A new unconditionally stable implicit numerical scheme for fractional diffusive epidemic model

Yasir Nawaz; Muhammad Shoaib Arif; Wasfi Shatanawi; Muhammad Usman Ashraf; Yasir Nawaz; Muhammad Shoaib Arif; Wasfi Shatanawi; Muhammad Usman Ashraf

doi:10.3934/math.2022788

AIMS Mathematics

2022, Volume 7, Issue 8: 14299-14322. doi: 10.3934/math.2022788

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

A new unconditionally stable implicit numerical scheme for fractional diffusive epidemic model

1.
Department of Mathematics, Air University, PAF Complex E-9, Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan
2.
Department of Mathematics and Sciences, College of Humanities and Sciences, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, 11586, Saudi Arabia
3.
Stochastic Analysis and Optimization Research Group, Department of Mathematics, Air University, PAF Complex E-9, Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan
4.
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, The Hashemite University, P.O. Box 330127, Zarqa, 13133, Jordan
5.
Department of Medical Research, China Medical University, Taichung 40402, Taiwan
6.
Department of Sciences and Humanities, National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan

Received: 04 April 2022 Revised: 20 May 2022 Accepted: 25 May 2022 Published: 01 June 2022
MSC : 34A08, 65F10

This contribution proposes a numerical scheme for solving fractional parabolic partial differential equations (PDEs). One of the advantages of using the proposed scheme is its applicability for fractional and integer order derivatives. The scheme can be useful to get conditions for obtaining a positive solution to epidemic disease models. A COVID-19 mathematical model is constructed, and linear local stability conditions for the model are obtained; afterward, a fractional diffusive epidemic model is constructed. The numerical scheme is constructed by employing the fractional Taylor series approach. The proposed fractional scheme is second-order accurate in space and time and unconditionally stable for parabolic PDEs. In addition to this, convergence conditions are obtained by employing a proposed numerical scheme for the fractional differential equation of susceptible individuals. The scheme is also compared with existing numerical schemes, including the non-standard finite difference method. From theoretical analysis and graphical illustration, it is found that the proposed scheme is more accurate than the so-called existing non-standard finite difference method, which is a method with notably good boundedness and positivity properties.

Keywords:

Citation: Yasir Nawaz, Muhammad Shoaib Arif, Wasfi Shatanawi, Muhammad Usman Ashraf. A new unconditionally stable implicit numerical scheme for fractional diffusive epidemic model[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(8): 14299-14322. doi: 10.3934/math.2022788

Related Papers:

[1]	Aziz Belmiloudi . Time-varying delays in electrophysiological wave propagation along cardiac tissue and minimax control problems associated with uncertain bidomain type models. AIMS Mathematics, 2019, 4(3): 928-983. doi: 10.3934/math.2019.3.928
[2]	Zuliang Lu, Xiankui Wu, Fei Huang, Fei Cai, Chunjuan Hou, Yin Yang . Convergence and quasi-optimality based on an adaptive finite element method for the bilinear optimal control problem. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(9): 9510-9535. doi: 10.3934/math.2021553
[3]	Zahra Pirouzeh, Mohammad Hadi Noori Skandari, Kamele Nassiri Pirbazari, Stanford Shateyi . A pseudo-spectral approach for optimal control problems of variable-order fractional integro-differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 23692-23710. doi: 10.3934/math.20241151
[4]	Xin Yi, Rong Liu . An age-dependent hybrid system for optimal contraception control of vermin. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(2): 2619-2633. doi: 10.3934/math.2025122
[5]	Yuanyuan Cheng, Yuan Li . A novel event-triggered constrained control for nonlinear discrete-time systems. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 20530-20545. doi: 10.3934/math.20231046
[6]	Xiang Wu, Yuzhou Hou, Kanjian Zhang . Optimal feedback control for a class of fed-batch fermentation processes using switched dynamical system approach. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 9206-9231. doi: 10.3934/math.2022510
[7]	Woocheol Choi, Young-Pil Choi . A sharp error analysis for the DG method of optimal control problems. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 9117-9155. doi: 10.3934/math.2022506
[8]	Qian Li, Zhenghong Jin, Linyan Qiao, Aichun Du, Gang Liu . Distributed optimization of nonlinear singularly perturbed multi-agent systems via a small-gain approach and sliding mode control. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 20865-20886. doi: 10.3934/math.20241015
[9]	Tainian Zhang, Zhixue Luo . Optimal harvesting for a periodic competing system with size structure in a polluted environment. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(8): 14696-14717. doi: 10.3934/math.2022808
[10]	Asaf Khan, Gul Zaman, Roman Ullah, Nawazish Naveed . Optimal control strategies for a heroin epidemic model with age-dependent susceptibility and recovery-age. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(2): 1377-1394. doi: 10.3934/math.2021086

Abstract

1. Introduction

In structural mechanics, particularly in the field of elasticity, there are equations that describe the behavior of thin plates under loads. These equations are often partial differential equations that govern the displacement of a thin plate. The plate equation depends on factors like material properties, geometry, and boundary conditions. In the context of geophysics, "plate equation" could refer to the equations that describe the movement and interaction of tectonic plates on the Earth's surface. Plate tectonics is a theory that explains the movement of the Earth's lithosphere (the rigid outer layer of the Earth) on the more fluid asthenosphere beneath it. In mathematics, specifically in the field of differential equations, the term "plate equation" might be used to refer to certain types of equations. For instance, in polar coordinates, Laplace's equation takes a specific form that is sometimes informally referred to as the "plate equation". Plate equation models are hyperbolic systems that arise in several areas in real-life problems, (see, for instance, Kizilova et al.^[1], Lasiecka et al. ^[2] and Huang et al.^[3]). The theory of plates is the mathematical formulation of the mechanics of flat plates. It is defined as flat structural components with a low thickness compared to plane dimensions. The advantage of the theory of plates comes from the disparity of the length scale to reduce the problem of the mechanics of three-dimensional solids to a two-dimensional problem. The purpose of this theory is to compute the stresses and deformation in a loaded plate. The equation of plates results from the composition of different subsets of plates: The equilibrium equations, constitutive, kinematic, and force resultant, ^[4,5,6].

