# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

## A novel model for the contamination of a system of three artificial lakes

 Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla, 48300, Turkey

Received  April 2019 Revised  May 2019 Published  December 2019

In this study, a new model has been developed to monitor the contamination in connected three lakes. The model has been motivated by two biological models, i.e. cell compartment model and lake pollution model. Haar wavelet collocation method has been proposed for the numerical solutions of the model containing a system of three linear differential equations. In addition to the solutions of the system, convergence analysis has been briefly given for the proposed method. The contamination in each lake has been investigated by considering three different pollutant input cases, namely impulse imposed pollutant source, exponentially decaying imposed pollutant source, and periodic imposed pollutant source. Each case has been illustrated with a numerical example and results are compared with the exact ones. Regarding the results in each case it has been seen that, Haar wavelet collocation method is an efficient algorithm to monitor the contamination of a system of lakes problem.

Citation: Veysel Fuat Hatipoğlu. A novel model for the contamination of a system of three artificial lakes. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020176
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
Illustration of the interconnected Lakes 1, 2, 3, and flow $F_{12}$, $F_{13}$, $F_{21}$, $F_{23}$, $F_{31}$, $F_{32}$
Graphical representation of approximate and exact solutions of Example 4.1 for $m = 8$ of (a) the function $u_1(t)$ (pollution in Lake 1), (b) the function $u_2(t)$ (pollution in Lake 2), and (c) the function $u_3(t)$ (pollution in Lake 3)
Graphical representation of approximate and exact solutions of Example 4.1 for $m = 256$ of (a) the function $u_1(t)$ (pollution in Lake 1), (b) the function $u_2(t)$ (pollution in Lake 2), and (c) the function $u_3(t)$ (pollution in Lake 3)
Graphical representation of approximate and exact solutions of Example 4.2 for $m = 8$ of (a) the function $u_1(t)$ (pollution in Lake 1), (b) the function $u_2(t)$ (pollution in Lake 2), and (c) the function $u_3(t)$ (pollution in Lake 3)
Graphical representation of approximate and exact solutions of Example 4.2 for $m = 256$ of (a) the function $u_1(t)$ (pollution in Lake 1), (b) the function $u_2(t)$ (pollution in Lake 2), and (c) the function $u_3(t)$ (pollution in Lake 3)
Graphical representation of approximate and exact solutions of Example 4.3 for $m = 8$ of (a) the function $u_1(t)$ (pollution in Lake 1), (b) the function $u_2(t)$ (pollution in Lake 2), and (c) the function $u_3(t)$ (pollution in Lake 3)
Graphical representation of approximate and exact solutions of Example 4.3 for $m = 256$ of (a) the function $u_1(t)$ (pollution in Lake 1), (b) the function $u_2(t)$ (pollution in Lake 2), and (c) the function $u_3(t)$ (pollution in Lake 3)
Numerical results for the case of the impulse input imposed pollutant source for $m = 8$
 $t$ App. sol. of $u_1$ Abs. error in $u_1$ App. sol. of $u_2$ Abs. error in $u_2$ App. sol. of $u_3$ Abs. error in $u_3$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 22.9684 3.00002 0.0164893 0.0000103978 0.0151401 $5.40755\times 10^{-6}$ 0.4 41.8738 2.00003 0.0657719 0.0000194067 0.0604641 0.0000101545 0.6 57.7167 1.99995 0.147536 0.0000303268 0.135809 0.0000159672 0.8 76.4975 2.99994 0.26148 0.0000389783 0.241017 0.0000206502 1 99.2168 0.0000745642 0.407297 0.0000486384 0.375927 0.0000259258
