Numerical solution of convection–diffusion–

reaction equations by a finite element

method with error correlation
Cite as: AIP Advances 11, 085225 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0050792
Submitted: 18 March 2021 • Accepted: 08 August 2021 • Published Online: 24 August 2021

Sadia Akter Lima, Md. Kamrujjaman and Md. Shafiqul Islam

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Numerical solution of the unsteady diffusion-convection-reaction equation based on

improved spectral Galerkin method
AIP Advances 8, 045314 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5023332

Numerical solutions of reaction-diffusion equations: Application to neural and cardiac

models
American Journal of Physics 84, 626 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4953167

Analytical solutions to the fractional advection-diffusion equation with time-dependent

pulses on the boundary
AIP Advances 6, 075318 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4960108

AIP Advances 11, 085225 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0050792 11, 085225

© 2021 Author(s).
 AIP Advances ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/adv

Numerical solution
of convection–diffusion–reaction equations
by a finite element method with error correlation
Cite as: AIP Advances 11, 085225 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0050792
Submitted: 18 March 2021 • Accepted: 8 August 2021 •
Published Online: 24 August 2021

Sadia Akter Lima,1,a) Md. Kamrujjaman,2,3,b) and Md. Shafiqul Islam1,c)

AFFILIATIONS
1
Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Dhaka, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh
2
Department of Mathematics, University of Dhaka, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh
3
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada

a)
Email: sadialima92@gmail.com
b)
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: kamrujjaman@du.ac.bd
c)
Email: mdshafiqul@du.ac.bd

ABSTRACT
This study contemplates the Finite Element Method (FEM), a well-known numerical method, to find numerical approximations of the
Convection–Diffusion–Reaction (CDR) equation. We concentrate on analyzing the convergence and stability of the nonlinear parabolic
partial equations. The method is generally applied without truncating the nonlinear terms and avoiding restrictive assumptions. Regular
and irregular geometrical shapes are the key objective of this research paper. This study also focuses on the accuracy and acceptance of
the FEM method by utilizing dissipation error, dispersion error, and total error analysis. The results are portrayed both graphically and in
a tabular form, which virtually ensures the method’s validity and the algorithm’s efficiency to sustain the accuracy, simplicity, and appli-
cability for solving nonlinear CDR equations. The proposed technique may also be applied for solving any nonlinear reaction–diffusion
equations.
© 2021 Author(s). All article content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0050792

I. INTRODUCTION is the computational cost to achieve higher accuracy. To over-

Modeling real life and industrial problems by applying par-
tial differential equations (PDEs) is challenging for researchers and
scientists. A considerable number of problems arise from model-
ing nonlinear systems of differential equations. Researchers have
attempted to solve these problems analytically or numerically using
different methods and equations to obtain higher accuracy levels.
Among them, the explicit and implicit Finite Difference Method
(FDM),1,2 Galerkin and modified Galerkin methods,3–5 spectral
collocation method,6,7 sub-domain least squares method,8 shoot-
ing method,1 and decomposition method9 are frequently used in
numerical analysis. The FDM has been used widely despite some
limitations; by using this method, we can get the solutions at
particular grid points, but it cannot obtain the solutions at
every single point between two grid points. The next drawback
come these obstacles, for some time, the Galerkin Finite Ele-
ment Method (GFEM)3 played the most important role in solv-
ing engineering and industrial problems, including complicated
geometries and material properties. This extensively used Galerkin
weighted residual method shows the approximate results between
any two grid points, even in the problem’s complex domain. The
Galerkin finite element method is widely used in solving linear
and nonlinear ordinary, partial,10–12 and fractional order differential
equations.13,14
For instance, the convection–diffusion–reaction (CDR)
equation can depict practical problems, and considering the
CDR equation’s importance, many researchers have invented
some numerical schemes. Its potential uses have attracted a
lot of attention.3 Among the above-mentioned methods, the
Finite Element Method (FEM) provides the most accurate

AIP Advances 11, 085225 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0050792 11, 085225-1

