- Research Article
- Open access
- Published:
Blowup for a Non-Newtonian Polytropic Filtration System Coupled via Nonlinear Boundary Flux
Boundary Value Problems volume 2008, Article number: 847145 (2008)
Abstract
We study the global existence and the global nonexistence of a non-Newtonian polytropic filtration system coupled via nonlinear boundary flux. We first establish a weak comparison principle, then discuss the large time behavior of solutions by using modified upper and lower solution methods and constructing various upper and lower solutions. Necessary and sufficient conditions on the global existence of all positive (weak) solutions are obtained.
1. Introduction
In this paper, we consider the following Neumann problem:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ1_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ2_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ3_HTML.gif)
where ,
,
is a bounded domain with smooth boundary
,
is the outward normal vector on the boundary
,
, and
are positive and satisfy the compatibility conditions.
Parabolic equations like (1.1) appear in population dynamics, chemical reactions, heat transfer, and so on. In particular, (1.1) may be used to describe the nonstationary flows in a porous medium of fluids with a power dependence of the tangential stress on the velocity of displacement under polytropic conditions. In this case, (1.1) are called the non-Newtonian polytropic filtration equations (see [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] and the references therein). For the Neuman problem (1.1)–(1.3), the local existence of solutions in time has been established, see survey in [4].
Recall the single quasilinear parabolic equation with nonlinear boundary condition
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ4_HTML.gif)
with . It is known that the solutions of (1.4) exist globally if and only if
for
; they exist globally if and only if
when
(see [7–10]).
In [11, 12], M. Wang and S. Wang studied the following nonlinear diffusion system with nonlinear boundary conditions
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ5_HTML.gif)
with . In [11], they obtained the necessary and sufficient conditions to the global existence of solutions for
. In [12], they considered the case of
or
and obtained the necessary and sufficient blowup conditions for the special case
(the ball centered at the origin in
with radius
). However, for the general domain
, they only gave some sufficient conditions to the global existence and the blowup of solutions.
In [2], Wang considered the following system with nonlinear boundary conditions:
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ6_HTML.gif)
with . They obtained the necessary and sufficient conditions on the global existence of all positive (weak) solutions.
Sun and Wang in [13] studied the nonlinear equation with nonlinear boundary condition
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ7_HTML.gif)
They proved that all positive (weak) solutions of (1.7) exist globally if and only if when
; they exist globally if and only if
when
.
The main purpose of this paper is to study the influence of nonlinear power exponents on the existence and nonexistence of global solutions of (1.1)–(1.3). By using upper- and lower-solution methods, we obtain the necessary and sufficient conditions on the existence of global (weak) solutions to (1.1)–(1.3). Our main results are stated as follows.
Theorem 1.1.
If , then all positive (weak) solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) exist globally if and only if
and
.
Theorem 1.2.
If , then all positive (weak) solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) exist globally if and only if
and
.
Theorem 1.3.
If , then all positive (weak) solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) exist globally if and only if
and
.
Theorem 1.4.
If , then all positive (weak) solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) exist globally if and only if
and
.
Remark 1.5.
If , the results in [11] are included in Theorem 1.4, and if
or
, Theorems 1.1–1.3 improve the results of [12].
Remark 1.6.
If we extend the solution to (1.6) to the interval by symmetry, we get a solution to the same problem (1.6) with the condition at
, substituted by a condition at
,
Conversely, symmetric solutions to this latter problem are solutions to the original problem (1.6). The problem (1.1)–(1.3) is the more general
-dimensional version of the problem (1.6). Theorems 1.1–1.4 extend the results of the problem (1.6) into multidimensional case and it seems to be a natural extension of Wang [2].
Remark 1.7.
If , the conclusions of Theorems 1.1 and 1.4 are consistent with those of the single equation (1.7). This paper generalizes the results of the single equation (1.7) to the system (1.1)–(1.3).
