-infinite domain [0, ∞) into a domain of
shifted polynomials [0,1] using the transformations:
Ts (0) = −2Ts−1 (0) − Ts−2 (0), (35a)

𝜁̂ =
𝜁
, and 𝜙(𝜁) = 𝜁∞ 𝜑(𝜁̂ ), (30) and Ts� (0) = 4Ts−1 (0) − 2Ts� (0) − Ts−2
�
(0), s≥2
𝜁∞ (35b)
with T0 (0) = 1, T1 (0) = −1, T1� (0) = 2.
where 𝜁∞ corresponds to the thickness of the boundary layer.
Similarly, the last row of W is replaced by
Accordingly, the system takes the form:
2 Ts� (1) = 4Ts−1 (1) − 2Ts� (1) − Ts−2
�
(1), s ≥ 2, (35c)
n|𝜑 | 𝜑 +
�� n−1 ���
𝜁 n+1 𝜑𝜑��
n+1 ∞
(31a) where
2m 2
+ 𝜁 n+1 (1 − 𝜑� ) = 0
1 + (2n − 1)m ∞ T0 (1) = 1, T1 (1) = 1, T1� (1) = 2.
and Also, the right-hand side R of (33):
𝜑(0) = 0, � �
𝜑 (0) = 𝜆, 𝜑 (1) = 1, (31b) R(0) = 0, R(1) = 𝜆, R(N) = 1, (36)
where prime now denotes the differentiation with respect to which are taken from (31b). Second, the last three rows of
̂ From (24) to (27), the system (31) takes the form:
𝜁. W are replaced by values of (35). Similarly, the last three
entries of R are replaced by (36). It is found that the solu-
n 42n+1 (T̂ M
̂ 2 X)
̂ n−1 (TM 3 X)
tion is more accurate in the former than the latter procedure.
2 Numerical results are obtained for n = 0.6, 0.8 (pseu-
+ 𝜁 n+1 (T̂ X)(4
̂ 2 TM 2 X)
n+1 ∞ doplastic), n = 1 (Newtonian) and n = 1.2, 1.4 (dilatant)
2m (32) (Bird et al. [2]) for various pressure gradient parameters m
− 𝜁 n+1 (42 T̂ M
̂ XTMX)
̂
1 + (2n − 1)m ∞ and the velocity ratio parameter 𝜆 which are chosen to be
2m greater than −1 . This parameter space throws some light
=− 𝜁 n+1 I,
1 + (2n − 1)m ∞ on a velocity behavior in the boundary-layer flow that has
where I is an unit vector of order (N + 1) × 1 . More com- developed on a moving wedge. In this study, the non-Newto-
pactly, (32) can be written as: nian Falkner–Skan model is adopted to analyze the velocity
behavior in the boundary layer. After determining the three
WX = R, (33) derived quantities, i.e., the wall-shear stress (skin-frictional
coefficient), the velocity profiles ( 𝜙� (𝜁) ), and viscosity pro-
where
files, 𝜇pf (𝜁) = n|𝜙 (𝜁)|n−1 is analyzed for all parameters.
��

2 The various solutions in terms of the wall-shear stress

W =n 42n+1 (T̂ M ̂ n−1 (TM 3 ) +
̂ 2 X) 𝜁 n+1 (T̂ X)(4
̂ 2 TM 2 )
n+1 ∞ 𝜙�� (0) for different 𝜆 are given in Fig.  2 for n = 1 and
−
2m
𝜁 n+1 (42 T̂ M
̂ XTM).
̂ m = 0.0, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0 , and for different n and m and 𝜆 = 0
1 + (2n − 1)m ∞
are given in Table 1. We have utilized the shifted Chebyshev
collocation method described above to obtain the wall-shear
The difficulty of obtaining [𝜑(2) (𝜁̂ )]n−1 (or (42 T̂ M ̂ n−1 )
̂ 2 X)
stress values on the wedge and the velocity profiles. In all
when (n − 1) is positive fraction ( n > 1 ) or negative frac-
our simulations, the error tolerance is set to 10−6 at which
tion ( n < 1 ) is resolved easily through the diagonalization
all the values are accurate enough. The convergence of the
technique, that is:
Chebyshev collocation method is checked with regard to
̂ n−1 = PDn−1 P−1 ,
[𝜑(2) (𝜁)] (34) the number of collocation points. From Fig. 2, it is imme-
diately clear that, when 𝜆 is decreased from 1, the values
where P contains the eigenvectors and D is a diagonal matrix represented by the solid lines start to increase, and after
containing all the eigenvalues. Our code contains the cal- certain 𝜆 , it gradually decreases. The structure of each line
culation of all the eigenvalues and eigenvectors. Again, for clearly suggests that there is a double solution. However, the
n = 1 , (34) turns out to be an identity matrix. shifted Chebyshev collocation method fails to provide the
Once the physical parameters are taken, the augmented second solution even with multiple efforts on different 𝜁∞
matrix W is modified by the physical conditions given in values. In particular, it is found that the shifted Chebyshev
(31b). Incorporation of physical conditions is performed in collocation method, as commonly employed in simple non-
linear ordinary differential equations, more often than not, is

13
Engineering with Computers

noticed that all solutions are in agreement with each other

and the corresponding velocity profiles are graphically
indistinguishable. The number of coefficients required to
converge is around 40 (for n = 0.6 and m = 0.5 , N = 46 ,
etc). When N > 35 , our algorithm becomes slow, because
calculation of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors (see Eq.
(34)) takes most of the computer time; however, the com-
putational cost is still affordable.