© Author(s) 2021
 AIP Advances
solutions of linear and nonlinear CDR equations and parabolic
equations.
The importance of convection, diffusion, and reaction is
that these three factors can be used to make several physical
problems explain how the concentration of one or more sub-
stances distributed in a medium changes under the influence of
the three processes.1,3 The reaction is interaction, and convec-
tion presents the movement of substances due to the transport
medium. At the same time, diffusion maintains the substance’s uni-
form distribution by confirming the substance’s movement from
a higher concentration to a lower one and vice versa depending
on the applications. In brief, the Convection–Diffusion–Reaction
(CDR) model is a mathematical model that describes how
the concentration of the substance is distributed.4,5,8 In this
paper, this event is represented by partial differential equations
(PDEs).
The upwind forward Euler finite difference scheme, the non-
standard FDM, and the classical finite difference process have
been mentioned in the literature.15 In 2013, Chen-Charpentier and
Kojouharov proposed the unconditionally positive finite difference
method,16 and the von Neumann stability analysis was directly con-
sidered in Ref. 15 to study the stability for the linear CDR equation.
In the case of the nonlinear diffusion-reaction, at first, Mphephu
froze the coefficients and then applied the von Neumann stabil-
ity analysis in Ref. 15. An efficient and conventional algorithm for
higher-dimensional CDR equations with MHD flow has been devel-
oped in Ref. 17. The convection–diffusion–reaction equation has
many vital applications, which includes
1. the transport of air,
2. pollutants in soil adsorption,
3. neutron diffusion,
4. food processing,
5. oil reservoir flow transport,
6. the reaction of chemical species,
7. fluid mechanics and nonlinear acoustics,
8. gas dynamics, traffic flow, and number theory,
9. heat conduction with elasticity, and
10. modeling of biological systems and semiconductors.
In a few literature studies, some new types of the exact solutions
of the (2 + 1)-dimensional Date–Jimbo–Kashiwara–Miwa (DJKM)
equation was obtained using the Lie symmetry method.18 In Ref. 19,
a new solitary wave solution for the (3 + 1)-dimensional general-
ized shallow water wave (GSWW) equation was introduced, show-
ing the use of an optimal system of Lie symmetry vectors with 12
Lie dimension spaced governing equations. Kumar et al.20 thought
of the requirements of the generalized exponential rational func-
tion method and tried to figure out the exact solitary wave solutions
in various forms of the strain wave equation. Multiple solutions,
bell-shaped solutions, traveling waves, and trigonometric and ratio-
nal solutions have been explored in this paper. In Refs. 21–23, the
(2 + 1)-dimensional Nizhnik–Novikov–Vesselov (NNV) equations
have been studied using different types of mathematical meth-
ods to find out the exact analytical solutions of the NNV sys-
tem in numerous forms. Recently, Kumar et al.24,25 constructed
a (4 + 1)-dimensional Fokas equation to analyze the Lie sym-
metry. Therefore,3 they introduced a higher-dimensional equation
AIP Advances 11, 085225 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0050792
© Author(s) 2021
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/adv
and derived its Lie symmetries and one-dimensional optimal
systems.
While focusing on the partial differential equations, Sungnul
et al. analyzed the behavior of a modified Burgers equation
by using the finite difference method to gain numerical solu-
tions.26 In addition, the Burgers–Fisher equation, an impor-
tant convection–diffusion–reaction equation, occurs in multiple
branches of applied sciences and biological applications:
● traffic flow including the modeling of gas dynamics and
● financial mathematics and fluid mechanics.
Kocacoban et al. solved the Burgers–Fisher problem by apply-
ing various numerical schemes27 that showed relatively faster con-
vergence than other plots. Illustrative examples suggested that
this powerful series approach finds numerical solutions to the
Burgers–Fisher equation. An approximate solution of these equa-
tions by applying iterative methods was found by Behzadi and
Fariborzi Araghi.28 Considering previous studies, it has been per-
ceived that analytical solutions of convection–diffusion–reaction
equations are very scarce. As a result, many researchers have decided
to advance to accurate and efficient numerical methods. Among
those numerical methods, the Finite Difference Method (FDM) pro-
duces potential outcomes and has been widely used despite some
limitations, such as being unable to obtain the solutions at every
single point between two grid points. The second drawback is the
computational cost to obtain higher accuracy.
Hence, to overcome these obstacles, the FEM becomes the
most popular numerical method for solving physical and biological
problems. Islam et al.29 explored numerical solutions of the ini-
tial value problem (IVP) using the finite element method with the
Taylor series. They introduced an integration technique to approx-
imate the numerical solution of an IVP of differential equations.
Gauss–Legendre quadrature rules were used for evaluation, expand-
ing two-variable functions applied into the Taylor series, to get bet-
ter accuracy in the formulation of the present method. In Ref. 30,
Yingjun and Jingtang endeavored to improve high-order methods
for solving time-fractional PDEs based on the higher-order finite
element method for space.
In this paper, we consider the general nonlinear CDR model in
the following form with Dirichlet boundary conditions:
⎧ ∂U ∂U ∂2U
⎪
⎪
⎪ +U = d 2 + f (U(x, t)), x ∈ Ω ≡ [α, β], t > 0,
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∂t ∂x ∂x
⎪
⎪
⎪ U(x, 0) = U0 (x), x ∈ Ω, (1)
⎨
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ U(α, t) = Uα (t), t > 0, x ∈ ∂Ω,
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ U(β, t) = U (t),
⎪
⎩ β t > 0, x ∈ ∂Ω.
In the proposed system (1), U ∂U is the nonlinear convection
2
∂x
term, ∂∂xU2 is the diffusion term, d is the diffusion coefficient, and
f (U(x, t)) is the reaction term. Here, U α (t) and U β (t) represent
the functions of time, t, and the initial condition, and U 0 (x) rep-
resents the function of the spatial variable, x. The notation Ω is a
bounded region in Rj , where j = {1, 2, 3}, with a smooth boundary
∂Ω ∈ C2+δ , 0 < δ < 1. The left boundary point is α, and the right one
is β; both α, β ∈ R. It is noted that the reaction function f (U(x, t))
is smooth enough.
11, 085225-2
 AIP Advances ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/adv

For simplicity, let us define A = Ω × (0, T], T > 0 and This yields
Ω ≡ [α, β] such that (x, t) ∈ A, which will be used throughout the
paper. ∂ Ũ ∂ Ũ dψi ∂ Ũ
The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II, a rigorous for- ∫ ∂t ψi (x)dx + ∫ Ũ ∂x ψi (x)dx + d∫ dx ∂x dx
e e e
mulation of our proposed scheme, the FEM, has been derived for
the governing equation (1) for better understanding. The conver- ∂ Ũ
− ∫ f (Ũ)ψi (x)dx = d[ ψi (x)] . (5)
gence of this method and stability analysis along with the iterative ∂x e
e
schemes are placed in Sec. III. Section IV presents the quantification
error analysis to ensure the efficiency and accuracy of the method. At this stage, after using Eq. (2) and simplification, the usual matrix
The applications of general method formulation are implemented form can be written as
in Sec. V, considering the boundary value problems (31), (36),
and (39). Error maps and tabular results are also presented in this daj (t)
Ci,j + Ki,j aj (t) = Fi , (6)
section. Concluding remarks and general discussion can be found dt
in Sec. VI.
In Sec. II, we discuss the formulation of the FEM for the
nonlinear CDR equation.
⎧
⎪
⎪ ⎛n ⎞
⎪
⎪
⎪ Ci,j = ∫ ∑ ψj ψi (x)dx, Ki,j = Li,j + Di,j + Si,j ,
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎝ j=1 ⎠
⎪
⎪ e
II. FORMULATION OF THE FEM FOR THE CDR ⎪
EQUATION
⎪
⎪
⎪ dψ1 dψ2 ⎛ n ⎞ dψi dψj
⎨ Li,j = ∫ (a1 + a2 ) ∑ ψj ψi dx, Di,j = d∫ dx,
⎪
⎪
⎪ e dx dx ⎝ j=1 ⎠ dx dx
It is very challenging to find an analytical solution to prob- ⎪ e
⎪
⎪
lems that develop from real-life issues; hence, numerical methods
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎛n ⎞ ∂ Ũ
⎪
⎪
⎪ Si,j = −∫ f ∑ ψj ψi dx, Fi = d[ ψi (x)] .
can significantly help us obtain approximate solutions. One of the ⎪
⎪
⎩ e ⎝ j=1 ⎠ ∂x e
most efficient numerical methods is the finite element method, and (7)
it is used in fields such as heat and mass transfer, electromag- Usually, Ci,j is the capacity or heat capacity integral and is
netism, and biomedical engineering. The finite element method is known as the capacity matrix. In Eq. (7), Li,j is obtained from
acknowledged for its vigorous discretization of differential equa- the nonlinear convection term, Di,j , from the diffusion term, and
tions to a finite quantity of mesh points and then approximating Si,j , from the source term. After assembling, we get the following
the solution. In this section, we will formulate the FEM for the convenient matrix form:
convection–diffusion–reaction equation’s numerical solution. Con-
vection is the movement of materials from one region to another, CU̇ + KU = F. (8)
while diffusion moves materials from a high rally area to a low gath-
ering region. The reaction term represents decay, adsorption, and This represents a first-order ordinary differential system with one
the reaction of substances with other components. independent variable t, and we can discretize U̇(= ȧj ) as
To derive the formulation of (1), let the trial solution be of the
form Uj+1 − Uj
U̇ = , (9)
n Δt
Ũ(x, t) = ∑ aj (t)ψj (x), (2)
j=1 and we have to use a particular value of Δt. After introducing Eq. (9)
and completing a straightforward calculation, Eq. (8) provides us
where the parameter aj is the function of t. For this kind of problem,
we are interested in using two linear shape functions CUj+1 + (KΔt − C)Uj = FΔt. (10)