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Some preliminaries will be given in Section 2 . Theorems 1.1–1.4 will be proved in Sections 3–5, respectively.
2. Preliminaries
As it is well known that degenerate and singular equations need not possess classical solutions, we give a precise definition of a weak solution to (1.1)–(1.3).
Definition 2.1.
Let and
. A vector function
is called a weak upper (or lower) solution to (1.1)–(1.3) in
if
(i);
(ii);
(iii)for any positive two functions one has
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ8_HTML.gif)
In particular, is called a weak solution of (1.1)–(1.3) if it is both a weak upper and a lower solution. For every
, if
is a solution of (1.1)–(1.3) in
, we say that
is global.
Next we give some preliminary propositions and lemmas.
Proposition 2.2 (comparison principle).
Assume that are positive
functions and
is any weak solution of (1.1)–(1.3). Also assume that
and
are a lower and an upper solution of (1.1)–(1.3) in
, respectively, with nonlinear boundary flux
and
, where
. Then we have
in
.
Proof.
For small , letting
and setting
, according to the definition of upper and lower solutions, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ9_HTML.gif)
Define
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ10_HTML.gif)
As in [14], by letting we get
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ11_HTML.gif)
that is,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ12_HTML.gif)
where . Similarly, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ13_HTML.gif)
Since and
, it follows from the continuity of
and
that there exists a
sufficiently small such that
for
. It follows from (2.5) and (2.6) that
in
.
Denote . We claim that
. Otherwise, from the continuity of
and
there exists
such that
and
for all
By (2.5) and (2.6) we obtain that
in
, which contradicts the definition of
. Hence
for all
Obviously, is a lower solution of (1.1)–(1.3) in
. Therefore,
in
. Using this fact, as in the above proof we can prove that
in
.
For convenience, we denote , which are fixed constants, and let
.
Proposition 2.3.
Assume and that
or
holds. Then the solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) blow up in finite time.
Proof.
Without loss of generality, assume . Consider the single equation
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ14_HTML.gif)
We know from [13] that blows up in finite time. Since
, by the comparison principle,
is a lower solution of (1.1)–(1.3) and
blows up in finite time if
.
The following propositions can be proved in the similar procedure.
Proposition 2.4.
Assume and that
or
holds. Then the solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) blow up in finite time.
Proposition 2.5.
Assume and that
or
holds. Then the solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) blow up in finite time.
Proposition 2.6.
Assume and that
or
holds. Then the solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) blow up in finite time.
Let be the first eigenfunction of
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ15_HTML.gif)
with the first eigenvalue , normalized by
, then
in
and
and
on
(see [15–17]).
Thus there exist some positive constants such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ16_HTML.gif)
We have also provided
with
and some positive constant
. For the fixed
, there exists a positive constant
such that
if
At the end of this section, we describe two simple lemmas without proofs.
Lemma 2.7.
Suppose that positive constants satisfy
, then for any two positive constants
, there exist two positive constants
such that
and
.
Lemma 2.8.
For any constant , there exist positive constants
which depend only on
and
such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ17_HTML.gif)
where is a positive bounded function.
3. Proof of Theorem 1.1
Lemma 3.1.
Suppose ,
. Then all positive solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) exist globally.
Proof .
Construct
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ18_HTML.gif)
where if
,
if
, and
if
,
if
,
are defined in (2.8) and (2.9),
are positive constants to be determined,
and
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ19_HTML.gif)
We know that since
for any
. Thus for
a simple computation shows
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ20_HTML.gif)
In addition, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ21_HTML.gif)
Similarly, we can get
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ22_HTML.gif)
Noting on
, we have on the boundary that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ23_HTML.gif)
Since , there exist constants
large such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ24_HTML.gif)
By (3.3)–(3.7), we know that is a global upper solution of (1.1)–(1.3). The global existence of solutions to (1.1)–(1.3) follows from the comparison principle.
Lemma 3.2.