4 Asymptotics for far‑field behavior

Fig. 2  Variation of wall-shear stress 𝜙�� (0) with 𝜆 for various m
and n = 1 . The critical value 𝜆c corresponding to each m is given in
Table 3. The solid and dotted lines are obtained by the shifted Cheby-
shev collocation and shooting method, respectively
inappropriate for the present problem. We, thus, resorted to
shooting method which effectively produces the second solu-
We now investigate the existence of solutions for arbitrary
n and m by examining the asymptotics as 𝜁 → ∞ . These
results will also compliment results of the Chebyshev col-
location and shooting methods. For this, let us assume that
solutions of (17)–(18) exist, such that |𝜙� (𝜁) − 1| → 0 as
𝜁 → ∞ . When 𝜁 → ∞ , we may write:

∫
tion, and some details are given below. Once the solution is 𝜙(𝜁) = 𝜁 + E(𝜂)d𝜂, (37)
obtained for designated values of the physical parameters,
we use the transformations (30) to discuss the hydrodynam- where E(𝜂) and its derivatives are assumed small. The above
ics in original variables. form (37) is valid for all n, m, and 𝜆 , and E(𝜂) tends to zero
We solve the system (17)–(18) for various param- away from the wedge surface. For n < 1 (shear-thinning flu-
eters using the shooting algorithm with the help of the ids), Denier & Dabrowski [10] have derived the asymptotic
Runge–Kutta and Secant methods, and this involves vari- expression:
ous steps. The third-order ordinary differential equation is
converted into a system of three first-order differential equa- ( n (
) n−1 ) n+1
1−n 2n
𝜙� (𝜁) = 1 − 𝜁 n−1 + ⋯ (38)
tions by introducing some additional unknown functions. 2n n+1
This system is integrated using the Runge–Kutta method.
The missing condition 𝜙�� (0) that relates to the wall-shear for zero-pressure gradient m = 0 . This form certainly pre-
stress on the surface of the wedge is determined through the dicts the far-field behavior. The new form (37) adopted by
secant method. This procedure starts an iteration for 𝜙�� (0) Sachdev et al. [21] and Kudenatti et al. [22] for the Newto-
until the derivative boundary condition at infinity is satisfied nian fluid can be utilized to analyze the behavior of the flow
asymptotically. This obtained solution for selected value is near the edge. The solution for E(𝜂) and hence the velocity
then used as an initial guess for the next set of parameters. profile is given by:
Doing in this way helps us to accelerate the convergence
criteria. This numerical scheme has been utilized in most of
the boundary-layer flow solutions. The error tolerance of the
scheme is set to 10−6 for all the parameters.
Table 1 compares the results for the wall-shear stress
𝜙�� (0) obtained by shifted Chebyshev collocation method
and shooting algorithm for various m, n and 𝜆 = 0 . It is

Table 1  Comparison of 𝜙�� (0) m n = 0.6 n = 1.0 n = 1.4

values obtained by shifted
Chebyshev collocation method Chebyshev Shooting Chebyshev Shooting Chebyshev Shooting
with those given by the shooting
method for various m and n  0.0 0.506051 0.506074 0.469644 0.469645 0.477476 0.477636
0.5 1.491686 1.491151 1.038904 1.038903 0.887931 0.887498
0.7 1.754251 1.754062 1.134042 1.134040 0.938688 0.937234
1.0 2.082283 2.082191 1.232595 1.232586 0.984514 0.984432

13
 Engineering with Computers

� �
2+(1+n)𝛽 Table 2  Comparison of wall-shear stress values 𝜙�� (0) by the pre-
2(𝜆 − 1) Γ 2 sent analysis with those obtained by the Yacob et al. [24] for various
𝜙� (𝜁) = 1 − √ � � accelerating flows at 𝜆 = 0 for n = 1 (Newtonian fluid)
n(n + 1) Γ 1+(1+n)𝛽
�
2
� m 0.0 0.5 1
1 − (n + 1)𝛽 3 𝜁2 (39)
𝜁M ; ;− 𝜙�� (0) Yacob et al. [24] 0.4696 1.0389 1.2326
2 2 n(n + 1)
� � Present results 0.469645 1.038903 1.232586
−(n + 1)𝛽 1 𝜁2
+ (𝜆 − 1) M ; ;− ,
2 2 n(n + 1)