1−γ 1+γ The nodal values U j+1 can be obtained by using the row–column
L1 (γ) = , L2 (γ) = , γ ∈ [−1, 1]. (3)
2 2 operation, and for the first approximation, one may choose
the initial values obtained from the initial condition. In
Instead of using quadratic and other shape functions, linear shape Sec. III, we analyze the convergence and stability of the general
functions are preferable because they are easy to handle and give bet- convection–diffusion–reaction equation.
ter accuracy.31 Hence, the weighted residual equation for this CDR
equation for a particular element [e] is III. CONVERGENCE AND STABILITY ANALYSIS
Let us consider Li (ξ) ∈ H12 , i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n, where Li (ξ) repre-
∂ Ũ ∂ Ũ ∂ 2 Ũ sents the shape functions and H12 means the Hilbert space. Here, the
∫ [ ∂t + Ũ ∂x − d ∂x2 − f (U(x, t))]ψi (x)dx = 0
diffusion coefficient, d, is a constant, and f (U(x, t)) is a continuous
e
function so that the solution of Eq. (1) is unique.15 After substitut-
∂ Ũ ∂ Ũ ing the trial solution (2) into the CDR model (1), we require Eq. (6),
⇒∫ [ ψi (x) + Ũ ψi (x)
∂t ∂x which can be rewritten in the following form:
e

∂ 2 Ũ
+ C−1 KU(t) = C−1 F.
−d ψi (x) − f (Ũ(x, t))ψi (x)]dx = 0. (4) dU(t)
∂x2 (11)
dt

AIP Advances 11, 085225 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0050792 11, 085225-3

© Author(s) 2021
 AIP Advances ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/adv

Equation (11) is taken into account as an initial value problem with scheme becomes unstable and conversely stable. The necessary and
the following initial conditions: sufficient condition for the error to be bounded is

dUi ([B] − λmax [I]){U} = 0. (17)

+ Φi Ui = τi ,
dt (12)
Ui (0) = ψ(ξ). Equation (17) is an unconditionally stable eigenvalue problem. If
λmax is less than or equal to unity for any Δt, that is, a time step,
In this situation, it is urgent to determine an integrating factor for then Eq. (17) will be conditionally stable, where λmax is less than or
Eq. (12), that is, equal to unity with the dependence on Δt. Our considered numeri-
cal scheme is stable for the time increase that satisfies the following
e∫ Φi dt
= eΦi t . condition:

If we multiply Eq. (12) by the integrating factor over (0, T], then we 2 1
Δt < , α< .
will be able to find out U i as follows: (1 − 2α)λmax 2
T
IV. QUANTIFICATION OF ERRORS
Ui eΦi t = ∫ eΦi ζ τi (ζ)dζ
0
Being inspired by the research by Takacs (1985),33,34 we eval-
T T
−Φi t Φi ζ −Φi (t−ζ) uate the errors of numerical schemes. For doing that, let us con-
⇒ Ui = e ∫ e τi (ζ)dζ = ∫ e τi (ζ)dζ (13)
0 0 sider that Pi represents an analytical solution, and U i stands for
and the numerical solution. Then the approximate absolute error will be
calculated by
1 T
∣Ui ∣2 ≤ ∣τi (ζ)∣2 dζ. (14) E = ∣Pi − Ui ∣. (18)
2Φi ∫0
Hence, in energy norms, for a fixed time t, we obtain To find the total mean square error, it is convenient to consider
n n T
1 1 N
∥Ũ(x, t)∥2E = ∑ ∣Ui (t)∣2 Φi ≤ ∑ ( ∫ ∣τi (ζ)∣2 dζ)Φi Etms = 2
∑ (Pi − Ui ) . (19)
i=1 i=1 2Φi 0 N i=1
n
1 T
= ∑ ( ∫ ∣τi (ζ)∣2 dζ). In addition, the sample variance of analytical and numerical solu-
2 0
i=1 tions are denoted by δ2 (P) and δ2 (U) and expressed, respectively,
Therefore, the series represented by Eq. (2) converges for a particular by
value of t. Let us assume that the space of the (m − 1) times contin-
uously differentiable function is Rm,n on Ω, which is the closure of 1 N
δ2 (P) = 2
∑ (Pi − P̄i ) , (20)
the domain and the boundary to Ωi , i = 0, 1, 2, . . . , λ–1, which indi- N i=1
cates a polynomial of the (n − 1)th degree, and n is in each element
number of the local nodes. Let us allow the trial solution Ũ(x, t) for
a particular value of t such that Ũ(x, t) ∈ Rm,n . Then it is required 1 N
δ2 (U) = 2
∑ (Ui − Ūi ) . (21)
that N i=1
∂ Ũ Then we obtain by the expansion of sample variance as
( , χ) + β(Ũ, χ) = (Ψ, χ)0 , (15)
∂t 0
1 N 2 2 N 1 N 2
where (⋅, ⋅)0 = the inner product and β(⋅, ⋅) = bilinear transforma- δ2 (P) = ∑ Pi − ∑ Pi P̄i + ∑ P̄i , (22)
N i=1 N i=1 N i=1
tion shown in Refs. 15 and 32. It is true that instead of a system of
ordinary differential equations (ODEs), an initial value problem is
provided by Eq. (15) whose results will converge to the exact solu- 1 N 2 2 N 1 N 2
tion of the trial solution for a particular t with a decrease in the δ2 (U) = ∑ Ui − ∑ Ui Ūi + ∑ Ūi . (23)
N i=1 N i=1 N i=1
increments.
When an iterative scheme is numerically stable, then it is quite
Consequently, the total mean square error is defined as
easy to apply. Now, Eq. (10) can be written as
1 N 1 N 2 N
{U}j+1 = [B]{U}j + C−1 {F}j . (16) Etms = 2 2
∑ (Pi − P̄i ) + ∑ (Ui − Ūi ) + ∑ Pi P̄i
N i=1 N i=1 N i=1
Here, {U}j+1 and {U}j represent the solutions at time (t + 1) and t, 2 N 1 N 2 1 N 2 2 N
respectively, and the solution {U}j+1 depends on the value of {U}j . + ∑ Ui Ūi − ∑ Pi − ∑ Ui − ∑ Pi Ui . (24)
N i=1 N i=1 N i=1 N i=1
That is why the error may occur with the iteration. When the error
grows in an unbounded way with the iteration, then the iterative Introducing (22) and (23) in Eq. (24), we get