Following this, there are a wide number of works devoted to the analysis and control of the academic model of hyperbolic systems, the so-called plate equations, For example, the exact and the approximate controllability of thermoelastic plates given by Eller et al. ^[7] and Lagnese and Lions in ^[8] treated the control of thin plates and Lasiecka in ^[9] considered the controllability of the Kirchoff plate. Zuazua ^[10] treated the exact controllability for semi-linear wave equations. Recently many problems involving a plate equations were considered by researchers. Let us cite as examples the stabilization of the damped plate equation under general boundary conditions by Rousseau an Zongo ^[11]; the null controllability for a structurally damped stochastic plate equation studied by Zhao ^[12], Huang et al. ^[13] considerrd a thermal equation of state for zoisite: Implications for the transportation of water into the upper mantle and the high-velocity anomaly in the Farallon plate. Kaplunov et al. ^[14] discussed the asymptotic derivation of 2D dynamic equations of motion for transversely inhomogeneous elastic plates. Hyperbolic systems have recently continued to be of interest to researchers and many results have been obtained. We mention here the work of Fu et al. ^[15] which discusses a class of mixed hyperbolic systems using iterative learning control. Otherwise, for a class of one-dimension linear wave equations, Hamidaoui et al. stated in ^[16] an iterative learning control. Without forgetting that for a class of second-order nonlinear systems Tao et al. proposed an adaptive control based on an disturbance observer in ^[17] to improve the tracking performance and compensation. In addition to these works, the optimal control of the Kirchoff plate using bilinear control was considered by Bradly and Lenhart in ^[18], and Bradly et al. in ^[19]. In fact, in this work we will talk about a bilinear plate equation and we must cite the paper of Zine ^[20] which considers a bilinear hyperbolic system using the Riccati equation. Zine and Ould Sidi ^[19,22] that introduced the notion of partial optimal control of bilinear hyperbolic systems. Li et al. ^[23] give an iterative method for a class of bilinear systems. Liu, et al. ^[24] extended a gradient-based iterative algorithm for bilinear state-space systems with moving average noises by using the filtering technique. Furthermore, flow analysis of hyperbolic systems refers to the problems dealing with the analysis of the flow state on the system domain. We can refer to the work of Benhadid et al. on the flow observability of linear and semilinear systems ^[25], Bourray et al. on treating the controllability flow of linear hyperbolic systems ^[26] and the flow optimal control of bilinear parabolic systems are considered by Ould Sidi and Ould Beinane on ^[27,28].

For the motivation the results proposed in this paper open a wide range of applications. We cite the problem of iterative identification methods for plate bilinear systems ^[23], as well as the problem of the extended flow-based iterative algorithm for a plate systems ^[24].

This paper studies the optimal control problem governed by an infinite dimensional bilinear plate equation. The objective is to command the flow state of the bilinear plate equation to the desired flow using different types of bounded feedback. We show how one can transfer the flow of a plate equation close to the desired profile using optimization techniques and adjoint problems. As an application, we solve the partial flow control problem governed by a plate equation. The results open a wide way of applications in fractional systems. We began in section two by the well-posedness of our problem. In section three, we prove the existence of an optimal control solution of (2.3). In section four, we state the characterization of the optimal control. In section five we debate the case of time bilinear optimal control. Section six, proposes a method for solving the flow partial optimal control problem governed by a plate equation.

2. Well-posedness of the problem

Consider $\Theta$ an open bounded domain of $I\!\!R^2$ with $C^2$ boundary, for a time $m$ , and $\Gamma = \partial\Theta \times (0, m)$ . The control space time set is such that

$\begin{equation} Q \in U_{p} = \{ Q\in L^{\infty}([0,m];L^{\infty}(\Theta)){\mbox{ such that }} -p\leq Q(t) \leq p\}, \end{equation}$

(2.1)

with $p$ as a positive constant. Let the plate bilinear equation be described by the following system

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial }^2 {u} }{{\partial t}^2} } + \Delta^{2} u = Q(t)u_{t}, & & (0,m) \times \Theta, \\ u(x,0) = u_0(x) ,\; {\frac{{\partial } u }{{\partial t}} } (x,0) = u_1(x), & & \Theta,\\ u = \frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} = 0, & & \Gamma, \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(2.2)

where $u_{t} = \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}$ is the velocity. The state space is $H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta)$ , (see Lions and Magenes ^[29] and Brezis ^[30]). We deduce the existence and uniqueness of the solution for (2.2) using the classical results of Pazy ^[31]. For $\lambda > 0$ , we define $\nabla u$ as the flow control problem governed by the bilinear plate equation (2.2) as the following:

$\begin{equation} \min\limits_{Q\ \in U_{p} }C_{\lambda}(Q), \end{equation}$

(2.3)

where $C_{\lambda}$ , is the flow penalizing cost defined by

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2}\Big\|\nabla u-u^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(0,m;L^2(\Theta)))^{n}} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta} Q^2(x,t)dxdt\\ = \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \Big\|\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{L^2(0,m;L^2(\Theta))} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta} Q^2(x,t)dxdt, \end{align}$

(2.4)

where $u^d = (u_{1}^{d}, ....u_{n}^{d})$ is the flow target in $L^2(0, m;L^2(\Theta))$ . One of the important motivations when considering the problem (2.3) is the isolation problems, where the control is maintained to reduce the flow temperature on the surface of a thin plate (see El Jai et al. ^[32]).

