Proc. : Inter. Conf.

on Mathematical Modelling and Application to Industrial Problems (MMIP-

2011), Org. by Dept of Mathematics, National Institute of Technology, Calicut , Kerala 673 601
during March 28-31, 2011. Editors : M. J. Jacob and S. Panda. Pages: 66 – 76
Published by MacMillan Publishers India Limited, 2012. (ISBN :978-935-059-024-9)

Solution of reaction diffusion equation using Homotopy perturbation method and

differential transformation method

S Kumar and R Singh*

Department of Mathematics, Institute of Basic Science, Khandari, Agra-282002, India,
* Department of Mathematics Delhi College of Technology and Management, Palwal, India

Abstract: This work is designed for He’s homotopy perturbation method (HPM) and
differential transformation method (DTM) to solve the linear and non-linear reaction diffusion
equations. To illustrate the capability and reliability of the methods, some cases has been
defined. The proper implementation of He's homotopy perturbation method can extremely
minimize the size of work if compared with the existing differential transformation method.
The results obtained using HPM and DTM are compared with the results of variational
iteration method (VIM) and MATLAB solutions and then the ability of each method are also
discussed.
Keywords: Homotopy perturbation method, Differential transformation, Cauchy reaction-
diffusion problems, MATLAB
Introduction:
Reaction–diffusion equations are useful in many areas of science and engineering. In
applications to population biology, the reaction term models growth, and the diffusion term
accounts for migration. The study of nonlinear problems is of crucial importance in all areas
of Physics and Engineering, as well as in other disciplines. It is very difficult to solve non-
linear problems and, in general, it is often more difficult to get an analytic or approximation
solution than a numerical one to a given systems of differential equations. There are several
methods available to find exact, approximate, and purely numerical, for the solution of
systems of differential equations. Most of these methods are computationally intensive
because they are trial-and-error in nature, or need complicated symbolic computations.
Integral transforms such as Laplace and Fourier transforms are commonly used to solve
differential equations and usefulness of these integral transforms lies in their ability to
transform differential equations into algebraic equations which allows simple and systematic
solution procedures. However, using integral transform in non-linear problems may increase
its complexity. In the present work, some partial differential equations with non-
homogeneous initial conditions aimed to solve by the differential transformation method and
comparison with He’s homotopy-perturbation method (HPM) which was introduced by Ji
Huan He [10]. The differential transformation is a numerical method for solving differential
equations. The concept of differential transform was introduced by Zhou [23], who was the
first one to use differential transform method (DTM) in engineering applications. He
employed DTM in solution of initial boundary value problems in electric circuit analysis. In
recent years, concept of DTM has broadened to the problems involving partial differential
equations and systems of differential equations [4-6].
Ayaz [4-6] developed this method for PDEs and obtained closed form series solutions
for linear and non-linear initial value problems. The differential transforms method an
analytical solution in the form of a polynomial. It is different from the traditional high order
Taylor series method, which requires symbolic computation of the necessary derivatives of
the data functions. The Taylor series method is computationally taken long time for large
orders. The present method reduces the size of computational domain and applicable to many
problems easily. A distinctive practical feature of the differential transformation method DTM
is haring ability to solve linear or non-linear differential equations. In fact, DTM and HPM
are very efficient methods to find the numerical and analytic solutions of linear and non-linear
differential equations, delay differential equations as well as integral equations have already
discussed by Karakoc and Bereketoglu [17], Arikoglu and Ozkol [3] and Nadjafi and
Ghorbani [20].
A new approach to the heat equation which is an application of the decomposition
method gave by Adomian [2]. Different applications for the differential transformation in the
differential equation were shown by Hassan [1], where he was used the differential
transformation technique which is applied to solve eigen value problems and partial
differential equations (P.D.E.) is proposed in this study. They were first, using the one-
dimensional differential transformation to construct the eigen values and the normalized
eigenfunctions for the differential equation of the second, and the fourth-order, and the
second, using the two-dimensional differential transformation to solve P.D.E. of the first- and
second-order with constant coefficients. In both cases, a set of difference equations is derived
and the results were compared with the results obtained by other analytical methods.
Kumar et. al [16] discussed about the exact and numerical solutions of non-linear
reaction diffusion equation by using the Cole–Hopf transformation. In this work the main
focus is to get a constructive method for obtaining exact solutions of certain classes of non-
linear equations arising in mathematical biology. The method is based on the Cole–Hopf
transformation of non-linear partial differential equation. With the help of this method, new
exact solutions were obtained for non-linear reaction-diffusion equations of various forms,
which are the generalizations of the Fisher and Burgers equations. Finally the governing
partial differential equations are then solved using MATLAB.
Application of He's homotopy perturbation method for solving the Cauchy reaction
diffusion problem have also discussed by Yildirim [22], where he presented the solution of
Cauchy reaction–diffusion problem by the homotopy perturbation method. Othman [21]
presented the differential transformation method and variation iteration method for Cauchy
reaction-diffusion Problems.
Mathematical Formulation: In this paper, consider the following one-dimensional time
dependent reaction-diffusion equation for this model-
𝜕𝑢 𝜕2 𝑢
= 𝐷 𝜕𝑥 2 + 𝑟 𝑢 (𝑥, 𝑡) ∈ Ω ⊂ 𝑅 2 (1)
𝜕𝑡
𝑢 (𝑥, 0) = 𝑔 (𝑥), 𝑥∈𝑅 (2)
𝜕𝑢
𝑢(0, 𝑡) = 𝑓0 (𝑡), (𝜕𝑥 ) = 𝑓1 (𝑡) , 𝑡 ∈ 𝑅 (3)
(1,𝑡)
where 𝑢 = 𝑢(𝑥, 𝑡) is the concentration, 𝑟 = 𝑟(𝑥, 𝑡) is the reaction parameter and D > 0 is the
diffusion coefficient, subject to the initial or boundary conditions
The equations (1) and (2) is called the characteristic Cauchy reaction-diffusion equation in the
domain 𝑅×𝑅+ , while the equations (1) and (3) is called the non-characteristic Cauchy
reaction-diffusion equation in the domain 𝑅+ ×𝑅. If 𝑟 = 1 then the equation (1) is called
Kolmogorov– Petrovsky–Piskunov equations.
The DTM introduces a promising approach for many applications in various domains of
science. However, DTM has some drawbacks. By using the DTM, we obtain a series solution,
or we can say a truncated series solution. This series solution does not exhibit the real
behaviors of the problem but gives a good approximation to the true solution in a very small
region. While homotopy perturbation method can be used successfully finding the solution of
linear and non-linear boundary value problems, and the system of differential equations. It
may be concluded that this technique is very powerful and efficient in finding the analytical
solutions for a large class of integral and differential equations. This technique provides more
realistic series solutions as compared with the Adomian decomposition and variational
iteration method and others techniques.
Basic idea of Differential Transformation Method:
The basic definitions of the differential transformation are introduced as follows:
(i) One-dimensional differential transformation:
The differential transformation of the 𝑘 𝑡ℎ derivative of a function 𝑢(𝑥) is defined as follows:
1 𝑑𝑘 𝑢(𝑥)
𝑈(𝑘) = 𝑘! [ ] (4)
𝑑𝑥 𝑘 𝑥=𝑥0
𝑢(𝑥) is the original function while 𝑈(𝑘) is the transformed function.
As discussed by [1] and [23] the differential inverse transformation of 𝑈(𝑘) may defined as
follows:
∞