AIP Advances 11, 085225 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0050792 11, 085225-4

© Author(s) 2021
 AIP Advances ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/adv

1 the CDR equation (32), which is obtained by setting a = 1, d = 1,

Etms = δ2 (P) + δ2 (U) + (P̄ − Ū)2 − 2( ∑ Pi Ui − P̄Ū)
N and f (U) = −U in Eq. (31) with the domain Ω ∈ [0, 10]. Finally, the
2 2 2 following equation is demonstrated for numerical simulations:
⇒ Etms = δ (P) + δ (U) + (P̄ − Ū) − 2Cov(P, U). (25)

In addition, the coefficient of correlation is given by ∂U ∂U ∂ 2 U

+ − = −U, (x, t) ∈ A ≡ [0, 10] × (0, T], T > 0.
Cov(P, U) ∂t ∂x ∂x2
Υ= , (26) (32)
δ(P)δ(U) In addition, its initial and boundary conditions are given by Eqs. (33)
and (34), respectively:
where the covariance is

Cov(P, U) = Υδ(P)δ(U). (27) U(x, 0) = e−x , x ∈ [0, 10], (33)

After completing substitution of Eq. (27) in (25), the required

result is U(0, t) = et , U(10, t) = et−10 , t ∈ (0, T], x ∈ ∂Ω. (34)
Etms = (δ(P) − δ(U))2 + (P̄ − Ū)2 + 2(1 − Υ)δ(P)δ(U). (28) The corresponding analytic solution of this
When Υ = 1, then convection–diffusion–reaction equation is

Etms = (δ(P) − δ(U))2 + (P̄ − Ū)2 . (29) U(x, t) = et−x . (35)

Finally, Eq. (28) implies that 2(1 − Υ)δ(P)δ(U) = 0 is known as the

dispersion error; then (δ(P) − δ(U))2 + (P̄ − Ū)2 is known as the Here, we have computed the approximate solution using the
dissipation error, and the error rate with respect to the L1 norm can derived formulation of our proposed scheme to validate this scheme
be expressed as with the exact solution of the CDR equation (32). In that case, the
finite number of an element is n = 10, and two linear shape func-
1 N tions are represented by Eq. (3). Eventually, completing a proper
Enum = ∑ ∣Pi − Ui ∣. (30) simplification, the convenient matrix form is equivalent to Eq. (6),
N i=1
and here,
V. DISCUSSION OF EXAMPLES AND RESULTS
Ki,j = Di,j + Li,j + Si,j ,
To ensure the accuracy and acceptance of the FEM for the CDR
equation, we apply this FEM to find an approximate solution of a ⎛n ⎞
Ci,j = ∫ ψi (x) ∑ ψj (x) dx,
linear CDR equation and a nonlinear CDR equation: the modified e
⎝ j=1 ⎠
Burgers–Fisher equation.35,36 After sedulous observation, we show
a good matching between approximate and exact solutions with a dψi (x) dψj (x) ∂ Ũ
Di,j = ∫ dx, F(t) = [ ψi (x)] ,
minor error that tends to zero for small time steps. dx dx ∂x e
e

Example 1. In science and modern life, the convec-
tion–diffusion–reaction differential equations provide a beneficial,
influential, and vital mathematical model. Some numerical methods
have been activated to solve them during some decades, and new
techniques still draw more attention. When the CDR model is
dominated by diffusion, the finite element method (FEM) provides
satisfactory results.
In this example, the main focus is to use the scheme, as discussed
in Sec. II. Here, this equation’s boundary conditions have bound-
less smoothness for sustaining the accuracy of the proposed method.
To propagate the numerical solutions of these initial boundary value
problems, we have used MATLAB programming. This equation takes
the form15
∂U ∂ ∂2
+ (a(x, t)U) = 2 (dU) + f (U(x, t)),
∂t ∂x ∂x
(x, t) ∈ A ≡ Ω × (0, T], T > 0, (31)
where, U(x, t) is the unknown quantity, a(x, t) presents the convec-
tive velocity, d(x, t) is the diffusion coefficient, and f (U) is the reac-
tion source. For the numerical experiment, let us take into account
⎛ n dψj (x) ⎞
Li,j = ∫ ψi (x) ∑ dx,
⎝ j=1 dx ⎠
e
⎛n ⎞
Si,j = ∫ ψi (x) ∑ ψj (x) dx.
⎝ j=1 ⎠
e
We completed the numerical computation and obtained approxi-
mate results at different time steps and spatial distributions, which
are tabulated in Table I.
From Table I, it can be worthily noticed that the proposed
method gives a better accuracy over the domain for different peri-
ods. A cool similarity can be observed between the characteristics
of the approximate solution and the exact solution. Figures 1 and 2
can be derived from Eq. (32) by using the established algorithm
of our introduced method. The FEM exhibits the correspondence
between two graphs of approximate and exact results for differ-
ent time steps. The error term can be quite omitted and ensures
the accuracy and acceptance of our proposed scheme. However,
inherently, the error is feasible for comparatively larger time steps.
Table II shows that for h > 0.1, the result of the proposed scheme
presents instability.

AIP Advances 11, 085225 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0050792 11, 085225-5

© Author(s) 2021
 AIP Advances ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/adv

TABLE I. Approximate and exact solutions of (32).

h = Δt = 0.001 h = Δt = 0.01 h = Δt = 0.05

x FEM Exact Error FEM Exact Error FEM Exact Error

0.0000 0.9903 1.0010 1.0 × 10−2 0.9026 1.0101 10.0 × 10−2 0.8052 1.020 2.1 × 10−1
1.0000 0.3719 0.3682 3.6 × 10−3 0.4079 0.3716 3.6 × 10−2 0.4478 0.375 3 7.2 × 10−2
2.0000 0.1348 0.1355 7.0 × 10−4 0.1297 0.1367 7.0 × 10−3 0.1241 0.138 1 1.4 × 10−2
3.0000 0.0501 0.0498 3.0 × 10−4 0.0532 0.0503 2.9 × 10−3 0.0565 0.050 8 5.8 × 10−3
4.0000 0.0183 0.0183 1.0 × 10−10 0.0181 0.0185 4.0 × 10−4 0.0179 0.018 7 8.0 × 10−4
5.0000 0.0068 0.0068 1.0 × 10−10 0.0070 0.0068 2.0 × 10−4 0.0074 0.006 9 5.0 × 10−4
6.0000 0.0025 0.0025 1.0 × 10−10 0.0025 0.0025 1.0 × 10−10 0.0025 0.002 5 1.0 × 10−10
7.0000 0.0009 0.0009 1.0 × 10−10 0.0009 0.0009 1.0 × 10−10 0.0010 0.000 9 1.0 × 10−10
8.0000 0.0003 0.0003 1.0 × 10−10 0.0003 0.0003 1.0 × 10−10 0.0003 0.000 3 1.0 × 10−10
9.0000 0.0001 0.0001 1.0 × 10−10 0.0001 0.0001 1.0 × 10−10 0.0001 0.000 1 1.0 × 10−10
10.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0 × 10−10 0.0001 0.0001 1.0 × 10−10 0.0001 0.000 01 1.0 × 10−10

FIG. 1. Plot of the FEM and exact solutions from Eq. (32).