where M(⋅, ⋅, ⋅) is a confluent hypergeometric function of
first kind. See the Appendix (6) for detailed derivation of
(39).
From Fig. 3, it is noticed that, all the velocity shapes
are decaying to the mainstream flow asymptotically. This
validates the assumption (37) that E(𝜂) given by (56) tends
to zero as 𝜂 → ∞ . The solution (39) takes smaller domain
to satisfy the end condition which assures the exponential-
type decay of the solutions. The expression (38) given by
Denier & Dabrowski [10] is valid for n < 1 and decays to
the mainstream algebraically. However, the solution (39) is
valid even for n > 1 , n = 1 , and n < 1 as is clearly seen in
Fig. 3 and for any 𝜆.
5 Results and discussion
Numerical solution of the Newtonian Falkner–Skan equa-
tion for accelerated flow given by Riley and Weidman [23]
shows that the system exhibits single, double, and even triple
solutions for certain range of the pressure gradient m and
the velocity ratio 𝜆 . For each m chosen, there is a critical 𝜆
say 𝜆c beyond which no solution exists. The same results are
confirmed in Fig. 2 for n = 1.
Yacob et al. [24] have also noticed the double and triple
solutions when nanofluid in the boundary layer is consid-
ered. Note that results presented in Table 2 of their paper
exactly match to those given in Table  2 for Newtonian
case(n = 1) . Figure 2 plots the wall-shear stress 𝜙�� (0) vari-
ation as a function of 𝜆 for different accelerated flows m ≥ 0 .
The results show that there are single (solid lines) and dou-
ble solutions (dashed lines) for some range of 𝜆 and even
no solution is observed. In this case, there is a critical 𝜆 for
each m, say 𝜆c (m) beyond which no solution is possible. For
example, for each m, all the possible critical values 𝜆c are
presented in Table 3 including the cases of n ≠ 1 . Except for
m = 0 , we observe that, there is a single solution in the range
𝜆 ∈ [− 1, 1] and double solutions in the range 𝜆 ∈ [ 𝜆c , −1].
For m = 1 , 𝜆c = −1.24661 , and for m = 0.5 , 𝜆c = −1.0997 ,
etc. For m = 0 (zero-pressure gradient), there is a single
solution in the range 𝜆 ∈ [0, 1] and double solution for 𝜆 ∈
[−0.3541, 0]. Riley and Weidman [23] have discovered a
triple-solution structure for some values of m, but we have
not noticed the third solution.
At this stage, two points of details are worth mentioning.
First, we refer to the results [ 𝜆c , 1] as a first solution while
the results in the range [ 𝜆c , – 1] as a second solution for all
the parameters chosen where 𝜆c is always negative. All the
first solutions are obtained by shifted Chebyshev collocation
method and double solutions by the shooting method. It is
immediately clear that for each value in Figs. 2, 4, and 5,
there is a velocity profile that decays into the mainstream
flow asymptotically. Second, the wall-shear stress will van-
ish when 𝜆 = ±1 at which both free stream and wedge move
with the same speed. The wall-shear stress is always positive
for all 𝜆.
We now present the various similar results discussed
above on the first and second solutions for non-Newtonian

Table 3  The critical 𝜆c that clearly demarcates the first solution from

the second for several values of m and n. The shooting algorithm is
used to calculate the precise 𝜆c

m 𝜆c
n
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

0.0 −0.33447 −0.34468 −0.35410 −0.36241 −0.37005

0.5 −1.12852 −1.11201 −1.09970 −1.08990 −1.08204
Fig. 3  Velocity profiles for the shear-thinning and shear-thickening 0.7 −1.23595 −1.20151 −1.17587 −1.15606 −1.14069
boundary-layer flow over a stationary 𝜆 = 0 wedge with m = 0.5 . 1.0 −1.34325 −1.28992 −1.24661 −1.21638 −1.19284
These results are obtained by asymptotic solution (39)

13
Engineering with Computers

Fig. 4  The variation of the wall- (a) (b)

shear stress 𝜙�� (0) over a range
𝜆 ≥ 𝜆c for shear-thinning fluid
and for different m. The various
𝜆c values are given in Table 3.
In each case, the first and
second solutions are calculated
using the Chebyshev colloca-
tion and shooting methods,
respectively

Fig. 5  The variation of the wall- (a) (b)

shear stress 𝜙�� (0) over a range
𝜆 ≥ 𝜆c for shear-thickening fluid
and for different m. The various
𝜆c values are given in Table 3