3. Existence of solution

Lemma 3.1. If $(u_{0}, u_{1}) \in H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta)$ and $Q \in U_{p}$ , then the solution $(u, u_{t})$ of (2.2) satisfies the following estimate:

$\Big\| (u, u_{t}) \Big\|_{{\cal C}(0,m; H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta))} \leq T (1+ \eta m)e^{\eta K m},$

where $T = \Big\| (u_{0}, u_{1}) \Big\|_{ H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta)}$ and $K$ is a positive constant ^[18,19].

Using the above Lemma 3.1, we prove the existence of an optimal control solution of (2.3).

Theorem 3.1. $(u^{*}, Q^*)\in {\cal C}([0, m];\; \; H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times U_{p})$ , is the solution of (2.3), where $u^{*}$ is the output of (2.2) and $Q^*$ is the optimal control function.

Proof. Consider the minimizing sequence $(Q_{n})_{n}$ in $U_{p}$ verifying

$C^{*} = \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow +\infty}C_{\lambda}(Q_n) = \inf\limits_{Q\in L^{\infty}(0,m; L^{\infty}(\Theta))} C_{\lambda}(Q).$

We choose $\bar{u}^{n} = (u^{n}, \frac{\partial u^{n}}{\partial t})$ to be the corresponding state of Eq (2.2). Using Lemma 3.1, we deduce

$\begin{equation} \Big\| u^{n}(x,t) \Big\|_{H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)}^{2} + \Big\| u_{t}^{n} (x,t) \Big\|_{ L^{2}(\Theta)}^{2} \leq T_{1} e^{\eta K m} {\mbox{ for }} 0\leq t\leq m {\mbox{ and }} T_{1}\in I\!\!R^{+}. \end{equation}$

(3.1)

Furthermore, system (2.2) gives

$\Big\| u^{n}_{tt}(x,t) \Big\|_{H^{-2}(\Theta)}^{2} \leq T_{2} \Big\| u_{t}^{n} (x,t) \Big\|_{ L^{2}(\Theta)}^{2} {\mbox{ with }} T_{2}\in I\!\!R^{+}.$

Then easily from (3.1), we have

$\begin{equation} \Big\| u^{n}_{tt}(x,t) \Big\|_{H^{-2}(\Theta)}^{2} \leq T_{3} e^{\eta K m} {\mbox{ for }} 0\leq t\leq m {\mbox{ and }} T_{3}\in I\!\!R^{+}. \end{equation}$

(3.2)

Using (3.1) and (3.2), we have the following weak convergence:

$\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} Q_{n} \rightharpoonup Q^{*}, & & L^{2}(0,m ; L^{2}(\Theta)),\\ u^{n} \rightharpoonup u^{*}, & & L^{\infty}(0,m ; H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)),\\ u_{t}^{n} \rightharpoonup u^{*}_{t}, & & L^{\infty}(0,m ; L^{2}(\Theta)),\\ u_{tt}^{n} \rightharpoonup u^{*}_{tt}, & & L^{\infty}(0,m ; H^{-2}(\Theta)),\\ \end{array} \end{equation}$

(3.3)

From the first convergence property of (3.3) with a control sequence $Q_{n} \in U_{p}$ , easily one can deduce that $Q^{*} \in U_{p}$ ^[20].

In addition, the mild solution of (2.2) verifies

$\begin{align} \int_{0}^{m} u^{n}_{tt}f(t)dt+ \int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta}\Delta u^{n} \Delta f(t) dx dt = \int_{0}^{m} Q^{*}u_{t}^{n} f(t)dt, \forall f \in H_{0}^{2}(\Theta). \end{align}$

(3.4)

Using (3.3) and (3.4), we deduce that

$\begin{align} \int_{0}^{m} u^{*}_{tt}f(t)dt+ \int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta}\Delta u^{*} \Delta f(t) dx dt = \int_{0}^{m} Q^{*}u_{t}^{*} f(t)dt, \forall f \in H_{0}^{2}(\Theta), \end{align}$

(3.5)

which implies that $u^{*} = u(Q_{*})$ is the output of (2.2) with command function $Q^{*}$ .

Fatou's lemma and the lower semi-continuous property of the cost $C_{\lambda}$ show that

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q^{*}) \leq \frac{1}{2}\lim\limits_{k\rightarrow +\infty}\Big\|\nabla u^{k}-u^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(0,m;L^2(\Theta)))^{n}} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\lim\limits_{k\rightarrow +\infty} \int_{0}^{m} \int_{\Theta} Q_{k}^2(x,t)dxdt\\ \leq \liminf\limits_{k\rightarrow +\infty} C_{\lambda}(Q_{n})\\ = \inf\limits_{Q \in U_{p}} C_{\lambda}(Q), \end{align}$

(3.6)

which allows us to conclude that $Q^{*}$ is the solution of problem (2.3). □

4. Characterization of solution

We devote this section to establish a characterization of solutions to the flow optimal control problem (2.3).

Let the system

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial^{2} } v }{{\partial t^{2}}} } = -\Delta^{2}v(x,t)+Q(x,t) v_{t} + d(x,t) v_{t}, & & (0, m)\times \Theta,\\ v(x,0) = v_{t}(x,0) = v_0(x) = 0, & & \Theta, \\ v = \frac{\partial v}{\partial \nu } = 0, & & \Gamma, \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(4.1)

with $d \in L^{\infty}(0, m; L^{\infty}(\Theta))$ verify $Q+\delta d \in U_{p}, \quad \forall \delta > 0$ is a small constant. The functional defined by $Q \in U_{p}\mapsto \bar{u}(Q) = (u, u_{t}) \in {\cal C}(0, m; H_{0}^{2}(\Theta)\times L^{2}(\Theta))$ is differentiable and its differential $\overline{v} = (v, v_{t})$ is the solution of (4.1) ^[21].

The next lemma characterizes the differential of our flow cost functional $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ with respect to the control function $Q$ .