For better understanding, let us set up the three-dimensional
surface plot in Fig. 3 of the numerical solution of Eq. (32). From this
type of comparison, it is hard to distinguish. That is why we also
include the absolute error map over time t and space x. Eventually,
it makes sense that this method is more applicable to solve such a
CDR equation without any complexity and maintains perfect con-
sent between this FEM solution and the exact solution (35) with a
pretty imitable error that tends to zero for small time steps. This test
makes sense that the introduced FEM represents rapid convergence
compared with other numerical methods.
Example 2. To get conceptual understanding of physical flows
and prove the accuracy of various numerical methods, many authors
have considered the modified Burgers–Fisher equation, which com-
bines reaction, convection, and diffusion mechanisms. This equation
is known as the Burgers–Fisher equation for having the properties
of the convective phenomenon from Burgers equation and diffusion
transport and reactions type of characteristics from Fisher’s equation.
Moreover, to demonstrate the accuracy of the present method,
we are interested in analyzing the numerical solution of the modified
Burgers–Fisher equation (36), which presents relatively rapid conver-
gence and accuracy. Now, the modified Burgers–Fisher equation is
formed as

∂U ∂U ∂ 2 U
+U = + U(1 − U), (x, t) ∈ A ≡ [0, 1] × (0, T], T > 0,
∂t ∂x ∂x2
(36)
subject to the the initial condition

1 1 x
U(x, 0) = − tanh( ), x ∈ Ω, (37)
2 2 4
and the boundary conditions are given by

⎧ 1 1 5t
⎪ U(0, t) = + tanh( ), t ∈ (0, T], x ∈ ∂Ω,
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ 2 2 8 (38)
⎪ 1 1 5t 1
FIG. 2. Similarity between approximate and exact solutions of Eq. (32). ⎪
⎪
⎪ U(1, t) = + tanh( − ), t ∈ (0, T], x ∈ ∂Ω.
⎩ 2 2 8 4

AIP Advances 11, 085225 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0050792 11, 085225-6

© Author(s) 2021
 AIP Advances ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/adv

TABLE II. Error analysis of FEM solutions of (32).

h Enum Dissipation error Dispersion error Total error

−3 −6 −3
0.001 1.542 488 × 10 8.1280 × 10 9.9874 × 10 9.995 5 × 10−3
0.01 1.542 823 × 10−2 7.7165 × 10−4 1.0256 × 10−2 1.102 84 × 10−2
0.05 7.721 572 × 10−2 1.3079 × 10−2 2.8011 × 10−2 4.109 1 × 10−2
0.1 1.546 2 × 10−2 1.7930 × 10−2 11.9669 × 10−2 13.759 9 × 10−2

FIG. 3. Comparative study of Eq. (32)

and the absolute error map for h = Δt
= 0.01.

The corresponding exact solution of this equation is visibly ensure the understanding that the approximate solution
almost coincides with the exact solution. However, Table IV shows
1 1 5t x
U(x, t) = + tanh( − ). the error analysis that implies that the result of the proposed scheme
2 2 8 4 tends to be unstable for h > 0.1.
Again, in Fig. 6, there is a comparison between the approxi-
Therefore, for the equation’s numerical solution (36), we take mate and exact solution, which declares this method’s acceptance.
into account ten (10) nodes and linear shape functions and the clar- However, it is not easy to realize the difference between them. We
ified algorithm of the finite element method for the CDR model. include the absolute error map over the independent time variable t
Afterward, the usual matrix form is equivalent to Eq. (6) with and the space domain x. After sedulous observation, we eventually
different coefficients such that get a good match between our required and exact solutions with a
Ki,j = Si,j + Di,j − Ci,j + Li,j , Si,j = a1 (t)Ai,j + a2 (t)Bi,j , minor error. Last but not least, we can say that the error tends to
⎛n ⎞ zero and declares the acceptance of the FE method for solving CDR
Li,j = a1 (t)Pi,j + a2 (t)Qi,j , Ci,j = ∫ ψi (x) ∑ ψj (x) dx, equations, including spatial problems.
⎝ j=1 ⎠
e

dψi (x) dψj (x) ∂ Ũ Example 3. In various areas of applied mathematics, Burgers’
Di,j = ∫ dx, F(t) = [ ψi (x)] ,
dx dx ∂x e
equation is a convection–diffusion equation that can explain the evo-
e
lutionary procedure by which a convective phenomenon can maintain
⎛n ⎞ balance with a diffusive behavior. To understand the main properties
Ai,j = ∫ ψ1 (x)ψi (x) ∑ ψj (x) dx,
⎝ j=1 ⎠ of the Navier–Stokes equations, it is a straightforward equation where
e
we can neglect the pressure, but the effects of the nonlinear and viscous
⎛n ⎞ terms exist. In the Navier–Stokes equations, the Reynolds number can
Bi,j = ∫ ψ2 (x)ψi (x) ∑ ψj (x) dx,
⎝ j=1 ⎠ be defined as the ratio between the advective and the viscous contri-
e
bution in a flow. In order to obtain the evolution of this flow, it is
dψ1 ⎛n ⎞ necessary to consider an accurate and robust numerical method for
Pi,j = ∫ ψi (x) ∑ ψj (x) dx, simulation. In Ref. 26, Sungnul et al. investigated the behavior of a
dx ⎝ j=1 ⎠
e modified Burgers’ equation in the following form:
dψ2 ⎛n ⎞
Qi,j = ∫ ψi (x) ∑ ψj (x) dx. ∂U ∂U ∂2U
dx ⎝ j=1 ⎠ + (c + bU) = (μ0 + μ1 U) 2 ,
e
∂t ∂x ∂x
Simultaneously, the final system is CU j+1 + (KΔt − C)U j = FΔt, and (x, t) ∈ A ≡ Ω × (0, T], T > 0. (39)
the computed results are displayed in Table III.
The obtained data from Table III prove that our proposed FEM Here, μ0 , μ1 , b, and c are arbitrary parameters. In this study, we have
provides good accuracy for different time steps Δt, and Figs. 4 and 5 considered the following cases of equation (39):

AIP Advances 11, 085225 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0050792 11, 085225-7