parameter n both for shear-thinning and shear-thickening

fluids.
These results are shown in Fig. 4 for n = 0.6, 0.8 and des-
ignated values of m. Referring to Table 3, we noticed that the
critical value 𝜆c is found to be decreasing compared to the
corresponding Newtonian case n = 1 . Similar to the results
of Fig. 2, the same typical trend of first and second solutions
is observed in Fig. 4.
To this end, Fig. 5 shows the same trend for all m and for
n = 1.2, 1.4 . In this case, the critical 𝜆c decreases as noticed.
The wall-shear stress values are rather smaller than the cor-
responding shear-thinning fluids.
It is clear from Figs. 2,  4, and  5 and also from Table 3
Fig. 6  Illustration of the velocity profiles for shear-thinning and
that the wall-shear 𝜙�� (0) values are found to be decreasing shear-thickening fluids for m = 0.7 and 𝜆 = −1.13 . This clearly shows
for higher values of n and smaller values of m. Also, the the nature of the first (solid) and second(dashed) solutions in the
critical values 𝜆c for all m (m ≠ 0) are found to be increasing boundary layer
when n is increased which essentially reveals that the solu-
tion domain is shrinking, whereas, for m = 0 , the results are is always thinner than the second solution. Figure 6 also
markedly different from the rest of the curves: the reverse simultaneously signifies that the thickness for shear-thin-
trend is observed, i.e., 𝜆c is found to be decreasing for ning fluids is always thinner than the shear-thickening fluids.
increasing n. Physically, the flow for n < 1 is always attached to the wedge
To realize the nature of the velocity profiles for the first surface, thereby making the flow benign, whereas for n > 1 ,
and second solutions, we intentionally plotted some of the the flow is convected towards mainstream. This is found to
profiles in Fig. 6 for all n and the pressure gradient param- be true for all results of Figs. 4 and 5 where double solutions
eter m = 0.7 . For these set of parameters, there are two dif- are obtained.
ferent velocity profiles in the boundary layer. All solutions To understand the viscosity modification for the Ost-
start at 𝜆 = −1.13 (i.e., 𝜙� (0) = −1.13 ) but decay into the wald-de Waele fluid, as given by (13) and (17), we write
mainstream flow asymptotically with different boundary 𝜇pf (𝜁) = n|𝜙�� (𝜁)|n−1 . When n = 1 , 𝜇pf = 1 , a constant vis-
thickness. The boundary-layer thickness for the first solution cosity is predicted. The viscosity profiles consisting both

13
 Engineering with Computers

( ( )2 )
shear-thinning and shear-thickening fluids are plotted in | 𝜕 2 𝜙 |n−1 𝜕 3 𝜙
| | 2 𝜕2 𝜙 𝜕𝜙
Fig. 7 in the boundary-layer domain for two representative n| 2 | + 𝜙 + 𝛽1 1 −
| 𝜕𝜁 | 𝜕𝜁 3 n + 1 𝜕𝜁 2 𝜕𝜁
values of m. In this case, the first solutions are considered. | | (42)
( )
It is immediately noticed that for n = 0.6 and n = 0.8 , there 𝜕𝜙 𝜕 2 𝜙 𝜕𝜙 𝜕 2 𝜙 𝜕2𝜙
+ 𝛽2 𝜉 − − = 0,
is an infinite viscosity within the boundary-layer region. 𝜕𝜉 𝜕𝜁 2 𝜕𝜁 𝜕𝜁𝜕𝜉 𝜕𝜉𝜕𝜁
The unbounded region of the viscosity is predicted par-
ticularly in the region of low shear rate. This is considered where 𝛽1 = 2m
1+(2n−1)m
and 𝛽2 = 2(m−1)
1+(2n−1)m
 . To investigate the
to be unphysical for the power-law fluids. On the other ̂  , we write:
stability of the steady flow 𝜙(𝜁) = 𝜙(𝜁)
hand, when n > 1 , a finite viscosity is predicted which
approaches to zero as 𝜁 → ∞ . This clearly shows the vis-
̂ + e−𝛾𝜉 F(𝜁, 𝜉),
𝜙(𝜁, 𝜉) = 𝜙(𝜁) (43)
cosity effects are completely neglected when an inviscid where F(𝜁, 𝜉) is an eigenfunction to be determined. Wei-
flow is approached. dman et al. [25] have certainly performed the stability analy-
Linear stability analysis sis for the Newtonian Blasius boundary-layer flow over a
We now concentrate on the stability of the solutions wedge where the mass transpiration is also used. In view of
obtained for the two-dimensional boundary-layer flow of (43), (42) takes for leading order term as:
the Ostwald-de Waele fluid over a moving wedge. We are
( )n−1 3
interested in the stability of the double solutions of the 2
2 ( ̂��
̂ �� −𝛾𝜉 𝜕 F 𝜕 F
steady unidirectional base flow in which the double solu- n 𝜙 +e 2 3
+ 𝜙 F
𝜕𝜁 𝜕𝜁 n+1
tions are obtained in some range of 𝜆 for a favorable pres- ) ( )
𝜕2 F 𝜕F
sure gradient. It is not unreasonable to expect whether the +𝜙̂ 2 + 𝛽1 −2𝜙̂�
𝜕𝜁 𝜕𝜁
shear-thinning or shear-thickening fluid is stabilizing in ( ( ) ( 2 )) (44)
case of first and second solutions. When the behavior of + 𝛽2 𝜉 𝜙̂��
𝜕F
− 𝛾F − 𝜙̂�
𝜕 F
−𝛾
𝜕F
the model under question for asymptotically long time is 𝜕𝜉 𝜕𝜉𝜕𝜁 𝜕𝜁
sought, we expect the disturbance mode to vary exponen- 𝜕F 𝜕2F
+𝛾 − = 0.
tially with time as e−𝛾t , where 𝛾 is an unknown eigenvalue. 𝜕𝜁 𝜕𝜉𝜕𝜁
Thus, it is essential to include the unsteady term in the
governing equation which was neglected initially to deter- Following Sharma et al. [26], we set 𝜉 = 0 and F(𝜁, 𝜉) = F(𝜁)
mine the required base flow. to study stable(decay) or unstable(growth) of the steady flow
̂  . Thus, (44) upon linearization takes the form:
We now set the similarity variable for time t as: 𝜙(𝜁)
( ) 2 ( ̂ �� )
1 + (2n − 1)m n|𝜙̂ �� |n−1 F ��� + 𝜙F + 𝜙̂�� F
𝜉= U∞ xm t. (40) n+1
2x ( ) (45)
4m
− 𝜙̂ � − 𝛾 F � = 0,
Accordingly, the stream function can be modified by: 1 + (2n − 1)m
( ) 1
which can be solved with transformed boundary conditions:
2x n+1
(41)
𝜓(x, y, t) = 𝜈U(x)2n−1 𝜙(𝜁 , 𝜉)
1 + (2n − 1)m F(0) = 0, F � (0) = 0, F � (∞) = 0. (46)
and no change in the transformation (16) for 𝜁  . Substituting Here, the unknown eigenvalue 𝛾 was to be determined
(40) and (41) in (13)–(14) with the help of (15), we get a from the eigenvalue problem (45)–(46) for the known
weakly non-linear partial differential equation: ̂  . To solve the system (45)–(46) for the two
base flow 𝜙(𝜁)