𝑢(𝑥) = ∑ 𝑈(𝑘)(𝑥 − 𝑥0 )𝑘 (5)

𝑘=0
In fact, from (4) and (5), we may obtain:
∞
1 𝑑𝑘 𝑢(𝑥)
𝑢(𝑥) = ∑ (𝑥 − 𝑥0 )𝑘 [ ] (6)
𝑘! 𝑑𝑥 𝑘 𝑥=𝑥
𝑘=0 0
Equation (6) implies that the concept of differential transformation is derived from the Taylor
series expansion at 𝑥 = 𝑥0 .
(ii) Two-dimensional differential transformation:
Similarly, consider a function of two variables 𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) analytic in the domain 𝑅 and let
(𝑥, 𝑦) = (𝑥0 , 𝑦0 ) in this domain. The function 𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) is then represented by one power
series whose center is located at (𝑥0 , 𝑦0 ). Hence the differential transformation of function
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) is having the following form:
1 𝜕𝑘+ℎ 𝑢(𝑥)
𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) = 𝑘!ℎ! [ 𝜕𝑥 𝑘𝜕𝑦 ℎ ] (7)
(𝑥0 , 𝑦0 )
where 𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) is the original function and 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) is the transformed function.
The transformation is called T-function while the lower case and upper case letters represent
the original and transformed functions respectively.
The differential inverse transform of 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) is defined as:
∞ ∞

𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) = ∑ ∑ 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) (𝑥 − 𝑥0 )𝑘 (𝑦 − 𝑦0 )ℎ (8)

𝑘=0 ℎ=0
and from equation (7) and (8) it may be concluded that,
∞ ∞
1 𝜕 𝑘+ℎ 𝑢(𝑥)
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) = ∑ ∑ [ ] (𝑥 − 𝑥0 )𝑘 (𝑦 − 𝑦0 )ℎ (9)
𝑘! ℎ! 𝜕𝑥 𝑘 𝜕𝑦 ℎ (𝑥 , 𝑦 )
𝑘=0 ℎ=0 0 0
When we apply equation (8) at (𝑥0 , 𝑦0 ) = (0, 0), then (8) can be written as:
∞ ∞
1
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) = ∑ ∑ 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) 𝑥 𝑘 𝑦 ℎ (10)
𝑘! ℎ!
𝑘=0 ℎ=0
∞ ∞
1 𝜕 𝑘+ℎ 𝑢(𝑥)
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) = ∑ ∑ [ ] 𝑥𝑘 𝑦ℎ (11)
𝑘! ℎ! 𝜕𝑥 𝑘 𝜕𝑦 ℎ (0,0)
𝑘=0 ℎ=0
The fundamental mathematical operations performed by two-dimensional differential
transform method and that can be readily obtained through Table 1.
Table 1: Some operations of the two dimensional differential transformation.
Original function Transformed function
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑣(𝑥, 𝑦) ± 𝑤(𝑥, 𝑦) 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) = 𝑉(𝑘, ℎ) ± 𝑊(𝑘, ℎ)
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝛼 𝑣(𝑥, 𝑦) 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) = 𝛼 𝑉(𝑘, ℎ) (𝛼 =Constant)
𝜕 𝑣(𝑥, 𝑦) 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) = (𝑘 + 1)𝑉(𝑘 + 1, ℎ)
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) =
𝜕𝑥
𝜕 𝑣(𝑥, 𝑦) 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) = (ℎ + 1)𝑉(𝑘, ℎ + 1)
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) =
𝜕𝑦
𝑟+𝑠 (𝑘 + 𝑟)! (ℎ + 𝑠)!
𝜕 𝑣(𝑥, 𝑦)
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) = 𝑉(𝑘 + 𝑟, ℎ + 𝑠)
𝜕𝑥 𝑟 𝜕𝑦 𝑠 𝑘! ℎ!
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑣(𝑥, 𝑦)𝑤(𝑥, 𝑦) 𝑘 ℎ

𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) = ∑ ∑ 𝑉(𝑟, ℎ − 𝑠) 𝑊(𝑘 − 𝑟, 𝑠)

𝑟=0 𝑠=0
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑥 𝑚 𝑦 𝑛 1 𝑘 = 𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ = 𝑛
𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) = 𝛿(𝑘 − 𝑚, ℎ − 𝑛) = {
0 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑒 𝜆(𝑥+𝑦) 𝜆(𝑘+ℎ)
𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) =
𝑘! ℎ!
𝜕 𝑣(𝑥, 𝑦) 𝜕 𝑤(𝑥, 𝑦) 𝑘 ℎ

𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) = ∑ ∑(𝑟 + 1)(𝑘 − 𝑟 + 1)𝑉(𝑟 + 1, ℎ − 𝑠) 𝑊(𝑘 − 𝑟 + 1, 𝑠)

𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝑟=0 𝑠=0
𝑚
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑥 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝑎𝑥 + 𝑏) 𝑎ℎ ℎ𝜋
𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) = 𝛿(𝑘 − 𝑚)𝑠𝑖𝑛 ( + 𝑏)
ℎ! 2
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑥 𝑚 𝑒 𝑎𝑦 𝑎ℎ
𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) = 𝛿(𝑘 − 𝑚)
ℎ!

The application of the differential transformation method (DTM) will be discussed, for
solving problems (1)-(3). According to the (DTM) and the operations mathematics of the
method, consider equation (1) after taking the differential transformation of both sides in the
following form:
𝑘 ℎ
1
𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) = [𝐷(𝑘 + 1)(𝑘 + 2)𝑈(𝑘 + 2, ℎ) + ∑ ∑ 𝑃(𝑟, ℎ − 𝑠)𝑈(𝑘 − 𝑟, 𝑠)] (12)
(ℎ + 1)
𝑟=0 𝑠=0
and by applying the differential transformation to initial and boundary conditions equation (2)
and (3) are obtained as follows:
𝑈(𝑘, 0) = 𝐺(𝑘) (13)
𝑈(0, ℎ) = 𝐹0 (ℎ) and 𝑈(1, ℎ) = 𝐹1 (ℎ) (14)
By using (13) and (14) into (12), calculate 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ), and substitute all value 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) into (11),
then the solution 𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) will be consequently readily obtained.

Basic ideas of He’s homotopy perturbation method:

To illustrate the basic ideas of this method, consider the following non-linear differential
equation:
𝐴(𝑢) − 𝑓(𝑟) = 0, 𝑟 ∈ Ω (15)
with boundary conditions
𝐵(u, ∂u/ ∂n) = 0 𝑟 ∈ Γ, (16)
where A, B, 𝑓(𝑟) and Γ are a general differential operator, a boundary operator, known
analytical function and the boundary of the domain Ω respectively.
The operator 𝐴 can be divided into two parts 𝐿 and 𝑁, where 𝐿 is the linear part, while 𝑁 is
the nonlinear, and therefore equation (1) may be rewritten as:
𝐿(𝑢) + 𝑁(𝑢) − 𝑓(𝑟) = 0 (17)
By the homotopy technique, we construct a homotopy as 𝜈(𝑟, 𝑝): Ω×[0,1] → 𝑅 which
satisfies:
𝐻(𝑣, 𝑝) = (1 − 𝑝)[𝐿(𝑣) − 𝐿(𝑢0 )] + 𝑝[𝐴(𝑣) − 𝑓(𝑟)] = 0, 𝑝 ∈ [0, 1], 𝑟 ∈ Ω (18 a)
or
𝐻(𝑣, 𝑝) = 𝐿(𝑣) − 𝐿(𝑢0) + 𝑝𝐿(𝑢0) + 𝑝[𝑁(𝑣) − 𝑓(𝑟)] = 0, (18 b)
where 𝑝 ∈ [0, 1] is an embedding parameter, while 𝑢0 is an initial approximation of equation
(1) which satisfy the boundary conditions.
Obviously, from equation (16) and (17), we will have:
𝐻(𝑣, 0) = 𝐿(𝑣) − 𝐿(𝑢0 ) = 0 (19)
𝐻(𝑣, 1) = 𝐴(𝑣) − 𝑓(𝑟) = 0 (20)
The changing process of P from zero to unity is just that of 𝜈(𝑟, 𝑝) from 𝑢0 (𝑟) to 𝑢(𝑟). In
topology, this is called deformation, while 𝐿(𝑣) − 𝐿(𝑢0 ) and 𝐴(𝑣) − 𝑓(𝑟) are called
homotopy.
According to HPM, we can first use the embedding parameter 𝑝 (0 ≤ 𝑝 ≤ 1) as a “small
parameter”, and assume that the solution of equation (19) and (20) may be written as a power
series in 𝑝:
𝑣 = 𝑣0 + 𝑝𝑣1 + 𝑝2 𝑣2 + 𝑝3 𝑣3 + ⋯ (21)
Setting 𝑝 = 1 results in the approximate solution of equation (18) as:
𝐿𝑖𝑚
𝑢 = 𝑝→1 𝑣 = 𝑣0 + 𝑣1 + 𝑣2 + 𝑣3 + ⋯ (22)
The combination of the perturbation method and the homotopy method is called the
homotopy perturbation method (HPM), which lessens the limitations of the traditional
perturbation methods. On the other hand, this technique can have full advantages of the
traditional perturbation techniques.
Although the series (23) is convergent for most cases, however, the convergence rate depends
on the non-linear operator 𝐴(𝑣). The following opinions are suggested by He:
 (1) The second derivative of 𝑁(𝑣) with respect to 𝑣 must be small because the parameter
𝑝 may be relatively
∂N
(2) The norm of L−1 ( ∂𝑣 ) must be smaller than one so that the series converges.
Example1: Consider the following the Kolmogorov-Petrovsky-Piskunov (KPP) equation:
𝜕𝑢 𝜕2 𝑢
= 𝜕𝑥 2 − 𝑢 (𝑥, 𝑡) ∈ Ω ⊂ 𝑅 (23)
𝜕𝑡
with initial and boundary conditions
𝑢 (𝑥, 0) = 𝑒 −𝑥 + 𝑥 = 𝑔(𝑥) , 𝑥 ∈ 𝑅, (24)
𝑢 (0, 𝑡) = 1 = 𝑓0 (𝑡) (25)
𝜕𝑢
(1, 𝑡) = 𝑒 −𝑡 − 1 = 𝑓1 (𝑡) , 𝑡 ∈ 𝑅 (26)
𝜕𝑥
According to the differential transformation method (DTM)
When taking the differential transformation of (23), can be obtain,
1
𝑈(𝑘, ℎ + 1) = ℎ+1 [(𝑘 + 1)(𝑘 + 2)𝑈(𝑘 + 2, ℎ) − 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ)] (27)
The related initial conditions (24) should be also transformed as follows
∞
1 1 1 1
∑ 𝑈(𝑘, 0)𝑥 𝑟 = (1 − 𝑥 + 𝑥 2 − 𝑥 3 + 𝑥 4 − 𝑥 5 + ⋯ ) + 𝛿(𝑘 − 1, ℎ) (28)
2! 3! 4! 5!
𝑟=0
which gives
1, 𝑖𝑓 𝑘 = 0
𝑈(𝑘, 0) = { 0, 𝑖𝑓 𝑘 = 1 (29)
(−1)𝑘
, 𝑖𝑓 𝑘 = 2, 3, 4, …
𝑘!
And the boundary condition (25) should be transformed as follows:
1 𝑖𝑓 𝑘 = ℎ = 0
𝑈(0, ℎ) = 𝛿(𝑘, ℎ) = { (30)
0, 𝑖𝑓 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
and
∞
1 1 1 1
∑ 𝑈(1, ℎ)𝑡 𝑟 = (1 − 𝑡 + 𝑡 2 − 𝑡 3 + 𝑡 4 − 𝑡 5 + ⋯ ) + 𝛿(𝑘, ℎ) (31)
2! 3! 4! 5!
𝑟=0
which gives
0, 𝑖𝑓 𝑘 = 0
𝑈(𝑘, 0) = {−1, 𝑖𝑓 𝑘 = 1 (32)
(−1)ℎ
, 𝑖𝑓 ℎ = 2, 3, 4, …
ℎ!
For each 𝑘, ℎ substituting equations (29), (30) and (32) into equation (28) and by recursive
method, all other of 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) are equal to zero, when substitute all values 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) into (12)
and obtain the series for 𝑢(𝑥, 𝑡). Then rearrange the solution, and obtain the following closed
form solution:
∞ ∞

