We systematically test families of explicit adaptive step size controllers for solving the diffusion or heat equation. After discretizing the space variables as in the conventional method of lines, we are left with a system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs). Different methods for estimating the local error and techniques for changing the step size when solving a system of ODEs were suggested previously by researchers. In this paper, those local error estimators and techniques are used to generate different types of adaptive step size controllers. Those controllers are applied to a system of ODEs resulting from discretizing diffusion equations. The performances of the controllers were compared in the cases of three different experiments. The first and the second system are heat conduction in homogeneous and inhomogeneous media, while the third one contains a moving heat source that can correspond to a welding process.
Citation: Mahmoud Saleh, Endre Kovács, Nagaraja Kallur. Adaptive step size controllers based on Runge-Kutta and linear-neighbor methods for solving the non-stationary heat conduction equation[J]. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(3): 1059-1082. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023046
[1] | Amira Bouhali, Walid Ben Aribi, Slimane Ben Miled, Amira Kebir . Impact of immunity loss on the optimal vaccination strategy for an age-structured epidemiological model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(6): 6372-6392. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024278 |
[2] | Holly Gaff, Elsa Schaefer . Optimal control applied to vaccination and treatment strategies for various epidemiological models. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2009, 6(3): 469-492. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2009.6.469 |
[3] | Haoyu Wang, Xihe Qiu, Jinghan Yang, Qiong Li, Xiaoyu Tan, Jingjing Huang . Neural-SEIR: A flexible data-driven framework for precise prediction of epidemic disease. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(9): 16807-16823. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023749 |
[4] | Markus Thäter, Kurt Chudej, Hans Josef Pesch . Optimal vaccination strategies for an SEIR model of infectious diseases with logistic growth. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(2): 485-505. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018022 |
[5] | Rongjian Lv, Hua Li, Qiubai Sun, Bowen Li . Model of strategy control for delayed panic spread in emergencies. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(1): 75-95. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024004 |
[6] | Sarafa A. Iyaniwura, Musa Rabiu, Jummy F. David, Jude D. Kong . Assessing the impact of adherence to Non-pharmaceutical interventions and indirect transmission on the dynamics of COVID-19: a mathematical modelling study. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 8905-8932. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021439 |
[7] | Jerzy Klamka, Helmut Maurer, Andrzej Swierniak . Local controllability and optimal control for\newline a model of combined anticancer therapy with control delays. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2017, 14(1): 195-216. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2017013 |
[8] | Bruno Buonomo . A simple analysis of vaccination strategies for rubella. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2011, 8(3): 677-687. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2011.8.677 |
[9] | M. H. A. Biswas, L. T. Paiva, MdR de Pinho . A SEIR model for control of infectious diseases with constraints. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2014, 11(4): 761-784. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2014.11.761 |
[10] | Pannathon Kreabkhontho, Watchara Teparos, Thitiya Theparod . Potential for eliminating COVID-19 in Thailand through third-dose vaccination: A modeling approach. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(8): 6807-6828. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024298 |
We systematically test families of explicit adaptive step size controllers for solving the diffusion or heat equation. After discretizing the space variables as in the conventional method of lines, we are left with a system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs). Different methods for estimating the local error and techniques for changing the step size when solving a system of ODEs were suggested previously by researchers. In this paper, those local error estimators and techniques are used to generate different types of adaptive step size controllers. Those controllers are applied to a system of ODEs resulting from discretizing diffusion equations. The performances of the controllers were compared in the cases of three different experiments. The first and the second system are heat conduction in homogeneous and inhomogeneous media, while the third one contains a moving heat source that can correspond to a welding process.
Since the publication of the seminal paper [11] mathematical compartmental models are widely used to describe infectious diseases dymanics in large populations (see, for example [9], [4], [2] and [8]). It is well accepted that once an infected individual comes into contact with an unaffected population, the disease will spread by contact with the infectious individuals. Compartmental models divide the population into compartments characterizing the spread of the diseases and letters are used to denote the number of individuals in each compartment. Usually, the size of the population to be studied is
The basic reproduction number,
Many papers on optimal control applied to epidemiology propose
In this paper we focus on optimal control problems to control, via vaccination, the spread of a disease described by a SEIR model. We follow closely the approach in [16]: we consider
The normalized SEIR model differs from the usual SEIR model since the variables are fractions of the whole population instead of the number of individuals in each compartment. The theoretical and numerical treatment involving the latter model is usually done as if the variables are continuous and not integers; treating such variables as integers would demand the use of integer programming what is known to be very heavy computationally. When we turn to normalized models the variables are, by nature, continuous. In the literature, normalized models are common when the total population is assumed to remain constant during the time frame under study. This is not our case; here we normalize a SEIR model that incorporates exponential natural birth and death, as well as disease-caused death (similarly to what is done in [14]). As far as optimal control is concerned, normalizing such model brings out some new issues related to the choice of costs and the introduction of non standard constraints, questions we discuss here when comparing optimal control for normalized and not normalized SEIR models.