Fig. 7  Variation of the viscosity (a) (b)

profiles for (a) shear-thinning
and (b) shear-thickening bound-
ary-layer flow over a moving
wedge for two values of m.
Since 𝜙�� (0) changes, the start-
ing solution at 𝜁 = 0 also differs
which is clearly seen in (b)

13
Engineering with Computers

unknowns: eigenfunction F(𝜁) and eigenvalue 𝛾 , we need an Table 4  The eigenvalues corresponding to the first and second solu-
additional condition. We, therefore, set F �� (0) = 1 so as to tions for all values close to the 𝜆c (for m = 0.7 ) which are given in
Table 3
solve (45)–(46) as an initial value problem for 𝛾 for which
F � (∞) → 0 satisfies asymptotically. Sharma et al. [26] and First solution Second solution
Harris et al. [27] have used the similar technique to iden- n 𝜆 𝜙 ′′
𝛾 𝜙′′ 𝛾
tify the eigenvalue structure. We also experimented with
different initial conditions for F �� (0) , but ended with same 0.6 − 1.2 1.262303 0.488464 0.3526981 − 0.644406
solution for 𝛾 . − 1.23 0.965733 0.128408 0.587498 − 0.337102
Note that the derived quantities 𝜙� (𝜁) and 𝜙�� (𝜁) have − 1.235 0.866193 0.052358 0.696429 − 0.200633
already been determined from (17) to (18) for all the sys- − 1.2359 0.873745 0.022151 0.7586299 − 0.123820
tem parameters. Also, the case of the Newtonian fluid where 1.4 − 1.0 0.869327 0.736086 -0.011855 − 0.419619
n = 1 can easily be recovered from (45) studied by Sharma − 1.1 0.691878 0.371697 0.200902 − 0.258112
et al. [26] who have discovered the stability of two-dimen- − 1.14 0.475525 0.045811 0.406218 − 0.023783
sional boundary-layer flow in the presence of applied mag- − 1.1406 0.462284 0.031907 0.419611 − 0.017995
netic field.
To understand and validate the results obtained from
(45) to (46), we first examine the solutions in terms of the increasing for 𝜆 . When 𝛾 > 0 and 𝜉 → ∞ (or t → ∞ ), the
eigensolutions 𝛾 and F(𝜁) for n = 1 and for both the first second term in (43) vanishes leading to 𝜙(𝜁) = 𝜙(𝜁 ̂ ) , a
and second solutions. The corresponding results have been physical solution whereas 𝛾 < 0 leading to unstable solu-
shown in Fig. 8 for selected values of m. The hollow circles tion. However, 𝛾 = 0 (neutral case) is never encountered
on the curve for m = 0 correspond to the results obtained in the present study.
by Sharma et al. [26]. The eigenvalues presented in Fig. 8 Just analogous to the above results for the Newtonian
for various m and n = 1 correspond to the results presented fluid, we perform stability of the Ostwald-de Waele fluid
in Fig. 2 for the first and second solutions. Note that black for n < 1 and n > 1 using the system (45)–(46). The eigen-
circles on each line represent the critical eigenvalue at which values 𝛾 (both negative and positive ) for n = 0.6 and n = 0.8
eigenvalue changes its sign. The first solutions that are rep- are given in Fig. 9 and for n = 1.2 and n = 1.4 are given in
resented by the positive eigenvalues are always correspond Fig. 10 for various values of m. The results given in these
to the stable flows. All eigenvalues are found to be increas- figures correspond to those given in Figs. 4 and 5 for the
ing for increasing 𝜆 from the critical 𝜆c . The second solu- same parameters. The similar results noticed in these figures
tions always represent the unstable flow which are described are just analogous to the case of Newtonian fluid. Again, all
by the negative eigenvalue. Also, all negative eigenvalues eigenvalues for shear-thinning fluids are larger than those of
decrease when 𝜆 is increased from 𝜆c. the shear-thickening fluids for each 𝜆 tested. Similar to n = 1
Table 4 presents the positive and negative eigenvalues case, the eigenvalue 𝛾 variations with 𝜆 are more straightfor-
that correspond to the first (stable) and second (unstable) ward: they all increase as 𝜆 increases for the first solution,
solutions for two values of n and m = 0.7 . For both solu- and these eigenvalues are higher for greater value of the
tions, an absolute eigenvalue decreases for decreasing 𝜆 . pressure gradient m. The increase of eigenvalue 𝛾 with 𝜆 is
In case of the stable flow, all eigenvalues are positive and more rapid at the beginning; however, when 𝜆 is greater than
−0.5 (−0.2 for m = 0 ), there is a gradual variation. This is
qualitatively similar to the findings of the Newtonian fluid
by Sharma et al. [26], where they found for the magnetic
field. Also, for the second solutions, the eigenvalues 𝛾 are
found to be decreasing for increasing 𝜆 . For m = 0, the curve
becomes flatter for all n. Looking at the nature of the (𝛾, 𝜆)
space, the smallest eigenvalue for the first solution always
represents the stable flow. The numerical solution of the sys-
tem (45)–(46) for the eigensolution F(𝜁) for m = 0 and for
selected values of n is given. The eigensolutions are obtained
for both first and second solutions and are given in Fig. 11.
These perturbed solutions obtained by setting F �� (0) = 1 and
thus show that all the profiles satisfy the boundary condi-
tions asymptotically. The first solutions are smaller than the
Fig. 8  Variation of an eigenvalue 𝛾 with 𝜆 for various m and for New- corresponding second solutions which is clearly seen in the
tonian fluid. These eigenvalues are obtained by solving (45)–(46) figure. The domain of convergence for the second solution