𝑢(𝑥, 𝑡) = ∑ ∑ 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) 𝑥 𝑘 𝑡 ℎ
𝑘=0 ℎ=0
1 1 1 1
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑡) = (1 − 𝑥𝑡 + 2 𝑥𝑡 2 − 6 𝑥𝑡 3 + 24 𝑥𝑡 4 − 120 𝑥𝑡 5 + ⋯
1 1 1 1
+ 2 𝑥 2 − 6 𝑥 3 + 24 𝑥 4 − 120 𝑥 5 + ⋯ ),
 1 1 1 1
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑥 (1 − 𝑡 + 2 𝑡 2 − 6 𝑡 3 + 24 𝑡 4 − 120 𝑡 5 + ⋯ )
1 1 1 1
+ (1 − 𝑥 + 2 𝑥 2 − 6 𝑥 3 + 24 𝑥 4 − 120 𝑥 5 + ⋯ ) ,
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑥𝑒 −𝑡 + 𝑒 −𝑥 (33)
According to the HPM, construct the following homotopy of equation (23):
𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝑢 𝜕2 𝑢 𝜕𝑢
− 𝜕𝑡0 = 𝑃 (𝜕𝑥 2 − 𝑢 − 𝜕𝑡0 ) (34)
𝜕𝑡
and the initial approximations are as follow:
𝑢0 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑢 (𝑥, 0) = 𝑒 −𝑥 + 𝑥 (35)
Suppose that the solution of equation (34) in the form
𝑢 = 𝑢0 + 𝑝𝑢1 + 𝑝2 𝑢2 + 𝑝3 𝑢3 + 𝑝4 𝑢4 + ⋯ (36)
Substituting equation (36) into equation (34) and equating the term of same power of 𝑝, that
it follows that-
𝜕𝑢0 𝜕𝑢0
𝑝0 ∶ − =0
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡
𝜕𝑢1 𝜕2 𝑢0 𝜕𝑢0
𝑝1 ∶ = − 𝑢0 −
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑡
2 𝜕𝑢2 𝜕2 𝑢1
𝑝 ∶ = − 𝑢1
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 2
𝜕𝑢3 𝜕2 𝑢2
𝑝3 ∶ = 𝜕𝑥 2 − 𝑢2 ,
𝜕𝑡
similarly others.
By choosing 𝑢0 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑢 (𝑥, 0) = 𝑒 −𝑥 + 𝑥 , and solving the above equations, we obtain
the following approximation-
𝑢1 = −𝑥 𝑡
1
𝑢2 = 2 𝑥 𝑡 2
1
𝑢3 = − 𝑥 𝑡 3 ,
6
similarly others.
Further the series solutions expression by HPM can be written in the following form:
𝑢 = 𝑢0 + 𝑢1 + 𝑢2 + 𝑢3 + 𝑢4 + ⋯ (37)
−𝑥 1 2 1 3 1 4
𝑢 = 𝑒 + 𝑥 − 𝑥 𝑡 + 2 𝑥 𝑡 − 6 𝑥 𝑡 + 24 𝑥 𝑡 − ⋯
1 1 1
𝑢 = 𝑒 −𝑥 + 𝑥 (1 − 𝑡 + 2 𝑡 2 − 6 𝑡 3 + 24 𝑡 4 − ⋯ ) = 𝑒 −𝑥 + 𝑥𝑒 −𝑡 (38)
From equations (33) and (38), the approximate solution of the given problem (1) by using
differential transformation method is having the same results as that obtained by the
homotopy-perturbation method and it clearly appears that the approximate solution remains
closed form to exact solution.
 2.5
2.5

2
2

u 1.5 u 1.5

1 1

0.5
1 1 0.5
1 1
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
t 0 0 0 0 x
x t

Figure 1 (a) Figure 1 (b)

Figure 1(a) represents the HPM or DTM solution for the problem (1) of equation (33) or (38)
from 𝑡 = 0 to 𝑡 = 1 and 𝑥 = 0 to 𝑥 = 1 while Figure 1(b) represents the by MATLAB
solution of problem (1) from 𝑡 = 0 to 𝑡 = 1 and 𝑥 = 0 to 𝑥 = 1.
The accuracy of the HPM or DTM for the combined KPP equation is controllable, and
absolute errors are very small with the present choice of t and x. These results also obtain by
MATLAB, and both the results are compare through the figure 1(a) & (b) and there are no
visible differences in the two solutions. The exact solution HPM or DTM is the same as that
obtained by VIM [16] and ADM [14].

Example2: Consider the following the reaction-diffusion equation:

𝜕𝑢 𝜕2 𝑢
= 𝜕𝑥 2 + 2𝑡𝑢 (𝑥, 𝑡) ∈ Ω ⊂ 𝑅, (39)
𝜕𝑡
with initial and boundary conditions
𝑢 (𝑥, 0) = 𝑒 𝑥 = 𝑔(𝑥) , 𝑥 ∈ 𝑅, (40)
2 𝜕𝑢 2
𝑢 (0, 𝑡) = 𝑒 𝑡+ 𝑡 = 𝑓0 (𝑡) , 𝜕𝑥 (1, 𝑡) = 𝑒 𝑡+ 𝑡 = 𝑓1 (𝑡) , 𝑡 ∈ 𝑅 (41)
According to the DTM, equation (47) may be written as:
1
𝑈(𝑘, ℎ + 1) = [(𝑘 + 1)(𝑘 + 2)𝑈(𝑘 + 2, ℎ)
ℎ+1
𝑘 ℎ

− ∑ ∑ 𝛿(𝑟, ℎ − 𝑠 − 1) 𝑈(𝑘 − 𝑟, 𝑠)] (42)