 $t$ App. sol. of $u_1$ Abs. error in $u_1$ App. sol. of $u_2$ Abs. error in $u_2$ App. sol. of $u_3$ Abs. error in $u_3$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 22.9684 3.00002 0.0164893 0.0000103978 0.0151401 $5.40755\times 10^{-6}$ 0.4 41.8738 2.00003 0.0657719 0.0000194067 0.0604641 0.0000101545 0.6 57.7167 1.99995 0.147536 0.0000303268 0.135809 0.0000159672 0.8 76.4975 2.99994 0.26148 0.0000389783 0.241017 0.0000206502 1 99.2168 0.0000745642 0.407297 0.0000486384 0.375927 0.0000259258
Numerical results for the case of the impulse input imposed pollutant source for $m = 256$
 $t$ App. sol. of $u_1$ Abs. error in $u_1$ App. sol. of $u_2$ Abs. error in $u_2$ App. sol. of $u_3$ Abs. error in $u_3$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 20.0309 0.0625 0.0164996 $9.84289\times 10^{-9}$ 0.0151455 $5.11793\times 10^{-9}$ 0.4 39.78 0.09375 0.0657913 $1.95302\times 10^{-8}$ 0.0604743 $1.02186\times 10^{-8}$ 0.6 59.8104 0.09375 0.147566 $2.90455\times 10^{-8}$ 0.135825 $1.52923\times 10^{-8}$ 0.8 79.4349 0.0624999 0.261519 $3.83733\times 10^{-8}$ 0.241038 $2.03287\times 10^{-8}$ 1 99.2167 $7.28163\times 10^{-8}$ 0.407345 $4.74981\times 10^{-8}$ 0.375953 $2.53183\times 10^{-8}$
 $t$ App. sol. of $u_1$ Abs. error in $u_1$ App. sol. of $u_2$ Abs. error in $u_2$ App. sol. of $u_3$ Abs. error in $u_3$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 20.0309 0.0625 0.0164996 $9.84289\times 10^{-9}$ 0.0151455 $5.11793\times 10^{-9}$ 0.4 39.78 0.09375 0.0657913 $1.95302\times 10^{-8}$ 0.0604743 $1.02186\times 10^{-8}$ 0.6 59.8104 0.09375 0.147566 $2.90455\times 10^{-8}$ 0.135825 $1.52923\times 10^{-8}$ 0.8 79.4349 0.0624999 0.261519 $3.83733\times 10^{-8}$ 0.241038 $2.03287\times 10^{-8}$ 1 99.2167 $7.28163\times 10^{-8}$ 0.407345 $4.74981\times 10^{-8}$ 0.375953 $2.53183\times 10^{-8}$
Numerical results for the case of the pollutant source is exponential decaying for $m = 8$
 $t$ App. sol. of $u_1$ Abs. error in $u_1$ App. sol. of $u_2$ Abs. error in $u_2$ App. sol. of $u_3$ Abs. error in $u_3$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 21.1544 3.89703 0.0158795 0.00284471 0.0145808 0.00261002 0.4 21.6476 2.10907 0.0445744 0.00499602 0.0409975 0.00459647 0.6 15.2365 4.55673 0.0747691 0.00702142 0.0688998 0.00647562 0.8 13.554 6.22018 0.104924 0.00900802 0.0968779 0.00832662 1 18.4945 1.2239 0.134828 0.0109746 0.124735 0.0101665
 $t$ App. sol. of $u_1$ Abs. error in $u_1$ App. sol. of $u_2$ Abs. error in $u_2$ App. sol. of $u_3$ Abs. error in $u_3$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 21.1544 3.89703 0.0158795 0.00284471 0.0145808 0.00261002 0.4 21.6476 2.10907 0.0445744 0.00499602 0.0409975 0.00459647 0.6 15.2365 4.55673 0.0747691 0.00702142 0.0688998 0.00647562 0.8 13.554 6.22018 0.104924 0.00900802 0.0968779 0.00832662 1 18.4945 1.2239 0.134828 0.0109746 0.124735 0.0101665
Numerical results for the case of the pollutant source is exponential decaying for $m = 256$
 $t$ App. sol. of $u_1$ Abs. error in $u_1$ App. sol. of $u_2$ Abs. error in $u_2$ App. sol. of $u_3$ Abs. error in $u_3$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 17.3813 0.123881 0.0187212 $3.00622\times 10^{-6}$ 0.0171881 $2.75854\times 10^{-6}$ 0.4 19.3498 0.188703 0.0495652 $5.197\times 10^{-6}$ 0.0455892 $4.78187\times 10^{-6}$ 0.6 19.9795 0.18621 0.0817833 $7.25942\times 10^{-6}$ 0.0753687 $6.69578\times 10^{-6}$ 0.8 19.6479 0.126229 0.113923 $9.28787\times 10^{-6}$ 0.105196 $8.58611\times 10^{-6}$ 1 19.7171 0.00124969 0.145791 0.0000112953 0.134891 0.0000104645
 $t$ App. sol. of $u_1$ Abs. error in $u_1$ App. sol. of $u_2$ Abs. error in $u_2$ App. sol. of $u_3$ Abs. error in $u_3$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 17.3813 0.123881 0.0187212 $3.00622\times 10^{-6}$ 0.0171881 $2.75854\times 10^{-6}$ 0.4 19.3498 0.188703 0.0495652 $5.197\times 10^{-6}$ 0.0455892 $4.78187\times 10^{-6}$ 0.6 19.9795 0.18621 0.0817833 $7.25942\times 10^{-6}$ 0.0753687 $6.69578\times 10^{-6}$ 0.8 19.6479 0.126229 0.113923 $9.28787\times 10^{-6}$ 0.105196 $8.58611\times 10^{-6}$ 1 19.7171 0.00124969 0.145791 0.0000112953 0.134891 0.0000104645