13

Fig. 9  Eigenvalue variation for (a)
shear-thinning fluids
Fig. 10  Eigenvalue variation for (a)
shear-thickening fluids
Fig. 11  Variation of eigensolu- (a)
tion F(𝜁) as a function of 𝜁 for
both a first and b second solu-
tions for different n 
is quite larger, as expected, than the first solutions, similar
to the results shown in Fig. 6.
The eigenvalues that describe the stability of the power-
law fluid in the two-dimensional boundary-layer flow over
a moving wedge enables us to identify precisely, for asymp-
totically large time, which of the two solutions is stable.
These eigenvalues (both positive and negative) essentially
produce an intriguing tongue-like structure in (𝛾, 𝜆) space
for all m and n. The presence of tongue-like solutions means
that, for given physical parameters, as 𝜆 is decreased from
−1 (from 0 for m = 0 ) to a critical value, the eigenvalues
increase showing that the base solution is unstable which is
expected. However, with a further increase in 𝜆 to 1 from a
critical value, the base flow becomes stable as the eigenval-
ues become positive. It is possible to explain the physical
mechanism behind this tongue phenomenon that the first and
second solutions of the power-law rheological model consist
13
Engineering with Computers
(b)
(b)
(b)
of different modes. More importantly, we observed that the
first solution is always associated with mode-one, while the
other one has mode-two. Even mode-three are also discov-
ered for some parameters. Mode-two have been reported by
Denier and Dabrowski [10] when the power-law index is
taken to be 2 and 𝜆 = 0 . It is also noted that for increas-
ing modes, the solutions become increasingly oscillatory in
which the reverse flows are possible.
6 Conclusions
The linear stability of the flow of Ostwald de Waele fluid
over a moving wedge is studied numerically using the shifted
Chebyshev collocation and shooting methods. The base flow
represented by the Falkner–Skan equation that incorporates
the power-law fluid is derived from the two-dimensional
Engineering with Computers

boundary-layer equations using appropriate similarity trans- [ ( )

̂ 𝜂) 1 3
E( ̂ =e−𝜂̂ c1 U (2 + (n + 1)𝛽); ;𝜂̂
formations. The self-similar results produce that there are 2 2
( )] (51)
double solutions for some values of 𝜆 and m for both shear- 1 1
+c2 L − (2 + (n + 1)𝛽); ;𝜂̂ ,
thinning and shear-thickening fluids. It is noticed that the 2 2
boundary-layer thickness is thinner for n < 1 for which the
where 𝛽 = 2m
 , U(⋅, ⋅, ⋅) , and L(⋅, ⋅, ⋅) are the confluent
flow is always adhered to the wedge. It is also shown that 1+(2n−1)m