Suppose ,
. Then all positive solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) blow up in finite time.
Proof .
Case 1.
. Let
if
,
if
, and
if
,
if
. In light of
, we choose
such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ25_HTML.gif)
For the above , we set
where
,
, and
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ26_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ27_HTML.gif)
By a direct computation, for , we obtain that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ28_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ29_HTML.gif)
If , we have
and thus
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ30_HTML.gif)
On the other hand, since for any
, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ31_HTML.gif)
We have by (3.10), (3.13), and (3.14) that for
.
If , then
and hence
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ32_HTML.gif)
We follow from (3.10), (3.11), and (3.15) that for
.
Similarly, we can get for
also.
We have on the boundary that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ33_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ34_HTML.gif)
Moreover, by (3.8) we have that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ35_HTML.gif)
Equations (3.9), (3.16)–(3.18) imply that Therefore
is a lower solution of (1.1)–(1.3).
Case 2.
. Set
as above with
Case 3.
. Set
as above with
Case 4.
. Set
By similar arguments, we conform that is a lower solution of (1.1)–(1.3), which blows up in finite time. We know by the comparison principle that the solution
blows up in finite time.
We get the proof of Theorem 1.1 by combining Proposition 2.3 and Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2.
4. Proof of Theorems 1.2 and 1.3
Lemma 4.1.
Suppose with
. Then all positive solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) exist globally.
Proof .
Take
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ36_HTML.gif)
for , where
if
,
if
,
satisfying
, and constants
are to be determined. By performing direct calculations, we have, for
,
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ37_HTML.gif)
By setting if
,
if
, we have on the boundary that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ38_HTML.gif)
Since , by Lemma 2.7 there exist two positive constants
such that
,
, and
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ39_HTML.gif)
Set By arguments in Lemma 3.1, for
, we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ40_HTML.gif)
On the other hand, since , there exist two positive constants
such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ41_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ42_HTML.gif)
By (4.2)–(4.7), it follows that is an upper solution of (1.1)–(1.3). Thus the solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) are global.
Lemma 4.2.
Suppose with
. Then all positive solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) blow up in finite time.
Proof .
We first prove that there exist such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ43_HTML.gif)
When ,
yields
Hence there exist
such that
Set
, and
When , take
,
When , take
,
Let if
,
if
, and
,
,
.
Define where
, and
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ44_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ45_HTML.gif)
By a direct computation, for , we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ46_HTML.gif)
By similar arguments in Lemma 3.2, we have for
.
Moreover, for , we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ47_HTML.gif)
By (4.8), we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ48_HTML.gif)
By (4.9), (4.12), and (4.13), we have that is a lower solution of (1.1) and (1.3), which with the comparison principle implies that the solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) blow up in finite time.
It has been shown from Proposition 2.4 and Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2 that Theorem 1.2 is true.
In a similar way to the proof of Theorem 1.2, we have Theorem 1.3.
5. Proof of Theorem 1.4
Lemma 5.1.
Suppose with
. Then all positive solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) exist globally.
Proof .
Take where
and
are the undetermined positive constants.
Calculating directly for , we have by Lemma 2.8 that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ49_HTML.gif)
Let if
,
if
, and
if
,
if
. We have on the boundary that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ50_HTML.gif)
Since we know by Lemma 2.8 that there exist constants
such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ51_HTML.gif)
For the above constants , we choose a constant
so large that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ52_HTML.gif)
By (5.1)–(5.4), we know that is an upper solution of (1.1)–(1.3), Thus the solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) are global.
Lemma 5.2.
Suppose with
. Then all positive solutions of (1.1)–(1.3) blow up in finite time.
Proof .