© Author(s) 2021
 AIP Advances ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/adv

TABLE III. Approximate and exact solutions of the modified Burgers–Fisher equation (36).

h = Δt = 0.001 h = Δt = 0.01 h = Δt = 0.1

x FEM Exact Error FEM Exact Error FEM Exact Error

0.0000 0.5001 0.5003 2.0 × 10−4 0.5009 0.5031 2.3 × 10−3 0.5086 0.5312 2.26 × 10−2
0.1000 0.4878 0.4878 2.0 × 10−5 0.4905 0.4906 1.0 × 10−4 0.5178 0.5187 9.0 × 10−4
0.2000 0.4753 0.4753 2.0 × 10−5 0.4774 0.4781 8.0 × 10−4 0.4987 0.5062 7.5 × 10−3
0.3000 0.4628 0.4629 1.0 × 10−4 0.4650 0.4657 6.0 × 10−4 0.4872 0.4938 6.5 × 10−3
0.4000 0.4504 0.4505 1.0 × 10−4 0.4525 0.4533 7.0 × 10−4 0.4737 0.4813 7.5 × 10−3
0.5000 0.4381 0.4381 1.0 × 10−5 0.4401 0.4409 8.0 × 10−4 0.4608 0.4688 8.0 × 10−3
0.6000 0.4258 0.4259 1.0 × 10−4 0.4278 0.4286 8.0 × 10−4 0.4480 0.4564 8.3 × 10−3
0.7000 0.4136 0.4137 1.0 × 10−4 0.4155 0.4164 9.0 × 10−4 0.4348 0.4440 9.2 × 10−3
0.8000 0.4015 0.4016 1.0 × 10−4 0.4035 0.4043 8.0 × 10−4 0.4236 0.4317 8.1 × 10−3
0.9000 0.3895 0.3897 2.0 × 10−4 0.3910 0.3923 1.4 × 10−3 0.4054 0.4195 14 × 10−3
1.0000 0.3779 0.3778 1.0 × 10−4 0.3812 0.3805 7.0 × 10−4 0.4140 0.4073 6.6 × 10−3

FIG. 4. Plot of the correlative study between the FEM solution and the exact solution of the modified Burgers–Fisher equation (36).

Case 1: In the conservative form, the nonlinear modified Burgers’
equation having μ1 = 0.
Case 2: Nonlinear modified Burgers’ equation having 0 ≤ μ1 ≤ 1.
Case 3: Nonlinear modified Burgers’ equation for a stationary solu-
tion having μ1 = 0.
Let us take the following convection–diffusion equation,
which is a nonlinear modified Burgers’ equation, by consid-
ering c = 0, b = 1, μ0 = 14 , and μ1 = 0; Eq. (39) with the initial
and boundary conditions becomes

⎧
⎪ ∂U ∂U 1 ∂ 2 U
Now we will study all cases gradually by applying the FEM ⎪
⎪ +U = , (x, t) ∈ A ≡ [0, 1] × (0, T], T > 0,
algorithm.
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∂t ∂x 4 ∂x2
⎪
⎪
⎪ 1
⎪
⎪
⎪ U(x, 0) = , x ∈ Ω,
Case 1: Nonlinear modified Burgers’ equation having μ1 = 0 ⎪
⎨ (1 + e2x )
⎪ 1
⎪ U(0, t) = , t ∈ (0, T], x ∈ ∂Ω,
(1 + e−t )
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 1
⎪
⎪
⎪ U(1, t) = , t ∈ (0, T], x ∈ ∂Ω.
⎩ (1 + e2−t )
(40)
The exact solution of this problem (40) is

1
U(x, t) = (2x−t) .
1+e 4μ0

Case 2: Nonlinear modified Burgers’ equation having

FIG. 5. Similarity between the FEM solution and the exact solution of the modified
Burgers–Fisher equation (36).
0 ≤ μ1 ≤ 1
According to the necessary condition of case 2, we obtain
a nonlinear convection–diffusion equation known as the mod-
ified Burgers’ equation. Equation (39) provides us this famous

AIP Advances 11, 085225 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0050792 11, 085225-8

© Author(s) 2021
 AIP Advances ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/adv

TABLE IV. Error analysis of FEM solutions of the modified Burgers–Fisher equation (36).

h Enum Dissipation error Dispersion error Total error

−5 −9 −2
0.001 9.8067 × 10 7.632 × 10 9.3052 × 10 9.3052 × 10−2
0.01 9.821 × 10−4 7.6484 × 10−7 9.4078 × 10−2 9.4079 × 10−2
0.1 9.9367 × 10−3 7.7764 × 10−5 10.4726 × 10−2 10.4803 × 10−2

FIG. 6. Comparative solutions of the

modified Burgers–Fisher equation (36)
and the absolute error map for h = Δt
= 0.01.

equation when c = 0, b = 1, μ0 = 14 , and μ1 = 12 , i.e., Case 3: Modified Burgers’ equation for stationary solution
having μ1 = 0
∂U ∂U 1 1 ∂2U This case is similar to case 1, but here, the domain
+U = ( + U) 2 ,
∂t ∂x 4 2 ∂x (41) is different; in that case, we consider the stationary solu-
(x, t) ∈ A ≡ [0, 1] × (0, T], T > 0, tion, where, c = 12 , b = −1, μ0 = 41 , and μ1 = 0. Then
from the main Eq. (39), we get the nonlinear modified
where the initial and boundary conditions are represented by Burgers’ equation (42) as case 3 in which the stationary
the equations in (40). The exact solution26 for case 2 is similar solution does not depend on the independent vari-
to that of case 1. able time, t. Basically, it depends on space variable, x,

⎧
⎪ ∂U 1 ∂U 1 ∂ 2 U
⎪
⎪
⎪ + ( − U) = , (x, t) ∈ A ≡ [0, 10] × (0, T], T > 0,
⎪ ∂t
⎪
⎪ 2 ∂x 4 ∂x2
1
⎨ U(x, 0) = (1 + tanh(x − 5)), x ∈ Ω, (42)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2
⎪
⎩ U(0, t) = 0, U(10, t) = 1,
⎪ t ∈ (0, T], x ∈ ∂Ω.