Lemma 4.1. Let $Q \in U_{p}$ and the differential of $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ can be written as the following:

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int _{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m} \frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d} )dtdx+ \varepsilon\int_{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m} d Q dt dx.\\ \end{align}$

(4.2)

Proof. Consider the cost $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ defined by (2.4), which is

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m}(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d} )^2 dt dx + \frac{\lambda}{2} \int_{\Theta}\int^{m}_{0} Q^2(t) dt dx. \end{align}$

(4.3)

Put $u_{k} = z(Q+k d)$ , $u = u(Q)$ , and using (4.3), we have

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} = \lim\limits_{\beta\longrightarrow 0}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \frac{1}{2}\int_{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m}\frac{( \frac{\partial u_{k}}{\partial x_{i}} - u_i^d)^{2}-( \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)^{2}}{k}dt dx\\ + \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0}\frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{\Theta} \int_{0}^{m}\frac{(Q+k d)^2-Q^2}{k}(t)dt dx. \end{align}$

(4.4)

Consequently

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q +kd)-C_{\lambda}(Q )}{k} \\ = \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Theta}\int^{m}_{0}\frac{( \frac{\partial u_{k}}{\partial x_{i}}- \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}})}{k}( \frac{\partial u_{k} }{\partial x_{i}}+ \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}-2u_i^d) dt dx \\ + \lim\limits_{k \longrightarrow 0} \int_{\Theta}\int_{0}^{m}(\lambda d Q+ k \lambda d^2)dt dx\\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}( \frac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt dx. \end{align}$

(4.5)

□ We define the following family of adjoint equations for system (4.1)

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial^{2} } {w_{i}}}{{\partial t^{2}}} } +\Delta^{2} w_{i} = Q^*(x,t) (w_{i})_{t}+( \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d}), & & (0, m)\times\Theta, \\ w_{i}(x,m) = (w_{i})_{t}(x,m) = 0, & & \Theta, \\ w_{i} = \frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial \nu } = 0, & & \Gamma. \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(4.6)

Such systems allow us to characterize the optimal control solution of (2.3).

Theorem 4.1. Consider $Q \in U_{p}$ , and $u = u (Q)$ its corresponding state space solution of (2.2), then the control solution of (2.3) is

$\begin{equation} Q(x,t) = max(-p, min(\frac{-1}{\lambda}(u_{t})(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}}),p)), \end{equation}$

(4.7)

where $w = (w_{1}....w_{n})$ with $w_{i} \in C ([ 0, T ]; H^{2}_{0}(\Theta))$ is the unique solution of (4.6).

Proof. Choose $d\in U_{p}$ such that $Q + k d \in U_{p}$ with $k > 0$ . The minimum of $C_{\lambda}$ is realized when the control $Q$ , verifies the following condition:

$\begin{equation} 0 \leq \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q )}{k}. \end{equation}$

(4.8)

Consequently, Lemma 4.1 gives

$\begin{align} 0 \leq \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}( \frac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt dx.\\\\ \end{align}$

(4.9)

Substitute by equation (4.6) and we find

$\begin{align} 0 \leq \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}}( {\frac{{\partial^{2} } {w_{i}}(x,t) }{{\partial t^{2}}} } +\Delta^{2} w_{i}(x,t)-Q(x,t)( w_{i})_{t}(x,t))dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt dx\\ \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}( {\frac{{\partial^{2} } v}{{\partial t^{2}}} } +\Delta^{2} v-Q(x,t) v_{t})w_{i}(x,t)dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Qdt dx\\ \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}(d(x,t) u_{t})w_{i}dt dx+\int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}\lambda dQ dt dx\\ \\ = \int_\Theta \int_{0}^{m}d(x,t)[u_{t}(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}})+\lambda Q dt dx].\\ \\ \end{align}$

(4.10)

It is known that if $d = d(t)$ in a chosen function with $Q+k d \in U_{p}$ , using Bang-Bang control properties, one can conclude that

$\begin{equation} Q(x,t) = max(-p, min(\frac{-u_{t}}{\lambda}(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}}),p)) = max(-p, min( \frac{-u_{t}}{\lambda}Div(w), p)), \end{equation}$

(4.11)

with $Div(w) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}}$ . □

5. Flow time bilinear control problem

Now, we are able to discuss the case of bilinear time control of the type $Q = Q(t)$ . We want to reach a flow spatial state target prescribed on the whole domain $\Theta$ at a fixed time $m$ .

In such case, the set of controls (2.1) becomes

$\begin{equation} Q \in U_{p} = \{ Q\in L^{\infty}([0,m]){\mbox{ such that }} -p\leq Q(t) \leq p {\mbox{ for }} t \in (0, m)\}, \end{equation}$

(5.1)

with $p$ as a positive constant.

The cost to minimize is

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2}\Big\|\nabla u(x,m)-u^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(\Theta))^{n}} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m} Q^2(t) dt\\ = \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \Big\|\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}(x,m) - u_{i}^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{L^2(\Theta)} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m} Q^2(t)dt, \end{align}$

(5.2)

where $u^d = (u_{1}^{d}, ....u_{n}^{d})$ is the flow spatial target in $L^2(\Theta)$ . The flow control problem is

$\begin{equation} \min\limits_{Q\ \in U_{p} }C_{\lambda}(Q), \end{equation}$

(5.3)

where $C_{\lambda}$ is the flow penalizing cost defined by (5.2), and $U_{p}$ is defined by (5.1).