the viscosity modified by shear-thinning power-law fluids hypergeometric function of second kind and Lauguerre func-
n < 1 is infinite in the confinement of the boundary layer for tion, respectively, and c1 and c2 are arbitrary constants
longer shear flow, whereas it is always finite for shear-thick- (Abramowitz and Stegun [28] and Andrews [29]). The spe-
ening fluids. To realize the nature of double solutions, the cial functions U and L can be transformed into the confluent
long-time behavior of the base flow is sought which essen- hypergeometric function of first kind using:
tially produces a linear eigenvalue problem. When the first [
𝜋 M(̂p, q̂ , ẑ )
solution is assumed as the base flow, all the eigenvalues are U(̂p, q̂ , ẑ ) =
sin(̂q𝜋) Γ(1 + p̂ − q̂ )Γ(̂q)
positive that describes the flow is stable, while the second ] (52a)
solution is always unstable. The eigenvalues structure shows 1−̂q M(1 + p
̂ − q̂ , 2 − q̂ , ẑ )
−̂z
that, depending on the system parameters, the system may Γ(2 − q̂ )Γ(̂p)
lose stability to mode-two as the velocity ratio is increased
from a critical value. Extensive comparisons are also done Γ(̂p + q̂ + 1)
with earlier works in which the Newtonian case serves as
L(̂p, q̂ , ẑ ) = M(−̂p, 1 + q̂ , ẑ ). (52b)
Γ(1 + p̂ ) Γ(1 + q̂ )
benchmark results.
Therefore, (51) can be written utilizing (52) in original vari-
Acknowledgements  Authors are grateful to the SERB (Science ables (49) as:
and Engineering Research Technology Board), New Delhi, India,
for providing financial assistance under Core Research Grant
2
𝜂
− n(n+1) 𝜂
(CRG/2019/004806) to carry out our work. Authors also thank the E(𝜂) = e √
anonymous referees for their constructive comments that enhanced the
n(n + 1)
quality of the paper.
� �
⎡ ⎡ 2+(n+1)𝛽 3 𝜂2
⎢ √ ⎢ M 2
; ;
2 n(n+1)
⎢c1 (− 𝜋)⎢2 � �
Compliance with ethical standards  ⎢ ⎢ Γ 1+(n+1)𝛽
⎣ ⎣ 2
Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no conflict of � �
√ 1+(n+1)𝛽 1 𝜂2 ⎤
interest. n(n + 1) M ; ;
2 2 n(n+1) ⎥
− � � ⎥
𝜂 Γ 2+(n+1)𝛽 ⎥
2 ⎦
� �
Appendix Γ 1−(n+1)𝛽 � �⎤
2 2 2 + (n + 1)𝛽 3 𝜂2 ⎥
+c2 √ � �M
2 n(n + 1) ⎥⎥
; ; .
Substituting (37) in (17)–(18) and upon linearization , we 𝜋 Γ −(n+1)𝛽 2
2 ⎦
have:
(53)
2 4m Using the first condition E(0) = 𝜆 − 1 in (53) gives:
nE�� (𝜂) + 𝜂E� (𝜂) − E(𝜂) = 0 (47)
n+1 1 + (2n − 1)m � �
1 2 + (n + 1)𝛽
with the conditions: c1 = √ (𝜆 − 1) Γ . (54)
𝜋 2
E(0) = 𝜆 − 1, E(∞) = 0. (48)
To eliminate c2 , we utilize:
Using the transformations:
e±i𝜋 p̂ ẑ −̂p Γ(̂q) eẑ ẑ p̂ −̂q Γ(̂q)
𝜂2 M(̂p, q̂ , ẑ ) = + (55)
E(𝜂) = E(𝜂),
̂ 𝜂̂ = (49) Γ(̂q − p̂ ) Γ(̂p)
n(n + 1)
for ẑ → ∞ in (53) gives c2 = 0 . Thus, the complete solution
in (47), we get: is:
( ) ( )
1 n+1 ̂
𝜂̂ 𝐄̂ �� (𝜂)
̂ + + 𝜂̂ 𝐄̂ � (𝜂)
̂ −𝛽 ̂ = 0,
𝐄(𝜂) (50)
2 2
which has a solution:

13
 Engineering with Computers

� � 11. Ishak A, Nazar R, Pop I (2011) Moving wedge and flat plate in a
2+(1+n)𝛽
2(1 − 𝜆) Γ 2 power-law fluid. Int J Non-Linear Mech 46(8):1017–1021
2 − 𝜂
E(𝜂) = √ � � 𝜂 e n(n+1) 12. Griffiths PT, Stephen SO, Basson AP, Garrett SJ (2014) Stability
n(n + 1) Γ 1+(1+n)𝛽 of the boundary layer on a rotating disk for the power-law fluids. J
2
� � Non-Linear Fluid Mech 207:1–6
2 + (n + 1)𝛽 3 𝜂2 (56) 13. Griffiths PT (2017) Stability of the shear thinning boundary layer
M ; ; flow over a flat inclined plate. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A Math Phys
2 2 n(n + 1)
� � Eng Sci 473(2205):20170350 (1-13). https​://doi.org/10.1098/
− 𝜂2 1 + (n + 1)𝛽 1 𝜂2 rspa.2017.0350
+ (𝜆 − 1) e n(n+1) M ; ;
2 2 n(n + 1) 14. Longo S, Di Federico V, Chiapponi L, Archetti R (2013) Experi-
mental verification of power-law non-Newtonian axisymmetric
using Kummer’s transformation, we arrive at (39). Further- porous gravity currents. J Fluid Mech 731(R2):1–12. https​://doi.
org/10.1017/jfm.2013.389
more, following Abramowitz and Stegun [28], asymptotic 15. Nouar C, Bottaro A, Brancher JP (2007) Delaying transition to tur-
behavior of (56) of large 𝜁 can be approximated at leading bulence in channel flow: revisiting the stability of shear-thinning
order as: fluids. J Fluid Mech 592:177–194. https​://doi.org/10.1017/S0022​
11200​70084​39
E(𝜂) ≈ C1 Z 𝛽 + C2 Z −(1+𝛽) EeZ + O|Z|R , (57) 16. Nouar C, Frigaard I (2009) Stability of plane Couette-Poiseuille
flow of shear-thinning fluid. Phys Fluids 21:064104. https​://doi.
org/10.1063/1.31526​32
2
where Z = −𝜁2  , and C1 and C2 are taken as appropriate con-
17. Ali-Benyahia K, Sbartaï Z-M, Breysse D, Kenai S, Ghrici M (2017)
stants. Or more precisely: Analysis of the single and combined non-destructive test approaches
for on-site concrete strength assessment: General statements based
E(𝜂) ≈ C1 Z 𝛽 + C2 Z −(1+𝛽) EeZ . (58) on a real case-study. Case Stud Constr Mater 6:109–119
18. Roohi R, Heydari MH, Bavi O, Emdad H (2019) Chebyshev poly-
Accordingly, the following conclusions can be drawn from nomials for generalized Couette flow of fractional Jeffrey nanofuid
(58) that: subjected to several thermochemical effects. Eng Comput. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/s0036​6-019-00843​-9
19. Boyd JP (2001) Chebyshev and Fourier spectral methods, 2(Revised)
1. At m = 0 : the first term behaves as constant, whereas edn. Dover publications, Mineola
the second term decays asymptotically to zero. Hence, 20. Daşçıoğlu A, Yaslan H (2011) The solution of high-order nonlinear
the combination of both these terms tends to zero for ordinary differential equations by Chebyshev polynomials. Appl
sufficiently large 𝜁 . Math Comput 217(2):5658–5666
21. Sachdev PL, Kudenatti RB, Bujurke NM (2008) Exact analytic solu-
2. For m > 0 : the first term diverges algebraically, while tion of a boundary value problem for the Falkner-Skan equation.
the second term decays to zero asymptotically. Further- Stud Appl Math 120(1):1–16
more, their linear combination becomes zero at large 𝜁 . 22. Kudenatti RB, Kirsur SR, Achala LN, Bujurke NM (2013) MHD
boundary layer flow over a non-linear stretching boundary with suc-
tion and injection. Int J Non-Linear Mech 50:58–67
23. Riley N, Weidman PD (1989) Multiple solutions of the Falkner-Skan
References equation for a flow past a stretching boundary. SIAM J Appl Math
49(5):1350–1358
1. Schowalter WR (1960) The application of boundary-layer theory 24. Yacob NA, Ishak A, Pop I (2011) Falkner-Skan problem for a static
to power-law pseudoplastic fluids: similar solutions. AIChE J or moving wedge in nanofluids. Int J Therm Sci 50:133–139
6(1):24–28 25. Weidman PD, Kubitschek DG, Davis AMJ (2006) The effect of tran-
2. Bird RB, Armstrong RC, Hassager O (1987) Dynamics of polymeric spiration on self-similar boundary layer flow over moving surfaces.
liquids. vol 1: Fluid mechanics. Wiley, New York Int J Eng Sci 44:730–737
3. Chhabra RP (1993) Bubbles, drops and particles in non-Newtonian 26. Sharma R, Ishak A, Pop I (2014) Stability analysis of magnetohydro-
fluid. CRC press, Boca Raton dynamic stagnation-point flow toward a stretching/shrinking sheet.
4. Andersson HI, Irgens F (1990) Film flow of power-law fluids. In: Comput Fluids 102:94–98
Cheremisinoff NP (ed) Encyclopedia of fluid mechanic, polymer 27. Harris SD, Ingham DB, Pop I (2009) Mixed convection bound-
flow engineering, vol 9. Gulf Publishing, Houston ary-layer flow near the stagnation point on a vertical surface in a
5. Andersson HI, Dandapat BS (1991) Flow of a power-law over a porous medium: Brinkman model with slip. Transp. Porous Media
stretching sheet. Stab Contin Media 1:339–347 77:267–285
6. Acrivos A, Shah MJ, Petersen EE (1960) Momentum and heat trans- 28. Abramowitz M, Stegun I (1970) Handbook of mathematical func-
fer in laminar boundary-layer flows of non-Newtonian fluids past tions with formulas, graph and mathematical tables, 9th edn. Dover
external surfaces. AIChE J 6(2):312–317 publications, New York
7. Shah MJ (1961) PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA 29. Andrews L (1998) Special functions of mathematics for engineers,
8. Gorla RSR, Dakappagari P, Pop I (1993) Boundary layer flow 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
at a three-dimensional stagnation point in power-law non-New-
tonian fluids. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 14(4):408–412. https​://doi. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
org/10.1016/0142-727X(93)90015​-F jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
9. Wu J, Thompson MC (1996) Non-Newtonian shear-thinning flows
past a flat plate. J Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech 66:127–144
10. Denier JP, Dabrowski PP (2004) On the boundary layer equations
for power-law fluids. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A Math Phys Eng Sci
460(2051):3143–3158

13