𝑟=0 𝑠=0
From the initial condition (40) can be written as
1, 𝑖𝑓 𝑘 = 0
𝑈(𝑘, 0) = { (43)
0, 𝑖𝑓 𝑘 = 1, 2, 3, … . .
And the boundary condition (41), can calculated from the following Table 2.
Table2.
𝑈(0, ℎ) = 𝑈(1, ℎ), ℎ = 0, 1, 2, 3, …
3
𝑈(0,0) = 𝑈(1,0) = 1, 𝑈(0,1) = 𝑈(1,1) = 1, 𝑈(0,2) = 𝑈(1,2) = 2
7 25 27
𝑈(0,3) = 𝑈(1,3) = 6, 𝑈(0,4) = 𝑈(1,4) = 24, 𝑈(0,5) = 𝑈(1,5) = 40
 331 1303
𝑈(0,6) = 𝑈(1,6) = , 𝑈(0,2) = 𝑈(1,2) = , …
720 5040
… …
Using the values of table 1 into (42), and by recursive method, we have
3 1 1 1 1
𝑈(2,2) = 4, 𝑈(3,2) = 4, 𝑈(4,2) = 16, 𝑈(5,2) = 180, 𝑈(6,2) = 480, ….
7 7 7 25 55
𝑈(2,3) = 12, 𝑈(3,3) = 36, 𝑈(4,3) = 144, … 𝑈(2,4) = 48, 𝑈(3,4) = 144, …
27 9 9
𝑈(2,5) = 80, 𝑈(3,5) = 80, 𝑈(4,5) = 32, …
Substituting all values 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) into (10) and obtain series for 𝑢(𝑥, 𝑡). Then rearrange the
solution, and get the following closed form solution:
∞ ∞
2)
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) = ∑ ∑ 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) 𝑥 𝑘 𝑡 ℎ = e(x+t+t (44)
𝑘=0 ℎ=0
According to the HPM, construct the following homotopy of equation (39):
𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝑢 𝜕2 𝑢 𝜕𝑢
𝜕𝑡
− 𝜕𝑡0 = 𝑃 (𝜕𝑥 2 + 2𝑡𝑢 − 𝜕𝑡0 ) (45)
and the initial approximations are as follow:
𝑢0 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑢 (𝑥, 0) = 𝑒 𝑥 (46)
Suppose that the solution of equation (45) is in the following form:
𝑢 = 𝑢0 + 𝑝𝑢1 + 𝑝2 𝑢2 + 𝑝3 𝑢3 + 𝑝4 𝑢4 + ⋯ (47)
Substituting equation (47) into equation (45) and equating the term of same power of 𝑝, it
follows that-
𝜕𝑢0 𝜕𝑢0
𝑝0 ∶ − =0
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡
𝜕𝑢1 𝜕2 𝑢0 𝜕𝑢0
𝑝1 ∶ = + 2𝑡𝑢0 −
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑡
2 𝜕𝑢2 𝜕2 𝑢1
𝑝 ∶ = + 2𝑡𝑢1
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 2
𝜕𝑢3 𝜕2 𝑢2
𝑝3 ∶ = 𝜕𝑥 2 + 2𝑡𝑢2 ,
𝜕𝑡
similarly others.
By choosing 𝑢0 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑢 (𝑥, 0) = 𝑒 𝑥 , and solving the above equations, we obtain the
following approximation-
𝑢1 = 𝑒 𝑥 (𝑡 + 𝑡 2 )
𝑡2 𝑡4
𝑢2 = 𝑒 𝑥 ( 2 + 𝑡 3 + 2 )
𝑡3 𝑡4 𝑡5 𝑡6
𝑢3 = 𝑒 𝑥 ( 6 + 2 + 2 + 6 ) ,
similarly others.
Further the series solutions expression by HPM can be written in the form:
𝑢 = 𝑢0 + 𝑢1 + 𝑢2 + 𝑢3 + 𝑢4 + ⋯ (48)
𝑡2 𝑡4 𝑡3 𝑡4 𝑡5 𝑡6
𝑢 = 𝑒 𝑥 + 𝑒 𝑥 (𝑡 + 𝑡 2 ) + 𝑒 𝑥 ( 2 + 𝑡 3 + 2 ) + 𝑒 𝑥 ( 6 + + + 6) + ⋯
2 2
𝑥+𝑡+𝑡 2
𝑢 = 𝑒 (49)
From equations (44) and (49), the approximate solution of the given problem (2) by using
differential transformation method is the same results as that obtained by the homotopy-
perturbation method and it clearly appears that the approximate solution remains closed form
to exact solution.
 3
3
2.5

2 2
1.5
u u
1 1
0.5

0 0
1 1
0.8 0.8 1
1 0.6 0.8
0.6
0.8
0.4 0.4 0.6
0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.2
t 0 0 t 0 0
x x

Figure 2 (a) Figure 2 (b)

Figure 2(a) represents the HPM solution for the problem (1) of equation (44) or (49) from 𝑡 =
0 to 𝑡 = 1 and 𝑥 = 0 to 𝑥 = 1 while the figure 2(b) represents the MATLAB solution of
Problem (2) from 𝑡 = 0 to 𝑡 = 1 and 𝑥 = 0 to 𝑥 = 1
The accuracy of the HPM for the combined KPP equation is controllable, and absolute
errors are very small with the present choice of t and x. These results also obtain by
MATLAB, and both the results are comparing through the figures 2(a) and (b). There are no
visible differences in the two solutions. The exact solution HPM or DTM is the same as that
obtained by VIM [16] and ADM [14].

Example3: Consider the following the reaction-diffusion:

𝜕𝑢 𝜕2 𝑢
= 𝜕𝑥 2 − (4𝑥 2 − 2𝑡 + 2)𝑢 (𝑥, 𝑡) ∈ Ω ⊂ 𝑅, (50)
𝜕𝑡
with initial and boundary conditions
2
𝑢 (𝑥, 0) = 𝑒 𝑥 = 𝑔(𝑥) , 𝑥 ∈ 𝑅, (51)
2
𝑢 (0, 𝑡) = 𝑒 𝑡 = 𝑓0 (𝑡) (52)
𝜕𝑢
(0, 𝑡) = 0 = 𝑓1 (𝑡) , 𝑡 ∈ 𝑅 (53)
𝜕𝑥
According to the DTM, Taking the differential transformation of (50),
(𝑘 + 1)(𝑘 + 2)𝑈(𝑘 + 2, ℎ)
𝑘 ℎ

1 +2 ∑ ∑ 𝛿(𝑟, ℎ − 𝑠 − 1) 𝑈(𝑘 − 𝑟, 𝑠)
𝑈(𝑘, ℎ + 1) = 𝑟=0 𝑠=0 (54)
ℎ+1 𝑘 ℎ

−4 ∑ ∑ 𝛿(𝑟 − 2, ℎ − 𝑠) 𝑈(𝑘 − 𝑟, 𝑠) − 2𝑈(𝑘, ℎ)