Corollary 5.1. The solution of the flow time control problem (5.3) is

$\begin{align} Q(t) = max(-p, min(\int_{\Theta}\frac{-u_{t}}{\lambda} (\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}})dx,p)) \end{align}$

(5.4)

with $u$ as the solution of (2.2) perturbed by $Q(t)$ and $w_{i}$ as the solution of

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial^{2} } {w_{i}}}{{\partial t^{2}}} } +\Delta^{2} w_{i} = Q(t) (w_{i})_{t}, & & (0, m)\times\Theta, \\ w_{i}(x,m) = ( \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}(x,m) - u_{i}^{d}), & & \Theta, \\ (w_{i})_{t}(x,m) = 0, & & \Theta, \\ w_{i} = \frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial \nu } = 0, & & \Gamma. \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(5.5)

Proof. Similar to the approach used in the proof of Theorem 4.1, we deduce that

$\begin{align} 0\leq \int_{0}^{m}d(t)[\int_\Theta u_{t}(\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}})dx+\lambda Q ]dt, \end{align}$

(5.6)

where $d(t)\in L^{\infty}(0, m)$ , a control function such that $Q+k d \in U_{p}$ with a small positive constant $k$ . □

Remark 5.1. (1) In the case of spatiotemporal target, we remark that the error $(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}(x, t) - u_{i}^{d})$ between the state and the desired one becomes a the change of velocity induced by the known forces acting on system (4.6).

(2) In the case of a prescribed time $m$ targets, we remark that the error $(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}(x, m) - u_{i}^{d})$ between the state and the desired one becomes a Dirichlet boundary condition in the adjoint equation (5.5).

6. Partial flow optimal control problem

This section establishes the flow partial optimal control problem governed by the plate equation (2.2). Afterward we characterize the solution. Let $\theta\subset \Theta$ be an open subregion of $\Theta$ and we define

$\begin{array}{lll} \widetilde{P_{\theta}}: (L^2(\Theta)) & \longrightarrow & (L^2(\theta)) \\ \qquad \qquad u & \longrightarrow & \widetilde{P}_{\theta} u = u|_{\theta}, \end{array}$

and

$\begin{array}{lll} P_{\theta}: (L^2(\Theta))^{n} & \longrightarrow &(L^2(\theta))^{n} \\ \qquad \qquad u & \longrightarrow & P_{\theta} u = u|_{\theta}. \end{array}$

We define the adjoint of $P_{\theta}$ by

$P_{\theta}^{*}u = \left\{\begin{array}{lll} u \, \, in \, \, \Theta, \\ 0 \in \Theta \setminus \theta. \end{array} \right.$

Definition 6.1. The plate equation (2.2) is said to flow weakly partially controllable on $\theta \subset \Theta$ , if for $\forall \, \, \beta > 0$ , one can find an optimal control $Q\in L^{2}(0, m)$ such that

$|P_\theta \nabla u_Q(m)-u^d||_{(L^2(\theta))^{n}}\leq \beta,$

where $u^d = (z_{1}^{d}, ...., u_{n}^{d})$ is the desired flow in $(L^2(\theta))^{n}$ .

For $U_{p}$ defined by (5.1), we take the partial flow optimal control problem

$\begin{equation} \min\limits_{Q \in U_{p}} C_{\lambda}(Q), \end{equation}$

(6.1)

and the partial flow cost $C_{\lambda}$ is

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2}\Big\|P_\theta\nabla u(m)-u^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(\theta))^{n}} + \frac{\lambda}{2} \int_{0}^{m} Q^2(t) dt\\ = \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \Big\|\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\frac{\partial u(T)}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d}\Big\|^{2}_{(L^2(\theta))} + \frac{\lambda}{2} \int_{0}^{m} Q^2(t) dt. \end{align}$

(6.2)

Next, we consider the family of optimality systems

$\begin{equation} \left \{ \begin{array}{lll} {\frac{{\partial^{2} } {w_{i}} }{{\partial t^{2}}} } = \Delta^{2} w_{i}+Q(t) (w_{i})_{t},& & (0, m)\times\Theta,\\ w_{i}(x,m) = ( \frac{\partial u(m)}{\partial x_{i}} - \widetilde{P}_{\theta}^{*}u_{i}^{d}), & & \Theta, \\ (w_{i})_{t}(x,m) = 0, & & \Theta, \\ w_{i}(x,t) = \frac{\partial w_{i}(x,t)}{\partial \nu } = 0, & & \Gamma. \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(6.3)

Lemma 6.1. Let the cost $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ defined by (6.2) and the control $Q(t) \in U_{p}$ be the solution of (6.1). We can write

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q )}{k} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\left[ \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial^{2} w_{i}}{\partial t^{2}} \frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}} dt+ \int_{0}^{m}w_{i} \frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}( \frac{\partial^{2} v}{\partial t^{2}}) dt\right]dx\\ + \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt, \end{align}$

(6.4)

where the solution of (4.1) is $v$ , and the solution of (6.3) is $w_{i}$ .

Proof. The functional $C_{\lambda}(Q)$ given by (6.2), is of the form:

$\begin{align} C_{\lambda}(Q) = \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_{\theta}(\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}} - u_{i}^{d} )^2 dx + \frac{\lambda}{2} \int^{m}_{0} Q^2(t) dt. \end{align}$

(6.5)

Choose $u_{k} = u(Q+k d)$ and $u = u(Q)$ . By (6.5), we deduce

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} = \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \frac{1}{2}\int_{\theta}\frac{(\widetilde{P}_\theta \frac{\partial u_{k}}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)^{2}-(\widetilde{P}_\theta \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}-u_i^d)^{2}}{k}dx\\ + \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0}\frac{\lambda}{2}\int_{0}^{m}\frac{(Q+k d)^2-Q^2}{k}dt. \end{align}$

(6.6)

Furthermore,

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} \\ = \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{1}{2}\int_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\frac{( \frac{\partial u_{k}}{\partial x_{i}}- \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}})}{k}(\widetilde{P}_{\theta} \frac{\partial u_{k} }{\partial x_{i}}+ \widetilde{P}_{\theta} \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_{i}}-2u_i^d)dx \\ + \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0}\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{m}(2\lambda d Q+k \lambda d^2)dt\\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\theta \widetilde{P}_{\theta} \frac{\partial v(x,m)}{\partial x_{i}} \widetilde{P}_{\theta}( \frac{\partial u(x,m)}{\partial x_{i}}-\widetilde{P}_{\theta}^{*}u_i^d)dx+\int_{0}^{m}\lambda dQ dt \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}_{\theta} \frac{\partial v(x,m)}{\partial x_{i}} \widetilde{P}_{\theta}w_{i}(x,m)dx+\lambda \int_{0}^{m}dQ dt. \end{align}$