Herein, we refer to the SEIR model, where the variables
We emphasize that we do not concentrate on any particular disease. Rather, our aim is to illustrate how previously proposed optimal control formulations can be handled by this new model, when different scenarios are considered. Taking into account that the set of parameters for the population in [16], based on [17], are not to be found in today's world, we use different population's parameters closed related to some European countries.
Like other models in epidemiology, SEIR models represent only a rough approximation of reality. However, they provide new insights into the spreading of diseases and, when optimal control is applied, new insight on different vaccination policies.
This paper is organized in the following way. In Section 2 we introduce an optimal control problem with
The SEIR model is a compartmental model well accepted as modelling some infectious diseases. At each instant
Optimal control techniques for SEIR models allow the study of different vaccines policies; different policies are confronted in [17] and [1] where the minimizing cost is
˙S(t)=bN(t)−dS(t)−cS(t)I(t)N(t)−u(t)S(t),S(0)=S0, | (1) |
˙E(t)=cS(t)I(t)N(t)−(f+d)E(t),E(0)=E0, | (2) |
˙I(t)=fE(t)−(g+a+d)I(t),I(0)=I0, | (3) |
˙N(t)=(b−d)N(t)−aI(t),N(0)=N0, | (4) |
where
For some
0≤u(t)≤ˉua.e.t∈[0,T], | (5) |
where
˙R(t)=gI(t)−dR(t)+u(t)S(t),R(0)=R0. | (6) |
Here, the aim of applying optimal control to SEIR models is to control the spreading of the disease with some minimum financial cost. The cost should then be a weighted sum of the society financial costs of having, at each time,
JC(X,u)=∫T0(AI(t)+Bu(t)) dt, | (7) |
where
Throughout this paper we refer to the optimal control problem of minimizing
(P){Minimize∫T0(AI(t)+Bu(t)) dtsubject to˙S(t)=bN(t)−dS(t)−cS(t)I(t)N(t)−u(t)S(t),S(0)=S0,˙E(t)=cS(t)I(t)N(t)−(f+d)E(t),E(0)=E0,˙I(t)=fE(t)−(g+a+d)I(t),I(0)=I0,˙N(t)=(b−d)N(t)−aI(t),N(0)=N0,u(t)∈[0,ˉu] for a. e.t∈[0,T], with ˉu∈]0,1]. |
Next, we associate
s(t)=S(t)N(t),e(t)=E(t)N(t),i(t)=I(t)N(t),r(t)=R(t)N(t), | (8) |
we have
s(t)+e(t)+i(t)+r(t)=1 for all t. | (9) |
Notice that
˙s(t)=b−cs(t)i(t)−bs(t)+ai(t)s(t)−u(t)s(t), | (10) |
˙e(t)=cs(t)i(t)−(f+b)e(t)+ai(t)e(t), | (11) |
˙i(t)=fe(t)−(g+a+b)i(t)+ai2(t), | (12) |
˙r(t)=gi(t)−rb(t)+ai(t)r(t)+u(t)s(t). | (13) |
Remarkably, the dead rate parameters do not appear in this model (a feature we discuss in Remark 1 below). It is a simple matter to see that due to (9) we can discard equation (13), allowing us to reduce the number of differential equations from the normalized SEIR model (10)-(13).
Now we are faced with the choice of the cost for the normalized model. Taking into account that the main aim is to control or to eliminate the disease from the population under study, different costs is may be considered, reflecting different concerns.