[ 𝑟=0 𝑠=0 ]
From the initial condition (51) of the form we may hve:
0 𝑖𝑓 𝑘 = 1, 3, 5, …
𝑈(𝑘, 0) = { 1 𝑖𝑓 𝑘 = 0, 2, 4, 6, … . (55)
𝑘
( )!
2
 0 𝑖𝑓 ℎ = 1, 3, 5, …
𝑈(0, ℎ) = { 1
𝑖𝑓 ℎ = 0, 2, 4, 6, … . (56)
ℎ
( )!
2
and 𝑈(1, ℎ) = 0 for all ℎ ≥ 0. (57)
Using (55)-(57) into (54) by recursive method, we have the following values in Table 3 when
ℎ ≥ 1 we have, 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) = 0,
Table 3
1 1 1 1
𝑈(2, 2) = 1, 𝑈(4, 2) = 2, 𝑈(6, 2) = 6, 𝑈(8, 2) = 24, 𝑈(10, 2) = 120, …
1 1 1 1 1
𝑈(2, 4) = 2, 𝑈(4, 4) = 4, 𝑈(6, 4) = 12 , 𝑈(8, 4) = 48, 𝑈(10, 4) = 240, …
1 1 1 1 1
𝑈(2, 6) = 6, 𝑈(4, 6) = 12, 𝑈(6, 6) = 36 , 𝑈(8, 6) = 144, 𝑈(10, 6) = 720, …
1 1 1 1 1
𝑈(2, 8) = 24, 𝑈(4, 8) = 48, 𝑈(6, 8) = 144 , 𝑈(8, 8) = 576, 𝑈(10, 8) = 2880, …
1 1 1 1 1
𝑈(2, 10) = 120, 𝑈(4, 10) = 240, 𝑈(6, 10) = 720 , 𝑈(8, 10) = 2880, 𝑈(10, 10) = 14400, ...
⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
Substituting all values 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) into (10) and obtain series for 𝑢(𝑥, 𝑡). Then rearrange the
solution, and get the following closed form solution:
∞ ∞

𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) = ∑ ∑ 𝑈(𝑘, ℎ) 𝑥 𝑘 𝑡 ℎ
𝑘=0 ℎ=0
(𝑥 2 +𝑡 2 )
𝑢(𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑒 (58)

According to the HPM, construct the following homotopy of the equation (50):
𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝑢 𝜕2 𝑢 𝜕𝑢
− 𝜕𝑡0 = 𝑃 (𝜕𝑥 2 − (4𝑥 2 − 2𝑡 + 2)𝑢 − 𝜕𝑡0 ) (59)
𝜕𝑡
and the initial approximations are as follow:
2
𝑢0 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑢 (𝑥, 0) = 𝑒 𝑥 (60)
Suppose that the solution of equation (59) is in the following form:
𝑢 = 𝑢0 + 𝑝𝑢1 + 𝑝2 𝑢2 + 𝑝3 𝑢3 + 𝑝4 𝑢4 + ⋯ (61)
Substituting equation (61) into equation (59) and equating the term of same power of 𝑝, it
follows that-
𝜕𝑢0 𝜕𝑢0
𝑝0 ∶ − =0
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡
𝜕𝑢1 𝜕2 𝑢0 𝜕𝑢0
𝑝1 ∶ = − (4𝑥 2 − 2𝑡 + 2)𝑢0 −
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑡
2 𝜕𝑢2 𝜕2 𝑢1
𝑝 ∶ = − (4𝑥 2 − 2𝑡 + 2)𝑢1
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 2
𝜕𝑢3 𝜕2 𝑢2
𝑝3 ∶ = 𝜕𝑥 2 − (4𝑥 2 − 2𝑡 + 2)𝑢2 ,
𝜕𝑡
similarly others.
2
By choosing 𝑢0 (𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑢 (𝑥, 0) = 𝑒 𝑥 , and solving the above equations, we obtain the
following approximation-
2
𝑢1 = 𝑒 𝑥 𝑡 2
2 𝑡4
𝑢2 = 𝑒 𝑥 2
6
𝑥2 𝑡
𝑢3 = 𝑒 6
similarly others.
Then the series solutions expression by HPM can be written in the form:
𝑢 = 𝑢0 + 𝑢1 + 𝑢2 + 𝑢3 + 𝑢4 + ⋯ (62)
𝑥2 𝑥2 2 2 𝑡4 2 𝑡6
𝑢 = 𝑒 + 𝑒 𝑡 + 𝑒𝑥 2 + 𝑒𝑥 6 +⋯
𝑥 2 +𝑡 2
𝑢 = 𝑒 (63)
From equations (58) and (63), the approximate solution of the given problem (1) by using
differential transformation method is the same results as that obtained by the homotopy-
perturbation method and it clearly appears that the approximate solution remains closed form
to exact solution.