(6.7)

Using (6.3) to (6.7), we conclude

$\begin{align} \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\left[ \int_{0}^{m}\frac{\partial^{2} w_{i}}{\partial t^{2}} \frac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x_{i}} dt+ \int_{0}^{m}w_{i} \frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}( \frac{\partial^{2} v}{\partial t^{2}}) dt\right]dx\\\\ + \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Qdt.\\ \end{align}$

(6.8)

□

Theorem 6.1. Consider the set $U_{p}$ , of partial admissible control defined as (5.1) and $u = u (Q)$ is its associate solution of (2.2), then the solution of (6.1) is

$\begin{equation} Q_{\varepsilon}(t) = max(-p,min( \frac{-1}{\lambda}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}(u_{t})(\widetilde{P}_{\theta} Div(w)),p)), \end{equation}$

(6.9)

where $Div(w) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}}$ .

Proof. Let $d \in U_{p}$ and $Q + k d \in U_{p}$ for $k > 0$ . The cost $C_{\lambda}$ at its minimum $Q$ , verifies

$\begin{equation} 0 \leq \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k}. \end{equation}$

(6.10)

From Lemma 6.1, substituting $\frac{\partial^{2} v}{\partial t^{2}}$ , by its value in system (4.1), we deduce that

$\begin{align} 0 \leq \lim\limits_{k\longrightarrow 0} \frac{C_{\lambda}(Q+k d)-C_{\lambda}(Q)}{k}\\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\left[\int_{0}^{m} \frac{\partial v}{\partial x_{i}}\frac{\partial^{2} w_{i} }{\partial t^{2}}dt+ \int_{0}^{m}(-\Delta^{2} \frac{\partial v}{\partial x_{i}}+Q(t) \frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}(v_{t}) + d(t)\frac{\partial }{ \partial x_{i}}(u_{t}))w_{i} dt\right]dx\\ + \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt, \end{align}$

(6.11)

and system (6.3) gives

$\begin{align} 0 \leq \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}\left[\int_{0}^{m} \frac{\partial v}{\partial x_{i}}(\frac{\partial^{2} w_{i} }{\partial t^{2}}-\Delta^{2} w_{i}-Q(t) (w_{i})_{t})dt+d(t) \frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}}(u_{t})w_{i} dt\right]dx+\int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt.\\ \\ = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \int_\theta \widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta} \int_{0}^{m} (h(t)u_{t})\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}} dt+ \int_{0}^{m}\lambda d Q dt.\\ \\ = \int_{0}^{m} h(t)\int_\theta\left[ u_{t}\widetilde{P}^*_{\theta}\widetilde{P}_{\theta} \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial x_{i}} + \lambda Q\right] dx dt, \end{align}$

(6.12)

which gives the optimal control

$\begin{equation} Q_{\varepsilon}(t) = max(-p,min( \frac{-1}{\lambda}\widetilde{P}_{\theta}(u_{t})(\widetilde{P}_{\theta} Div(w)),p)). \end{equation}$

(6.13)

□

7. Conclusions

This paper studied the optimal control problem governed by an infinite dimensional bilinear plate equation. The objective was to command the flow state of the bilinear plate equation to the desired flow using different types of bounded feedback. The problem flow optimal control governed by a bilinear plate equation was considered and solved in two cases using the adjoint method. The first case considered a spatiotemporal control function and looked to reach a flow target on the whole domain. The second case considered a time control function and looks to reach a prescribed target at a fixed final time. As an application, the partial flow control problem was established and solved using the proposed method. More applications can be examined, for example. the case of fractional hyperbolic systems.

Use of AI tools declaration

The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Jouf University under Grant Number (DSR2022-RG-0119).

