The computed results before and after critical time were validated using the partial differential equation Toolbox in MATLAB^{®}. In this case, Eq. (21) subjected to the boundary conditions (24) and (25) was solved iteratively using a finite element method and the solution process was as follows. At the time instance *t*_{n} (*t*_{0} = 0 s), the algorithm computes the pressure of the gas *p*_{g} (*t*_{n}) from Eq. (38) using the current mass of the gas in the cavity $mg,c\u2032(tn)$, where $mg,c\u2032(t0)=m0\u2032$. If the computed *p*_{g} (*t*_{n}) < *p*_{cr}, *p*_{g} (*t*_{n}) is set equal to *p*_{cr} for all subsequent time-steps. Next, the algorithm updates the boundary condition (24) and Eq. (43) is solved over one time interval Δ*t*, i.e., until *t*_{n}_{+1} = *t*_{n} + Δ*t*, to compute the new dissolved gas concentration field in the liquid *ρ*_{g} (*y*, *t*_{n}_{+1}). Consequently, the algorithm integrates *ρ*_{g} (*y*, *t*_{n}_{+1}) over the domain to compute the total mass of the gas that has diffused into the liquid from *t*_{0} until *t*_{n}_{+1} denoted as $mg,\u2113\u2032(tn+1)$. Thence, the net change of this mass of the diffused gas over the current time-step $dmg,\u2113\u2032(tn)$ is computed by subtracting $mg,\u2113\u2032(tn)$ from $mg,\u2113\u2032(tn+1)$. It is noted that $mg,\u2113\u2032(t0)=0$. Next, $mg,c\u2032(tn+1)$ is computed by subtracting $dmg,\u2113\u2032(tn)$ from $mg,c\u2032(tn)$. Then, $mg,c\u2032(tn+1)$ is set equal to $mg,c\u2032(tn)$ and the solution process is repeated until the maximum specified time instance. The domain was discretized with 1920 elements. The time-step was set equal to 5 × 10^{−4} s and 5 × 10^{−2} s for *t*_{n} < 2 s and *t*_{n} ≥ 2 s, respectively, i.e., equal to the half of the corresponding time-steps that were used in the semi-analytical analysis. For case study I, the results are in excellent agreement, with the discrepancies for *t*_{cr} and *t*_{f} to be less than 0.09% and 0.14%, respectively, and the maximum discrepancy for $mg,\u2113\u2032$ found to be less than 0.49%. For case study II, as represented in Fig. 9, the discrepancies for *t*_{cr} and *t*_{f} were less than 1.15% and 0.9%, respectively.