We first prove that there exist such that
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ53_HTML.gif)
In fact, when ,
yields
. Hence there exists
such that
. Set
and
When and
, take
When and
, let
Take , and
, where
, and
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ54_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ55_HTML.gif)
By a direct computation for , we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ56_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ57_HTML.gif)
For , we have
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ58_HTML.gif)
Moreover, (5.5) implies
![](http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1155%2F2008%2F847145/MediaObjects/13661_2007_Article_817_Equ59_HTML.gif)
It follows from (5.6), (5.8)–(5.11) that is a lower solution of (1.1)–(1.3). Because
blows up in finite time, and so does
.
By Proposition 2.6 and Lemmas 5.1 and 5.2, we see that Theorem 1.4 holds.
References
Tan Z, Liu XG: Non-Newton filtration equation with nonconstant medium void and critical Sobolev exponent. Acta Mathematica Sinica 2004,20(2):367-378. 10.1007/s10114-004-0361-z
Wang S: Doubly nonlinear degenerate parabolic systems with coupled nonlinear boundary conditions. Journal of Differential Equations 2002,182(2):431-469. 10.1006/jdeq.2001.4101
Wang Z, Yin J, Wang C: Critical exponents of the non-Newtonian polytropic filtration equation with nonlinear boundary condition. Applied Mathematics Letters 2007,20(2):142-147. 10.1016/j.aml.2006.03.008
Wu Z, Zhao J, Yin J, Li H: Nonlinear Diffusion Equations. World Scientific, River Edge, NJ, USA; 2001:xviii+502.
Yang Z, Lu Q: Nonexistence of positive solutions to a quasilinear elliptic system and blow-up estimates for a non-Newtonian filtration system. Applied Mathematics Letters 2003,16(4):581-587. 10.1016/S0893-9659(03)00040-5
Yang Z, Lu Q: Blow-up estimates for a quasi-linear reaction-diffusion system. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences 2003,26(12):1005-1023. 10.1002/mma.409
Song X, Zheng S: Blow-up analysis for a quasilinear parabolic system with multi-coupled nonlinearities. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 2003,281(2):739-756. 10.1016/S0022-247X(03)00256-7
Wang M, Wu Y: Global existence and blow-up problems for quasilinear parabolic equations with nonlinear boundary conditions. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis 1993,24(6):1515-1521. 10.1137/0524085
Wang M: The long-time behavior of solutions to a class of quasilinear parabolic equations with nonlinear boundary conditions. Acta Mathematica Sinica 1996,39(1):118-124.
Wolanski N: Global behavior of positive solutions to nonlinear diffusion problems with nonlinear absorption through the boundary. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis 1993,24(2):317-326. 10.1137/0524021
Wang M, Wang S: Quasilinear reaction-diffusion systems with nonlinear boundary conditions. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 1999,231(1):21-33. 10.1006/jmaa.1998.6220
Wang M: Fast-slow diffusion systems with nonlinear boundary conditions. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications 2001,46(6):893-908. 10.1016/S0362-546X(00)00156-5
Sun WJ, Wang S: Nonlinear degenerate parabolic equation with nonlinear boundary condition. Acta Mathematica Sinica 2005,21(4):847-854. 10.1007/s10114-004-0512-2
Alt HW, Luckhaus S: Quasilinear elliptic-parabolic differential equations. Mathematische Zeitschrift 1983,183(3):311-341. 10.1007/BF01176474
Lindqvist P:On the equation
. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 1990,109(1):157-164.
Lindqvist P:Addendum to on the equation
. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 1992,116(2):583-584.
Li Y, Xie C:Blow-up for
-Laplacian parabolic equations. Electronic Journal of Differential Equations 2003,2003(20):1-12.
Acknowledgments
This work was partially supported by NNSF of China (10771226), was partially supported by Natural Science Foundation Project of CQ CSTC (2007BB0124), and was partially supported by Natural Science Foundation Project of China West Normal University (07B047).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Li, Z., Mu, C. & Li, Y. Blowup for a Non-Newtonian Polytropic Filtration System Coupled via Nonlinear Boundary Flux. Bound Value Probl 2008, 847145 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/847145
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/847145