Conflict of interest

The authors affirm that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

[1]	S. Abubakar, N. I. Akinwande, S. Abdulrahman, A mathematical model of yellow fever epidemics, Afr. Math., 6 (2012), 56-58.
[2]	H. W. Hethcote, The mathematics of infectious diseases, SIAM Rev., 42 (2000), 599-653. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036144500371907 doi: 10.1137/S0036144500371907
[3]	R. S. Baric, K. Fu, W. Chen, B. Yount, High recombination and mutation rates in mouse hepatitis virus suggest that coronaviruses may be potentially important emerging viruses, In Corona-and Related Viruses, Springer, Boston, MA, 1995,571-576. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1899-0_91
[4]	S. R. Weiss, J. L. Leibowitz, Coronavirus pathogenesis, Adv. Virus Res., 81 (2011), 85-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385885-6.00009-2 doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-385885-6.00009-2
[5]	S. Su, G. Wong, W. Shi, J. Liu, A. C. K. Lai, J. Zhou, et al., Epidemiology, genetic recombination, and pathogenesis of coronaviruses, Trends Microbiol., 24 (2016), 490-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2016.03.003 doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2016.03.003
[6]	N. S. Zhong, B. J. Zheng, Y. M. Li, L. L. M. Poon, Z. H. Xie, K. H. Chan, et al., Epidemiology and cause of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Guangdong, People's Republic of China, in February, 2003, Lancet, 362 (2003), 1353-1358. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14630-2 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14630-2
[7]	C. Rivers, J. P. Chretien, S. Riley, J. A. Pavlin, A. Woodward, D. Brett-Major, et al., Using "outbreak science" to strengthen the use of models during epidemics, Nat. Commun., 10 (2019), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11067-2 doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11067-2
[8]	N. M. Linton, T. Kobayashi, Y. Yang, K. Hayashi, A. R. Akhmetzhanov, S. Jung, et al., Incubation period and other epidemiological characteristics of 2019 novel coronavirus infections with right truncation: A statistical analysis of publicly available case data, J. Clin. Med., 9 (2020), 538. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9020538 doi: 10.3390/jcm9020538
[9]	C. Huang, Y. Wang, X. Li, L. Ren, J. Zhao, Y. Hu, et al., Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel corona virus in Wuhan, China, Lancet, 395 (2020), 497-506. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5
[10]	S. Bushnaq, S. A. Khan, K. Shah, G. Zaman, Mathematical analysis of HIV/AIDS infection model with Caputo-Fabrizio fractional derivative, Cogent Math. Stat., 5 (2018), 1432521. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311835.2018.1432521 doi: 10.1080/23311835.2018.1432521
[11]	J. Losada, J. J. Nieto, Properties of a new fractional derivative without singular kernel, Progr. Fract. Differ. Appl., 1 (2015), 8792.
[12]	M. Caputo, M. Fabrizio, A new definition of fractional derivative without singular kernel, Progr. Fract. Differ. Appl., 1 (2015), 73-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.12785/pfda/010201 doi: 10.12785/pfda/010201
[13]	A. Alshabanat, M. Jleli, S. Kumar, B. Samet, Generalization of Caputo-Fabrizio fractional derivative and applications to electrical circuits, Front. Phys., 8 (2020), 64. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2020.00064 doi: 10.3389/fphy.2020.00064
[14]	S. Kumar, S. Ghosh, M. S. M. Lotayif, B. Samet, A model for describing the velocity of a particle in Brownian motion by Robotnov function based fractional operator, Alex. Eng. J., 59 (2020), 1435-1449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.04.019 doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2020.04.019
[15]	P. Veeresha, D. G. Prakasha, S. Kumar, A fractional model for propagation of classical optical solitons by using non-singular derivative, Math. Method. Appl. Sci., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.6335 doi: 10.1002/mma.6335
[16]	S. Kumar, S. Ghosh, B. Samet, E. F. D. Goufo, An analysis for heat equations arises in diffusion process using new Yang Abdel AtyCattani fractional operator, Math. Method. Appl. Sci., 43 (2020), 6062-6080. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.6347 doi: 10.1002/mma.6347
[17]	M. U. Saleem, M. Farman, M. O. Ahmad, M. Rizwan, A control of artificial human pancreas, Chinese J. Phys., 55 (2017), 2273-2282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjph.2017.08.030 doi: 10.1016/j.cjph.2017.08.030
[18]	M. Farman, M. U. Saleem, A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, Analysis and numerical solution of SEIR epidemic model of measles with non-integer time fractional derivatives by using Laplace Adomian decomposition method, Ain Shams Eng. J., 9 (2018), 3391-3397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2017.11.010 doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2017.11.010
[19]	M. Farman, M. U. Saleem, M. Ahmad, A. Ahmad, Stability analysis and control of glucose insulin glucagon system in human, Chinese J. Phys., 56 (2018), 1362-1369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjph.2018.03.037 doi: 10.1016/j.cjph.2018.03.037
[20]	M. U. Saleem, M. Farman, M. Rizwan, M. O. Ahmad, A. Ahmad, Controllability and observability of glucose insulin glucagon systems in human, Chinese J. Phys., 56 (2018), 1909-1916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjph.2018.09.005 doi: 10.1016/j.cjph.2018.09.005
[21]	M. Farman, M. U. Saleem, M. Ahmad, A. Ahmad, M. O. Ahmad, A linear control of composite model for glucose insulin glucagon, Ain Shams Eng. J., 10 (2019), 867-872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.04.001 doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2019.04.001
[22]	M. Farman, A. Ahmad, A. Akgül, S. Imtiaz, Analysis and dynamical behavior of fractional order cancer model with vaccine strategy, Math. Method. Appl. Sci., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.6240 doi: 10.1002/mma.6240
[23]	M. U. Saleem, M. Farman, A. Ahmad, E. Ul Haque, M. O. Ahmad, A Caputo Fabrizio fractional order model for control of glucose in insulin therapies for diabetes, Ain Shams Eng. J., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.03.006 doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2020.03.006
[24]	M. Farman, M. U. Saleem, A. Ahmad, A control of glucose level in insulin therapies for the development of artificial pancreas by Atangana Baleanu fractional derivative, Alex. Eng. J., 59 (2020), 2639-2648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.04.027 doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2020.04.027
[25]	M. Farman, A. Akgül, D. Baleanu, S. Imtiaz, A. Ahmad, Analysis of fractional order chaotic financial model with minimum interest rate impact, Fractal Fract., 4 (2020), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract4030043 doi: 10.3390/fractalfract4030043
[26]	D. Baleanu, M. Jleli, S. Kumar, A fractional derivative with two singular kernels and application to a heat conduction problem, Adv. Differ. Equ., 1 (2020), 252. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-020-02684-z doi: 10.1186/s13662-020-02684-z