The choice of the cost for
An almost straightforward translation of this reasoning to our normalized model yields
We postpone this discussion of the introduction of different costs to future research and we proceed now with the cost
(Pn){Minimize∫T0(ρi(t)+u(t)) dtsubject to˙s(t)=b−cs(t)i(t)−bs(t)+ai(t)s(t)−u(t)s(t),s(0)=s0,˙e(t)=cs(t)i(t)−(f+b)e(t)+ai(t)e(t),e(0)=e0,˙i(t)=fe(t)−(g+a+b)i(t)+ai2(t),i(0)=i0,u(t)∈[0,ˉu] for a. e.t∈[0,T], with ˉu∈]0,1]. |
Note that the dynamics is of the form
Remark 1. A word of caution regarding the way the system (10)-(13) is viewed. We cannot interpret the dynamics between these new compartments in the same way as with the classical model. Indeed, in equation (10) the term
We will discuss pros and cons of
Optimal control problems can be solved numerically by direct or indirect methods. Here, we opt to use the direct method (for a description these two methods see, for example, [19]): first the problem is discretized and the subsequent optimization problem is then solved using software packages with large scale nonlinear continuous optimization solvers. In this work all the simulations were made with the Applied Modelling Programming Language (AMPL), developed by [7], and interfaced to the Interior-Point optimization solver IPOPT, developed by [21]. Alternatively, the optimization solver WORHP (see [3]) can also be interfaced with AMPL. We refer the reader to [16] and references within for more information on software for optimal control problems.
The application of the Maximum Principle to problems in the form of
In all the computations we consider the time horizon to be 20 years: thus
Parameter | Description | Value |
b | Natural birth rate | 0.01 |
d | Death rate | 0.0099 |
c | Incidence coefficient | 1.1 |
f | Exposed to infectious rate | 0.5 |
g | Recovery rate | 0.1 |
a | Disease induced death rate | 0.2 |
T | Number of years | 20 |
Parameter | Description | Value |
A | weight parameter | 1 |
B | weight parameter | 2 |
S0 | Initial susceptible population | 1000 |
E0 | Initial exposed population | 100 |
I0 | Initial infected population | 50 |
R0 | Initial recovered population | 15 |
N0 | Initial population | 1165 |
Parameter | Description | Value |
s0 | Percentage of initial susceptible population | 0.858 |
e0 | Percentage of initial exposed population | 0.086 |
i0 | Percentage of initial infected population | 0.043 |
The problem
Although the two problem
Clearly, the reason why
When considering problem
u(t)S(t)≤V0, | (14) |
can be mathematically translated to normalized models but they loose their meaning. However, this drawback may be overcome by considering
We now focus on the Maximum Principle for the problem
H(x,p,u)=pf(x)+pg(x)u−λ(ρi+u), |
for appropriated
(ⅰ)
(ⅱ)
(ⅲ)
(ⅳ)
Since
It is a simple matter to see that condition (ⅲ) is equivalent to
ϕ(t)u∗(t)=maxu{ϕ(t)u(t):0≤u≤ˉu}. | (15) |
It follows that
u∗(t)={ˉu, if ϕ(t)>0,0, if ϕ(t)<0,singular, if ϕ(t)=0. | (16) |
In terms of the data of
−˙ps(t)=(ai(t)−ci(t)−b−u(t))ps(t)+ci(t)pe(t), | (17) |
−˙pe(t)=(ai(t)−b−f)pe(t)+fpi(t), | (18) |
−˙pi(t)=(as(t)−cs(t))ps(t)+(cs(t)+ae(t))pe(t)+(2ai(t)−a−b−g)pi(t)−ρ. | (19) |
Also, we have
ϕ(t)=−1−ps(t)s(t). | (20) |
Since our computations show that a singular arc appear, let us assume that
1Since the initial condition belong to the interior of
R:={(s,e,i)∈R3: s≥0, e≥0, i≥0} |
and so we deduce that
ϕ(t)=0 implies that ps(t)=−1s(t)<0. |
In the interior of the singular interval we have
dϕdt=cs(t)i(t)pe(t)−bps(t)=0 |
implies that that
d2ϕdt=aci(t)2pe(t)s(t)−aci(t)pe(t)s(t)−bci(t)pe(t)s(t)+cfe(t)pe(t)s(t)−cgi(t)pe(t)s(t)−c2i(t)2pe(t)s(t)−ci(t)pe(t)s(t)u(t)+2bci(t)pe(t)+cfi(t)pe(t)s(t)−cfi(t)s(t)pi(t)+abi(t)ps(t)−bci(t)ps(t)−b2ps(t)−bps(t)u(t), | (21) |
depends on the control variable
ddu(d2ϕdt)=−ci(t)pe(t)s(t)−bps(t)>0. |
Thus the strict Generalized Legendre-Clebsch Condition (GLC) holds and we can solve
using(x,p)=c(−c+a)s(t)i(t)2pe(t)ci(t)pe(t)s(t)+bps(t)+cefs(t)pe(t)−b2ps(t)ci(t)pe(t)s(t)+bps(t)+((((−a−b+f−g)s(t)+2b)pe(t)−fs(t)pi(t)−bps(t))c+abps(t))i(t)ci(t)pe(t)s(t)+bps(t) | (22) |
It is important to observe that the above expression for singular controls depends on the multipliers. Since we do not establish that the multipliers are unique, we can only expect to use (22) to validate numerical findings but not to prove to optimality. In fact, to prove optimality of computed solution we need to check numerically sufficient conditions. Unfortunately, there are no numerically verifiable sufficient conditions for problems with singular arcs.