TABLE V. Comparison between the approximate and exact solution for different values of h = Δt of equation (40).

h = 0.001 h = 0.01 h = 0.1

x FEM Exact Error FEM Exact Error FEM Exact Error

0.0000 0.4998 0.5002 4.0 × 10−4 0.4984 0.5025 4.1 × 10−3 0.4839 0.5000 1.6 × 10−2
0.1000 0.4502 0.4504 2.0 × 10−4 0.4508 0.4526 1.9 × 10−3 0.4560 0.4502 5.8 × 10−3
0.2000 0.4014 0.4016 2.0 × 10−4 0.4013 0.4037 2.4 × 10−3 0.4013 0.4013 1.0 × 10−4
0.3000 0.3544 0.3546 2.0 × 10−4 0.3545 0.3566 2.1 × 10−3 0.3558 0.3544 1.5 × 10−3
0.4000 0.3100 0.3102 2.0 × 10−4 0.3101 0.3122 2.0 × 10−3 0.3110 0.3100 1.0 × 10−3
0.5000 0.2690 0.2692 2.0 × 10−4 0.2690 0.2709 1.9 × 10−3 0.2700 0.2690 1.0 × 10−3
0.6000 0.2315 0.2317 2.0 × 10−4 0.2316 0.2333 1.7 × 10−3 0.2325 0.2315 1.0 × 10−3
0.7000 0.1978 0.1980 2.0 × 10−4 0.1979 0.1994 1.5 × 10−3 0.1986 0.1978 7.0 × 10−4
0.8000 0.1680 0.1681 1.0 × 10−4 0.1681 0.1694 1.3 × 10−3 0.1693 0.1680 1.3 × 10−3
0.9000 0.1419 0.1420 1.0 × 10−4 0.1417 0.1431 1.3 × 10−3 0.1406 0.1419 1.3 × 10−3
1.0000 0.1193 0.1193 1.0 × 10−5 0.1200 0.1203 3.0 × 10−4 0.1271 0.1192 7.9 × 10−3

AIP Advances 11, 085225 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0050792 11, 085225-9