3
3

2.5 2.5

2 2

u 1.5 u 1.5

1 1
0.5
0.5
0
1 1 0
0.8 1 1
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0 0 0 0
t x t x

Figure 3 (a) Figure 3 (b)

Figure 3(a) represents the HPM or DTM solution for the problem (3) of the equations (58) or
(63), from 𝑡 = 0 to 𝑡 = 1 and 𝑥 = 0 to 𝑥 = 1 while the figure 3(b) represents the solution of
the problem (3), from 𝑡 = 0 to 𝑡 = 1 and 𝑥 = 0 to 𝑥 = 1

The accuracy of the HPM for the combined KPP equation is controllable, and absolute
errors are very small with the present choice of 𝑡 and 𝑥. These results also obtain by
MATLAB, and both the results are comparing through the figures 3(a) and (b). There are no
visible differences in the two solutions. The exact solution HPM or DTM is the same as that
obtained by VIM [16] and ADM [14].

Conclusion:
Reaction–diffusion equations have special importance in engineering and sciences and
constitute a good model for many systems in various fields. Therefore the main goal of this
work is to conduct a comparative study between the differential transformation method
(DTM) and He’s homotopy perturbation method (HPM). The two methods are so powerful
and efficient that they both give approximations of higher accuracy and closed form solutions
if existing. Throughout the result of our example which are found by using the two methods
are compared with the analytic solutions, and show that the convergence are quite close.
Further the results of our example tell us the two successfully methods can be alternative way
for the solution of the linear and nonlinear higher-order initial value problems. In fact, DTM
and HPM are very efficient methods to find the numerical and analytic solutions of
differential-difference equations, delay differential equations as well as integral equations.
The results show that HPM is a powerful mathematical tool for solving linear and nonlinear
partial differential equations, and therefore, can be widely applied in engineering problems.
The Comparison between obtained results showed that HPM is more acceptable and accurate
than two other methods. In work MATLAB is used to calculate the series obtained from the
HPM or DTM.

References:
1. Abdel-Halim Hassan I. H. (2002); “Different applications for the differential transformation
in the differential equations”, Appl. Math. Comput., 129, pp 183-201.
2. Adomian, G. (1986); “A new approach to the heat equation-an application of the
decomposition method”, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 113, pp 202–209.
3. Arikoglu, A., Ozkol, I. (2006); “Solution of differential-difference equations by using
differential transform method”, Appl. Math. Comput., 181, pp.153-162.
4. Ayaz, F. (2003); “On the two-dimensional differential transform method”, Appl. Math.
Comput., 143, pp 361-374.
5. Ayaz, F. (2004);”Solutions of the system of differential equations by differential
transform method”, Appl. Math. Comput., 147, pp 547–567.
6. Ayaz, F. (2004); “Applications of differential transform method to differential-algebraic
equations”, Appl. Math. Comput., 152, pp 649-657.
7. Bataineh, A.S., Noorani, M.S.M. and Hashim, I. (2008); “The homotopy analysis method
for Cauchy reaction-diffusion problems”, Physics Letters A, 372, pp. 613–618.
8. Dehghan, M. and Shakeri, F. (2008); “Application of He's variational iteration method for
solving the Cauchy reaction-diffusion problem”, Journal of Computational and Applied
Mathematics, 214, pp. 435-446.
9. Ganjia, D.D., Afrouzib, G.A. and Talarposhtib, R.A. (2007); “Application of He’s
variational iteration method for solving the reaction–diffusion equation with ecological
parameters”, Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 54, pp. 1010–1017.
10. He, J.H. (1999); “Homotopy perturbation technique”, Computational Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, 178, pp. 257–262.
11. He, J.H. (2000); “A coupling method of a homotopy technique and a perturbation technique
for non-linear problems”, International Journal of Non-linear Mechanics, 35, pp. 37–43.
12. He, J.H. (2003); “Homotopy perturbation method: A new non-linear analytical technique”,
Appl. Math. Comput., 135, pp. 73–79.
13. He, J.H. (2006); “Homotopy perturbation method for solving boundary value problems”,
Physics Letters A, 350, pp. 87–88.
14. Jang, M. J., Chen, C. L., Liy Y. C. (2000); “On solving the initial value problems using the
differential transformation method”, Appl. Math. Comput., 115, pp 145-160.
15. Kumar, S. and Kumar, N. (2005); “A computational study of oxygen transport in the body of
living organism”, Int. J. Engg., 18(4), pp. 351–358.
16. Kumar S. and Singh R. (2009): Exact and numerical solutions of nonlinear reaction
diffusion equation by using the Cole–Hopf transformation, “International Transactions in
Mathematical Sciences & Computer” 02 (2), pp 241-252.
17. Karakoc, F., Bereketoglu, H. (2009); “Solutions of delay differential equations by using
differential transform method”. Int. J. Comput. Math., 86, 914-923.
18. Lesnic, D. (2007); “The decomposition method for Cauchy reaction-diffusion problems”,
Applied Mathematics Letters, 20, pp. 412–418.
19. Murray J.D. (1989); “Mathematical Biology”, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
20. Nadjafi, J. S. and Ghorbani, A. (2009); “He's homotopy perturbation method: An effective
tool for solving nonlinear integral and integro-differential equations”, Computers and
Mathematics with Applications, 58, pp. 2379-2390
21. Othman M. I. A. and A. M. S. Mahdy (2010); “Differential Transformation Method and
Variation Iteration Method for Cauchy Reaction-diffusion Problems” Journal of Mathematics and
Computer Science, 1(2), pp. 61-75.
22. Yildirim, A. (2009); “Application of He's homotopy perturbation method for solving the
Cauchy reaction diffusion problem”, Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 57, pp.
612-618.
23. Zhou J. K. (1986); “Differential transformation and its application for electrical circuits”
Huarjung University Press, Wuuhahn, China.