We now present and discuss the results of our simulations for
● Case 1:
● Case 2:
● Case 3:
In the first two cases the computed optimal control exhibits a bang-singular-bang structure while in the last one the optimal control is bang-bang. For all the three cases we present graphs with the computed controls and trajectories. As in [16] and to keep the exposition short, we do not present the graphs of the multipliers but we give their computed initial values, and we also present the final states, the costs and the switching times
Case 1. Taking
Numerical results for Case 1:
s(T)=0.095341,e(T)=0.00051104,i(T)=0.0020380,ps(0)=−126.5,pe(0)=−2253,pi(0)=−3219. |
Case 2. The results of the simulations are shown in figures 6 and 7. In figure 6 the optimal control,
Numerical results for case 2:
s(T)=0.16598,e(T)=0.0033060,i(T)=0.0079433,ps(0)=−377.0,pe(0)=−5137,pi(0)=−7081. |
When we go from case 1 to case 2, the optimal control goes from singular to bang-bang. This is because when we decrease the value of
Case 3. While keeping
Numerical results for case 3:
s(T)=0.071623,e(T)=0.0031999,i(T)=0.015275,ps(0)=−1025,pe(0)=−4692,pi(0)=−6872. |
If the control is bang-bang as in case 2 and 3 second order sufficient conditions may be checked numerically as described in [15] and [16]. Here we refrain from engaging in such discussion to keep the exposition short. Here we compute numerically the switching times using the so called induced optimization problem as in [15]. Recall that the switching times are the points
Implementing the induced optimization problem with AMPL for case 2, with
For case 3, with
We now turn to case 1 where the computed control
We studied the optimal control of an epidemiological normalized SEIR model using a
Moreover, we confronted this problem with the one previously studied in [16] where the so called classical SEIR model is used. The normalized model may cover in one single problem populations of different size and it is defined with what may be seen as a more realistic cost. Because of the use of normalized model, the solution of
The authors would like to thank Prof. Helmut Maurer for numerous and enlightening discussions on this topic as well as his help in writing up AMPL codes for the problems reported here. Thanks are due to the anonymous referees whose many comments and suggestions greatly improved this paper.
The financial support of FEDER funds through COMPETE and Portuguese funds through the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), within the FCT project PTDC/EEI-AUT/1450/2012—FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-028894, PTDC/EEI-AUT/2933/2014, TOCCATTA -funded by FEDER funds through COMPETE2020 -POCI and FCT as well as POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006933 -SYSTEC -funded by FEDER funds through COMPETE2020 – Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização (POCI) – and by national funds through FCT -Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, are gratefully acknowledged.