© Author(s) 2021
 AIP Advances
FIG. 7. Comparison between the FEM solution and the stationary solution of
Eq. (42).
The stationary solution is 21 (1 + tanh(x − 5)). Now, we
display the graphical representation of the approximate solu-
tion followed by the established algorithm of FEM and try to
make a comparison between the approximate and the pro-
posed stationary solution.
Table V shows that for several time steps, our proposed
method provides excellent accuracy in each case of Eq. (39).
Figure 7 eliminated the approximate solution and the exact solu-
tions for different time steps. From that graphical and tabular
presentation, it is evident that the characteristics of the numerical
AIP Advances 11, 085225 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0050792
© Author(s) 2021
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/adv
solution obtained from each case of Eq. (39) are as harmonic as the
exact one.26
Figures 8 and 9 present the three-dimensional comparative
configuration of the exact and approximate solution, respectively.
Since the numerical solution almost coincides with the exact one, it
is not easy to characterize. In this situation, it is easier to include a
transparent graph of the approximate solution. For such a type of
work, in order to realize appropriately, we introduce an error map
over independent variable time and space domains. These diagrams
help us believe that the error tends to zero, representing matching
agreement with the exact and FEM solution. Last but not least, all
approximate solutions converge to the exact solutions for both case
1 and case 2 and also for the exact stationary solution for case 3 of
the main Eq. (39).
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the FEM formulation for the
convection–diffusion–reaction (CDR) model for linear and
nonlinear parabolic PDEs has been derived. We considered the
modified Burgers–Fisher equation with approximate solutions,
which converge more rapidly to the exact solution. This method
has been successfully employed to acquire the approximate solution
of this equation. It has been found that the approximated results
are satisfactory and the absolute error map shows an ignorable
error. Good agreement for a wide range of time and space steps
has been displayed using the data structured table and graphical
maps of the approximate and exact solution. Following this, it
was evident from both numerical and visual presentations that
the approximate solutions’ features are as harmonic as the actual
FIG. 8. Comparative reading of Eq. (40)
and error analysis for h = Δt = 10−3 .
FIG. 9. Approximate and exact solution
of Eq. (41) and the absolute error map
for h = Δt = 10−2 .
11, 085225-10
 AIP Advances
one. It has been perceived that the answers are stable and secure
higher-order accuracy, which provides rapid convergence of the
proposed method. Finally, we may conclude by the declaration that
the efficiency, accuracy, and acceptance of the proposed technique
are good due to its simplicity, low cost, time-saving properties, easy
formulation, and good termination carrying capability with the
exact solution.
Some open problems and possible directions for further studies
emerging from this work can be sketched as follows:
1. Express real-life problems in the CDR equation, and check
the accuracy of the finite element method’s predicted solution
with quantification error.
2. Consider a biological model representing practical problems
structured by a system of nonlinear PDEs, and solve them
using the present numerical scheme; modeling in ecology
and epidemiology is one of the most important branches of
research in this decade.
3. In this paper, we considered the CDR model with the Dirich-
let boundary condition. For further work, one can do the same
thing for the CDR model with the Neumann (or second-type)
boundary condition, Robin boundary condition, third type
boundary condition, mixed boundary condition, and Cauchy
boundary condition.
4. Steps can be taken to complete a similar work for autonomous
systems or autonomous differential equations and time-
invariant systems.
5. Mathematical modeling with delay differential equations
(DDEs) is widely used for analysis and predictions in various
life sciences, for example, population dynamics, epidemiol-
ogy, immunology, physiology, and neural networks. For those
DDEs, we can test the convergence and stability analysis with
the help of the FEM and can check the accuracy of this method
by getting quantification errors.
6. A lot of medical science’s critical phenomena can be more
accurately solved by introducing the FEM and finding
the approximate solutions after structuring a mathematical
model.
7. The finite volume method can be compared with this finite
element method for our considered CDR equation.
8. We can derive the formulation and determine the approxi-
mate results of 3D reaction-diffusion equations using the FEM
for different time steps h = Δt.
9. Elliptic and hyperbolic equations can be solved using the same
procedure, but it is necessary to make a few changes to the
discretization for those equations.
10. A comparison can be made of this finite element method for
parabolic, elliptic, and hyperbolic equations, and a series of
accuracies can be represented.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
M.K. was partially supported by the Ministry of Science and
Technology (MOST) through Grant BS193 for the year 2019–2020,
Bangladesh. The authors are very grateful to the anonymous
reviewers whose thoughtful comments significantly contributed to
the present form of the paper.
The authors declare that no conflicts of interest exist.
AIP Advances 11, 085225 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0050792
© Author(s) 2021
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/adv
DATA AVAILABILITY
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were
created or analyzed in this study.
REFERENCES
1
R. L. Burden and J. D. Faires, Numerical Analysis (Brooks/Cole, 2010).
2
Z. Chen, A. B. Gumel, and R. E. Mickens, “Nonstandard discretizations of
the generalized Nagumo reaction-diffusion equation,” Numer. Methods Partial
Differ. Equations 19(3), 363–379 (2003).
3
P. E. Lewis and J. P. Ward, The Finite Element Method: Principles and Applica-
tions (Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, 1991).
4
Y. W. Kwon and H. Bang, The Finite Element Method Using MATLAB, Mechan-
ical and Aerospace Engineering Series (CRC Press, 2000).
5
C. Zhangxin, Finite Element Methods and Their Applications (Springer Science
and Business Media, 2005).
6
S. I. Akter et al., “Global spectral collocation method with Fourier transform
to solve differential equations,” GANIT: J. Bangladesh Math. Soc. 40(1), 28–42
(2020).
7
Siraj-ul-Islam, I. Aziz, and B. Sarler, “The numerical solution of second-order
boundary-value problems by collocation method with the Haar wavelets,” Math.
Comput. Modell. 52, 1577–1590 (2010).
8
S. S. Rao, The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Elsevier, 2010).
9
A.-M. Wazwaz, “Adomian decomposition method for a reliable treatment of the
Bratu-type equations,” Appl. Math. Comput. 166, 652–663 (2005).
10
H. Ali, M. Kamrujjaman, and M. S. Islam, “Numerical computation of
FitzHugh-Nagumo equation: A novel Galerkin finite element approach,” Int. J.
Math. Res. 9(1), 20–27 (2020).
11
R. A. Van Gorde, “Gaussian waves in the FitzHugh–Nagumo equation demon-
strate one role of the auxiliary function H(x, t) in the homotopy analysis method,”
Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 17(3), 1233–1240 (2012).
12
H. Ali and M. Kamrujjaman, “Numerical solutions of nonlinear parabolic equa-
tions with Robin condition: Galerkin approach,” TWMS J. Appl. Eng. Math. (in
press) (2020).
13
H. Ali, M. Kamrujjaman, and A. Shirin, “Numerical solution of a fractional-
order Bagley–Torvik equation by quadratic finite element method,” J. Appl. Math.
Comput. 66, 351–367 (2020).
14
S. A. Lima, M. Kamrujjaman, and M. Shafiqul Islam, “Direct approach to com-
pute a class of reaction-diffusion equation by a finite element method,” J. Appl.
Math. Comput. 4(2), 26–33 (2020).
15
N. Mphephu, “Numerical solution of 1-D convection-diffusion-reaction
equation,” M.S. thesis, University of Venda, African Institute for Mathematical
Sciences, 2013.
16
B. M. Chen-Charpentier and H. V. Kojouharov, “An unconditionally positivity
preserving scheme for advection–diffusion reaction equations,” Math. Comput.
Modell. 57, 1277–1285 (2013).
17
M. Mohebujjaman and L. G. Rebholz, “An efficient algorithm for computa-
tion of MHD flow ensembles,” Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 17(1), 121–137
(2017).
18
S. Kumar and A. Kumar, “Dynamical structures of solutions and some new
types of exact solutions for the (2 + 1)-dimensional DJKM equation using Lie
symmetry analysis,” Mod. Phys. Lett. B 34, 2150015 (2020).
19
D. Kumar and S. Kumar, “Some new periodic solitary wave solutions of (3 + 1)-
dimensional generalized shallow water wave equation by Lie symmetry approach,”
Comput. Math. Appl. 78(3), 857–877 (2019).
20
S. Kumar, A. Kumar, and A. M. Wazwaz, “New exact solitary wave solutions of
the strain wave equation in microstructured solids via the generalized exponential
rational function method,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135(11), 870 (2020).
21
S. Kumar, M. Niwas, and A.-M. Wazwaz, “Lie symmetry analysis, exact analyt-
ical solutions and dynamics of solitons for (2 + 1)-dimensional NNV equations,”
Phys. Scr. 95(9), 095204 (2020).
22
S. Kumar and A. Kumar, “Lie symmetry reductions and group invariant solu-
tions of (2 + 1)-dimensional modified Veronese web equation,” Nonlinear Dyn.
98(3), 1891–1903 (2019).
11, 085225-11
 AIP Advances
23
S. Kumar, H. Almusawa, and A. Kumar, “Some more closed-form invariant
solutions and dynamical behavior of multiple solitons for the (2 + 1)-dimensional
rdDym equation using the Lie symmetry approach,” Results Phys. 24, 104201
(2021).
24
S. Kumar, D. Kumar, and A. Kumar, “Lie symmetry analysis for obtain-
ing the abundant exact solutions, optimal system and dynamics of solitons for
a higher-dimensional Fokas equation,” Chaos, Solitons Fractals 142, 110507
(2021).
25
S. Kumar and S. Rani, “Lie symmetry analysis, group-invariant solutions and
dynamics of solitons to the (2 + 1)-dimensional Bogoyavlenskii–Schieff equation,”
Pramana 95(2), 51 (2021).
26
S. Sungnul, B. Jitsom, and M. Punpocha, “Numerical solution of the modified
Burger’s equation using FTCS implicit scheme,” IAENG Int. J. Appl. Math. 48(1),
53 (2018).
27
D. Kocacoban, A. B. Koc, A. Kurnaz, and Y. Keskin, “A bet-
ter approximation to the solution of Burger-Fisher equation,” in
Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering (2011), Vol. 1,
pp. 1–6.
28
S. S. Behzadi and M. A. Fariborzi Araghi, “Numerical solution for solving
Burger’s-Fisher equation by using iterative methods,” Math. Comput. Appl. 16(2),
443–455 (2011).
AIP Advances 11, 085225 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0050792
© Author(s) 2021
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/adv
29
M. S. Islam, M. Ahmed, and M. A. Hossain, “Numerical solutions of IVP using
finite element method with Taylor series,” GANIT: J. Bangladesh Math. Soc. 30,
51–58 (2010).
30
Y. Jiang and J. Ma, “High-order finite element methods for time-fractional
partial differential equations,” J. Comput. Appl. Math. 235, 3285–3290 (2011).
31
J. N. Reddy, An Introduction to Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis (Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2014).
32
I. Babuska, “Survey lectures on the mathematical foundations of the finite ele-
ment method,” in The Mathematical Foundations of the Finite Element Method
with Applicaions to Partial Differential Equations (Academic Press, New York,
1972), pp. 3–359.
33
L. L. Takacs, “A two-step scheme for the advection equation with minimised
dissipation and dispersion errors,” Mon. Weather Rev. 113, 1050–1065 (1985).
34
I. Babuska and W. C. Rheinboldt, “A-posteriori error estimates for the finite
element method,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 12(10), 1597–1615 (1978).
35
M. Kamrujjaman, A. Ahmed, and J. Alam, “Travelling Waves: Interplay of
low to high Reynolds number and Tan-Cot function method to solve Burger’s
equations,” J. Appl. Math. Phys. 7, 861–873 (2019).
36
A. Ahmed and M. Kamrujjaman, “Analytic travelling wave solutions and
numerical analysis of Fisher’s equation via explicit-implicit FDM,” Asian J. Adv.
Res. Rep. 3(3), 1–13 (2019).
11, 085225-12