[27]	S. T. M. Thabet, M. S. Abdo, K. Shah, T. Abdeljawad, Study of transmission dynamics of COVID-19 mathematical model under ABC fractional order derivative, Results Phys., 19 (2020), 103507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103507 doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103507
[28]	A. Atangana, Modelling the spread of COVID-19 with new fractal-fractional operators: Can the lockdown save mankind before vaccination? Chaos Soliton. Fract., 136 (2020), 109860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.109860 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2020.109860
[29]	A. Atangana, S. I. Araz, Mathematical model of COVID-19 spread in Turkey and South Africa: Theory, methods and applications, Adv. Differ. Equ., 2020 (2020), 1-89. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.08.20095588 doi: 10.1101/2020.05.08.20095588
[30]	N. Bildik, S. Deniz, A new fractional analysis on the polluted lakes system, Chaos Soliton. Fract., 122 (2019), 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2019.02.001 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2019.02.001
[31]	S. Uçar, Existence and uniqueness results for a smoking model with determination and education in the frame of non-singular derivatives, Discrete Contin. Dyn.-A, 14 (2018), 2571-2589. https://doi.org/10.3934/dcdss.2020178 doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020178
[32]	A. Atangana, B. S. Alkahtani, Analysis of the Keller-Segel model with a fractional derivative without singular kernel, Entropy, 17 (2015), 4439-4453. https://doi.org/10.3390/e17064439 doi: 10.3390/e17064439
[33]	A. Atangana, D. Baleanu, New fractional derivatives with nonlocal and non-singular kernel: Theory and application to heat transfer model, Therm. Sci., 20 (2016), 763-769. https://doi.org/10.2298/TSCI160111018A doi: 10.2298/TSCI160111018A
[34]	A. Atangana, I. Koca, On the new fractional derivative and application to non-linear Baggs and Freedman model, J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl., 9 (2016), 2467-2480. https://doi.org/10.22436/jnsa.009.05.46 doi: 10.22436/jnsa.009.05.46
[35]	M. A. Khan, A. Atangana, Modeling the dynamics of novel coronavirus (2019-nCov) with fractional derivative, Alex. Eng. J., 59 (2020), 2379-2389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.02.033 doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2020.02.033
[36]	M. Z. Ullah, A. K. Alzahrani, D. Baleanu, An efficient numerical technique for a new fractional tuberculosis model with non-singular derivative operator, J. Taibah Univ. Sci., 13 (2019), 1147-1157. https://doi.org/10.1080/16583655.2019.1688543 doi: 10.1080/16583655.2019.1688543
[37]	M. Asif, Z. A. Khan, N. Haider, Q. Al-Mdallal, Numerical simulation for solution of SEIR models by meshless and finite difference methods, Chaos Soliton. Fract., 141 (2020), 110340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110340 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110340
[38]	M. Asif, S. U. Jan, N. Haider, Q. Al-Mdallal, T. Abdeljawad, Numerical modeling of NPZ and SIR models with and without diffusion, Results Phys., 19 (2020), 103512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103512 doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103512
[39]	M. A. Hajji, Q. Al-Mdallal, Numerical simulations of a delay model for immune system-tumor interaction, Sultan Qaboos Univ. J. Sci., 23 (2018), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.24200/squjs.vol23iss1pp19-31 doi: 10.24200/squjs.vol23iss1pp19-31
[40]	H. Hethcote, The mathematics of infectious diseases, SIAM Rev., 42 (2000), 599-653. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036144500371907 doi: 10.1137/S0036144500371907
[41]	F. Brauer, Mathematical epidemiology: Past, present, and future, Infect. Dis. Model., 2 (2017), 113-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idm.2017.02.001 doi: 10.1016/j.idm.2017.02.001
[42]	S. Ahmad, A. Ullah, Q. Al-Mdallal, H. Khan, K. Shah, A. Khan, Fractional order mathematical modeling of COVID-19 transmission, Chaos Soliton. Fract., 139 (2020), 110256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110256 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110256
[43]	D. Baleanu, M. H. Abadi, A. Jajarmi, K. Z. Vahid, J. J. Nieto, A new comparative study on the general fractional model of COVID-19 with isolation and quarantine effects, Alex. Eng. J., 61 (2022), 4779-4791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.10.030 doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2021.10.030
[44]	A. Jajarmi, D. Baleanu, K. Z. Vahid, S. Mobayen, A general fractional formulation and tracking control for immunogenic tumor dynamics, Math. Method. Appl. Sci., 45 (2022), 667-680. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.7804 doi: 10.1002/mma.7804
[45]	V. S. Erturk, E. Godwe, D. Baleanu, P. Kumar, J. Asad, A. Jajarmi, Novel fractional-order Lagrangian to describe motion of beam on nanowire, Acta Phys. Pol. A, 140 (2021), 265-272. https://doi.org/10.12693/APhysPolA.140.265 doi: 10.12693/APhysPolA.140.265
[46]	P. Kumar, V. S. Erturk, The analysis of a time delay fractional COVID-19 model via Caputo type fractional derivative, Math. Method. Appl. Sci., 2020, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.6935 doi: 10.1002/mma.6935
[47]	A. Zen, P. Kumar, V. S. Erturk, T. Sitthiwiattam, A new study on two different vaccinated fractional-order COVID-19 models via numerical algorithms, J. King Saud Univ. Sci., 34 (2022), 101914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2022.101914 doi: 10.1016/j.jksus.2022.101914
[48]	P. Kumar, V. S. Erturk, A. Kumar, A new technique to solve generalised Caputo-type fractional differential equations with the example of computer virus model, J. Math. Ext., 15 (2021), 1-23.
[49]	P. Kumar, V. S. Erturk, M. Murillo-Arcila, A new fractional mathematical modelling of COVID-19 with the availability of vaccine, Results Phys., 24 (2021), 104213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104213 doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104213
[50]	L. Basnarkov, SEAIR Epidemic spreading model of COVID-19, Chaos Soliton. Fract., 142 (2021), 110394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110394 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110394
[51]	Y. Nawaz, M. S. Arif, W. Shatanawi, A new numerical scheme for time fractional diffusive SEAIR model with non-linear incidence rate: An application to computational biology, Fractal Fract., 6 (2022), 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract6020078 doi: 10.3390/fractalfract6020078
[52]	S. A. Pasha, Y. Nawaz, M. S. Arif, The modified homotopy perturbation method with an auxiliary term for the nonlinear oscillator with discontinuity, J. Low Freq. Noise V. A., 38 (2019), 1363-1373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962144X18820454 doi: 10.1177/0962144X18820454
[53]	Y. Nawaz, M. S. Arif, K. Abodayeh, An explicit-implicit numerical scheme for time fractional boundary layer flows, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fl., 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.5078 doi: 10.1002/fld.5078

This article has been cited by:

Fatima Hussain, Suha Shihab, Transforming Controlled Duffing Oscillator to Optimization Schemes Using New Symmetry-Shifted G(t)-Polynomials, 2024, 16, 2073-8994, 915, 10.3390/sym16070915

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2022 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)