[1] |
E. Kovács, Á. Nagy, M. Saleh, A set of new stable, explicit, second order schemes for the non-stationary heat conduction equation, Mathematics, 9 (2021), 2284. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9182284 doi: 10.3390/math9182284
![]() |
[2] |
E. Kovács, A class of new stable, explicit methods to solve the non‐stationary heat equation, Numer Methods Partial Differ Equ, 37 (2021), 2469–2489. https://doi.org/10.1002/num.22730 doi: 10.1002/num.22730
![]() |
[3] |
E. Kovács, Á. Nagy, M. Saleh, A new stable, explicit, third‐order method for diffusion‐type problems, Adv Theory Simul, 5 (2022), 2100600. https://doi.org/10.1002/adts.202100600 doi: 10.1002/adts.202100600
![]() |
[4] |
S. Savović, B. Drljača, A. Djordjevich, A comparative study of two different finite difference methods for solving advection–diffusion reaction equation for modeling exponential traveling wave in heat and mass transfer processes, Ricerche di Matematica, 71 (2022), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11587-021-00665-2 doi: 10.1007/s11587-021-00665-2
![]() |
[5] | S. Conde, I. Fekete, J. N. Shadid, Embedded error estimation and adaptive step-size control for optimal explicit strong stability preserving Runge--Kutta methods, [Preprint], (2018)[cited 2023 Mar 29 ]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1806.08693. |
[6] |
L. F. Shampine, Error estimation and control for ODEs, J Sci Comput, 25 (2005), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02728979 doi: 10.1007/s10915-004-4629-3
![]() |
[7] | L. F. Shampine, H. A. Watts, Comparing error estimators for Runge-Kutta methods, 25 (1971), 445–455. |
[8] | R. H. Merson, An operational methods for study of integration processes, Weapon Research Establishment Conference on Data Processing, 1 (1957), 110–125. |
[9] |
L. F. Shampine, Local extrapolation in the solution of ordinary differential equations, Math Comput, 27 (1973), 91. https://doi.org/10.2307/2005249 doi: 10.1090/S0025-5718-1973-0331803-1
![]() |
[10] |
J. C. Butcher, P. B. Johnston, Estimating local truncation errors for Runge-Kutta methods, J Comput Appl Math, 45 (1993), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0427(93)90275-G doi: 10.1016/0377-0427(93)90275-G
![]() |
[11] |
J. H. Verner, Explicit Runge–Kutta methods with estimates of the local truncation error, SIAM J Numer Anal, 15 (1978), 772–790. https://doi.org/10.1137/0715051 doi: 10.1137/0715051
![]() |
[12] |
R. England, Error estimates for Runge-Kutta type solutions to systems of ordinary differential equations, Comput J, 12 (1969), 166–170. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/12.2.166 doi: 10.1093/comjnl/12.2.166
![]() |
[13] |
A. S. Chai, Error estimate of a fourth-order Runge-Kutta method with only one initial derivative evaluation, Proceedings of the April 30–May 2, 1968, spring joint computer conference, 1968,467. https://doi.org/10.1145/1468075.1468144 doi: 10.1145/1468075.1468144
![]() |
[14] |
R. E. Scraton, Estimation of the truncation error in Runge-Kutta and allied processes, Comput J, 7 (1964), 246–248. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.3.246 doi: 10.1093/comjnl/7.3.246
![]() |
[15] | W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes The Art of Scientific Computing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. |
[16] |
K. Gustafsson, M. Lundh, G. Söderlind, API stepsize control for the numerical solution of ordinary differential equations, BIT, 28 (1988), 270–287. doi: 10.1007/BF01934091
![]() |
[17] |
K. Gustafsson, Control theoretic techniques for stepsize selection in explicit Runge-Kutta methods, ACM Trans Math Softw, 17 (1991), 533–554. doi: 10.1145/210232.210242
![]() |
[18] |
G. Söderlind, Automatic control and adaptive time-stepping, Numer Algorithms, 31 (2002), 281–310. doi: 10.1023/A:1021160023092
![]() |
[19] |
G. Söderlind, Digital filters in adaptive time-stepping, ACM Trans Math Softw, 29 (2003), 1–26. doi: 10.1145/641876.641877
![]() |
[20] |
G. Söderlind, L. Wang, Adaptive time-stepping and computational stability, J Comput Appl Math, 185 (2006), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2005.03.008 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2005.03.008
![]() |
[21] | T. Ritschel, Numerical Methods For Solution of Differential Equations, (Denmark), Doctoral Thesis of Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, 2013. |
[22] | E. Hairer, S. P. Nørsett, G. Wanner, Solving Ordinary Differential Equations I, Berlin: Springer, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78862-1 |
[23] |