Numerical results for the case of the periodic imposed pollutant source for $m = 8$
 $t$ App. sol. of $u_1$ Abs. error in $u_1$ App. sol. of $u_2$ Abs. error in $u_2$ App. sol. of $u_3$ Abs. error in $u_3$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.249602 0.0300057 0.000178068 $2.08508\times 10^{-6}$ 0.000163497 $1.96112\times 10^{-6}$ 0.4 0.497558 0.0200493 0.000748935 $3.8634\times 10^{-6}$ 0.000688452 $3.6487\times 10^{-6}$ 0.6 0.751366 0.0199072 0.0017721 $5.90008\times 10^{-6}$ 0.001631 $5.59805\times 10^{-6}$ 0.8 1.06715 0.0298126 0.00330008 $7.43142\times 10^{-6}$ 0.00304105 $7.08325\times 10^{-6}$ 1 1.44966 0.000281844 0.00537877 $8.97633\times 10^{-6}$ 0.00496263 $8.59806\times 10^{-6}$
 $t$ App. sol. of $u_1$ Abs. error in $u_1$ App. sol. of $u_2$ Abs. error in $u_2$ App. sol. of $u_3$ Abs. error in $u_3$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.249602 0.0300057 0.000178068 $2.08508\times 10^{-6}$ 0.000163497 $1.96112\times 10^{-6}$ 0.4 0.497558 0.0200493 0.000748935 $3.8634\times 10^{-6}$ 0.000688452 $3.6487\times 10^{-6}$ 0.6 0.751366 0.0199072 0.0017721 $5.90008\times 10^{-6}$ 0.001631 $5.59805\times 10^{-6}$ 0.8 1.06715 0.0298126 0.00330008 $7.43142\times 10^{-6}$ 0.00304105 $7.08325\times 10^{-6}$ 1 1.44966 0.000281844 0.00537877 $8.97633\times 10^{-6}$ 0.00496263 $8.59806\times 10^{-6}$
Numerical results for the case of the periodic imposed pollutant source for $m = 256$
 $t$ App. sol. of $u_1$ Abs. error in $u_1$ App. sol. of $u_2$ Abs. error in $u_2$ App. sol. of $u_3$ Abs. error in $u_3$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.220221 0.000625009 0.000175985 $1.97563\times 10^{-9}$ 0.000161538 $1.8579\times 10^{-9}$ 0.4 0.476572 0.000937457 0.000745076 $3.87845\times 10^{-9}$ 0.000684807 $3.66306\times 10^{-9}$ 0.6 0.77221 0.0009376 0.00176621 $5.66633\times 10^{-9}$ 0.00162541 $5.37572\times 10^{-9}$ 0.8 1.09634 0.000624822 0.00329265 $7.30236\times 10^{-9}$ 0.00303397 $6.96049\times 10^{-9}$ 1 1.44937 $2.75122\times 10^{-7}$ 0.0053698 $8.75757\times 10^{-9}$ 0.00495404 $8.38886\times 10^{-9}$
 $t$ App. sol. of $u_1$ Abs. error in $u_1$ App. sol. of $u_2$ Abs. error in $u_2$ App. sol. of $u_3$ Abs. error in $u_3$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.220221 0.000625009 0.000175985 $1.97563\times 10^{-9}$ 0.000161538 $1.8579\times 10^{-9}$ 0.4 0.476572 0.000937457 0.000745076 $3.87845\times 10^{-9}$ 0.000684807 $3.66306\times 10^{-9}$ 0.6 0.77221 0.0009376 0.00176621 $5.66633\times 10^{-9}$ 0.00162541 $5.37572\times 10^{-9}$ 0.8 1.09634 0.000624822 0.00329265 $7.30236\times 10^{-9}$ 0.00303397 $6.96049\times 10^{-9}$ 1 1.44937 $2.75122\times 10^{-7}$ 0.0053698 $8.75757\times 10^{-9}$ 0.00495404 $8.38886\times 10^{-9}$
 [1] Ömer Arslan, Selçuk Kürşat İşleyen. A model and two heuristic methods for The Multi-Product Inventory-Location-Routing Problem with heterogeneous fleet. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021002 [2] Shun Zhang, Jianlin Jiang, Su Zhang, Yibing Lv, Yuzhen Guo. ADMM-type methods for generalized multi-facility Weber problem. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020171 [3] Yuan Tan, Qingyuan Cao, Lan Li, Tianshi Hu, Min Su. A chance-constrained stochastic model predictive control problem with disturbance feedback. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (1) : 67-79. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019099 [4] Michel Chipot, Mingmin Zhang. On some model problem for the propagation of interacting species in a special environment. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020401 [5] Waixiang Cao, Lueling Jia, Zhimin Zhang. A $C^1$ Petrov-Galerkin method and Gauss collocation method for 1D general elliptic problems and superconvergence. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (1) : 81-105. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020327 [6] Philippe G. Ciarlet, Liliana Gratie, Cristinel Mardare. Intrinsic methods in elasticity: a mathematical survey. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2009, 23 (1&2) : 133-164. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2009.23.133 [7] Predrag S. Stanimirović, Branislav Ivanov, Haifeng Ma, Dijana Mosić. A survey of gradient methods for solving nonlinear optimization. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1573-1624. doi: 10.3934/era.2020115 [8] Xing-Bin Pan. Variational and operator methods for Maxwell-Stokes system. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2020, 40 (6) : 3909-3955. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020036 [9] Xuefei He, Kun Wang, Liwei Xu. Efficient finite difference methods for the nonlinear Helmholtz equation in Kerr medium. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1503-1528. doi: 10.3934/era.2020079 [10] Xin Guo, Lei Shi. Preface of the special issue on analysis in data science: Methods and applications. Mathematical Foundations of Computing, 2020, 3 (4) : i-ii. doi: 10.3934/mfc.2020026 [11] Bin Wang, Lin Mu. Viscosity robust weak Galerkin finite element methods for Stokes problems. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29 (1) : 1881-1895. doi: 10.3934/era.2020096 [12] Jiwei Jia, Young-Ju Lee, Yue Feng, Zichan Wang, Zhongshu Zhao. Hybridized weak Galerkin finite element methods for Brinkman equations. Electronic Research Archive, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/era.2020126 [13] Baoli Yin, Yang Liu, Hong Li, Zhimin Zhang. Approximation methods for the distributed order calculus using the convolution quadrature. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (3) : 1447-1468. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020168 [14] Wenbin Li, Jianliang Qian. Simultaneously recovering both domain and varying density in inverse gravimetry by efficient level-set methods. Inverse Problems & Imaging, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020073 [15] Wei Ouyang, Li Li. Hölder strong metric subregularity and its applications to convergence analysis of inexact Newton methods. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (1) : 169-184. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019105 [16] Yuyuan Ouyang, Trevor Squires. Some worst-case datasets of deterministic first-order methods for solving binary logistic regression. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2021, 15 (1) : 63-77. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020047 [17] Tetsuya Ishiwata, Takeshi Ohtsuka. Numerical analysis of an ODE and a level set methods for evolving spirals by crystalline eikonal-curvature flow. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (3) : 893-907. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020390 [18] Qiang Long, Xue Wu, Changzhi Wu. Non-dominated sorting methods for multi-objective optimization: Review and numerical comparison. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (2) : 1001-1023. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020009 [19] Min Chen, Olivier Goubet, Shenghao Li. Mathematical analysis of bump to bucket problem. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2020, 19 (12) : 5567-5580. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020251 [20] Qingfang Wang, Hua Yang. Solutions of nonlocal problem with critical exponent. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2020, 19 (12) : 5591-5608. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020253

2019 Impact Factor: 1.233

## Tools

Article outline

Figures and Tables