I. Fekete, S. Conde, J. N. Shadid, Embedded pairs for optimal explicit strong stability preserving Runge–Kutta methods, J Comput Appl Math, 412 (2022), 114325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2022.114325 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2022.114325
![]() |
[24] | David F. Griffiths and Desmond J. Higham, Numerical methods for ordinary differential equations: initial value problems, London: Springer, 2010. |
[25] | W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, B. P. Flannery, Numerical recipes in C : the art of scientific computing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. |
[26] |
Á. Nagy, J. Majár, E. Kovács, Consistency and convergence properties of 20 recent and old numerical schemes for the diffusion equation, Algorithms, 15 (2022), 425. https://doi.org/10.3390/a15110425. doi: 10.3390/a15110425
![]() |
[27] | J. Feldman, A. Rechnitzer, E. Yeager, D.3: Variable Step Size Methods, In: CLP-2 Integral Calculus, (2021), 91843. Available from: https://math.libretexts.org/@go/page/91843.pdf. |
[28] |
S. Essongue, Y. Ledoux, A. Ballu, Speeding up mesoscale thermal simulations of powder bed additive manufacturing thanks to the forward Euler time-integration scheme: A critical assessment, Finite Elem Anal Des, 211 (2022), 103825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2022.103825 doi: 10.1016/j.finel.2022.103825
![]() |
1. | Asaf Khan, Gul Zaman, Optimal control strategy of SEIR endemic model with continuous age-structure in the exposed and infectious classes, 2018, 39, 01432087, 1716, 10.1002/oca.2437 | |
2. | Hamadjam Abboubakar, Jean Claude Kamgang, Leontine Nkague Nkamba, Daniel Tieudjo, Bifurcation thresholds and optimal control in transmission dynamics of arboviral diseases, 2018, 76, 0303-6812, 379, 10.1007/s00285-017-1146-1 | |
3. | Urszula Ledzewicz, Mahya Aghaee, Heinz Schattler, 2016, Optimal control for a SIR epidemiological model with time-varying populations, 978-1-5090-0755-4, 1268, 10.1109/CCA.2016.7587981 | |
4. | Maria do Rosário de Pinho, Filipa Nunes Nogueira, Costs analysis for the application of optimal control to SEIR normalized models, 2018, 51, 24058963, 122, 10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.11.656 | |
5. | Maria do Rosário de Pinho, Helmut Maurer, Hasnaa Zidani, Optimal control of normalized SIMR models with vaccination and treatment, 2018, 23, 1553-524X, 79, 10.3934/dcdsb.2018006 | |
6. | Y.M. Rangkuti, A. Landong, Control optimal analysis of SEIR model of covid 19 spread in Indonesia, 2022, 2193, 1742-6588, 012091, 10.1088/1742-6596/2193/1/012091 | |
7. | Hassan Tahir, Asaf Khan, Anwarud Din, Amir Khan, Gul Zaman, Optimal control strategy for an age-structured SIR endemic model, 2021, 14, 1937-1179, 2535, 10.3934/dcdss.2021054 | |
8. | Asaf Khan, Gul Zaman, Optimal control strategies for an age‐structured SEIR epidemic model, 2022, 45, 0170-4214, 8701, 10.1002/mma.7823 | |
9. | Saroj K Biswas, Nasir U Ahmed, Mathematical modeling and optimal intervention of COVID‐19 outbreak, 2021, 9, 2095-4689, 84, 10.15302/J-QB-020-0229 | |
10. | Haojie Hou, Youguo Wang, Qiqing Zhai, Xianli Sun, Synergistic control of negative information diffusion in improved semi-randomized epidemic networks, 2024, 0924-090X, 10.1007/s11071-024-10817-2 |
Parameter | Description | Value |
b | Natural birth rate | 0.01 |
d | Death rate | 0.0099 |
c | Incidence coefficient | 1.1 |
f | Exposed to infectious rate | 0.5 |
g | Recovery rate | 0.1 |
a | Disease induced death rate | 0.2 |
T | Number of years | 20 |
Parameter | Description | Value |
A | weight parameter | 1 |
B | weight parameter | 2 |
S0 | Initial susceptible population | 1000 |
E0 | Initial exposed population | 100 |
I0 | Initial infected population | 50 |
R0 | Initial recovered population | 15 |
N0 | Initial population | 1165 |
Parameter | Description | Value |
s0 | Percentage of initial susceptible population | 0.858 |
e0 | Percentage of initial exposed population | 0.086 |
i0 | Percentage of initial infected population | 0.043 |
Parameter | Description | Value |
b | Natural birth rate | 0.01 |
d | Death rate | 0.0099 |
c | Incidence coefficient | 1.1 |
f | Exposed to infectious rate | 0.5 |
g | Recovery rate | 0.1 |
a | Disease induced death rate | 0.2 |
T | Number of years | 20 |
Parameter | Description | Value |
A | weight parameter | 1 |
B | weight parameter | 2 |
S0 | Initial susceptible population | 1000 |
E0 | Initial exposed population | 100 |
I0 | Initial infected population | 50 |
R0 | Initial recovered population | 15 |
N0 | Initial population | 1165 |
Parameter | Description | Value |
s0 | Percentage of initial susceptible population | 0.858 |
e0 | Percentage of initial exposed population | 0.086 |
i0 | Percentage of initial infected population | 0.043 |